Thread by @act_on_mass

It’s 1:22 and we’re anxiously awaiting the rules debate! Follow along here for live updates from the House floor livestream!

While you wait, use this guide to tweet your representative and ask them to vote in favor of transparency amendments!

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…

Quorum roll call in progress! We’re moving folks! #TransparencyVote

Majority Leader Claire Cronin of Easton presiding. Currently taking up the issue of extending the Emergency Rules until October.
#TransparencyVote
#accessibility

Rep. Kate Hogan of Stow lauds the Emergency Rules as making the legislative process more transparent and equitable. As a gentle #FactCheck , we would note that there is not currently an aggregate tally of committee votes posted anywhere. #TransparencyVote

Rep. Galvin (D) of Canton
Needs a bit more in the fact checking dept. He says the legislature makes “no” votes in committee available on the website. This is not true. The joint rules, which would codify the procedure, have been held up in conference committee since March.

Posting the names of the "no" votes was a measure included in the Joint Rules package in February, as well as in the Rules recommendations released last week. But it is in fact NOT included in H.3930.

They're saying no votes will be posted online - but the language of the bill doesn't say that. Why not? Are we supposed to take it on faith that they're going to make votes more transparent when not required to by the rules? We'll believe it when we see it.

The House is now taking a roll call vote on Amendment 1, which would allow Representatives who are members of the US Military to vote remotely. #TransparencyVote

Amendment 1 is adopted unanimously. The House is entering a brief recess again. #TransparencyVote

The House will be taking up Amendment 2 next. Filed by @TamiGouveiaMA, this would reinstate 8-year Speaker term limits, which we had as recent as 2015. This is one of the amendments we've been fighting for for months — can't wait to hear Rep. Gouveia's speech!

.@TamiGouveiaMA on why Speaker term limits are so important: "It matters to all of us here and it especially matters to the people of the Commonwealth and it's because this position matters so much that i filed Amendment 2."

Rep Gouveia continues: "This amendment isn't a target to any individual... instead it's about putting in place the guardrails to ensure a more democratic and responsive House." @TamiGouveiaMA #TransparencyVote

Rep. Gouveia makes a compelling argument. As a public servant, it is difficult to know when it's time to let go and step down. But when we as constituents have no power to decide who the Speaker is, we need term limits to ensure equal representation for ALL Bay Staters.

Rep. Gouveia acknowledges the difficult position her colleagues are in when deciding whether or not to vote for this. But she reminds us of why this is so important: constituents deserve better and we need transparency to get down to business.

Roll call vote has been requested and a sufficient number of reps stood in agreement. This means we'll know exactly how each Rep votes (which isn't always a given!).

Rep. Jim O'Day has been recognized to speak against Amendment 2. He argues that term limits would be discriminatory against the Speaker of the House. He fails to acknowledge the fact that the Senate Speaker has term limits...

Rep. O’Day is giving us a crash course in legisplaining: going off on a list of accomplishments rather than addressing the issue at hand. Constituents deserve better and speaker term limits will get us there!

Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven (D) of Somerville has been recognized to speak in favor of Amendment 2. She points out that, like presidential term limits, this amendment would encourage more diversity in our State House!

.@rep_erika: "This is not about any individual, but about this institution... As Washington taught us through his leadership 224 years ago when he stepped down, if we get this right, we’re going to teach them how to say goodbye"

Rep. Markey (D) of Dartmouth says it's "unfair" to impose term limits, claiming that it would threaten democracy. That's one hell of a hyperbole. Term limits are a check on power — a very tenet of democracy.

Rep. Lewis rises in opposition to Amendment 2, saying that speaker term limits isn’t an issue he’s heard on the doors. Claims that proponents of the bill are trying to oust the current speaker.

Over 1200 people have emailed their reps in support of Speaker term limits.

Rep Lewis, who voted FOR Speaker term limits in 2017, suggests that voters care about issues like reproductive rights and income inequality, not term limits. Why is it so hard to believe people can care about issues and want to fix the process that has kept them from passing?

Roll call vote in progress on @TamiGouveiaMA's Amendment 2 for Speaker term limits. Each Representative's vote will be on the record. Results will be posted below as soon as we get them!

Thank you so much to the Reps who voted in favor of Amendment 2. It’s absolutely shameful that the Speaker will continue to have unchecked power on Reps’ salary, staff salaries, committee assignments, and essentially the entire legislative process. Amendment fails 35-125

Voting against the Speaker takes an immense amount of bravery. Thank you so much to @TamiGouveiaMA and @rep_erika for leading the way on Speaker term limits, and to @MikeConnollyMA, @NikaElugardo, @VoteRussell, and Rep. John Rogers for standing up for your constituents!

Amendment 5, on adjourning after 30 minutes of inactivity, has been voted down by voice vote.

Now on to Amendment 6 which would add extra requirements to scheduling last minute committee hearings. Currently in a roll call vote.

As a quick aside: a voice vote means everyone says their vote out loud and there's no official tally. Often, the Chair simply calls the vote the way they want to.

A roll call vote is when Reps officially go on the record and one-by-one vote for or against something

We know these things can get technical and the jargon is confusing, so please let us know if you have any questions! #TransparencyVote

Amendment 6 has been voted down, 30-129, along party lines with Rep. Kearney abstaining.

Amendment 7, which would have mandated equal partisan representation on the ethics committee was rejected by a voice vote. This is good!

Amendment 8 was skipped, no explanation.

Rep. Smola (R) of Warren is now speaking on Amendment 9 ahead of roll call vote. “To expect members to read a 38 page bill and understand it in 16 minutes is impossible, even superman couldn’t do it!”

“We want reasonable window to read and understand material, especially those of us who live in rural areas and have to drive to formal state house sessions.” — @ToddSmola1

Amendment 9 now goes to a roll call vote.

If passed, Amendment 9 would give reps 2 whole hours notice on the matters and bills they are going to vote on in committee.

Amendment 9 is rejected 35-124 as the House breaks for a brief recess.

Roll call on Amendment 9. Thank you to @MikeConnollyMA @CarolDoherty13 @TamiGouveiaMA @rep_erika and others for voting for this commonsense reform!

Amendment 10 would improve electronic access to filings and give Reps a minimum of 30 minutes to read new amendments before voting on them. This is crucial. How can we expect Reps to vote without adequate time to read a bill?

Amendment 10 has been rejected on a voice vote. Oh, the irony...

Amendment 11 is up next and will be taken by a roll call vote. This amendment would require all relevant materials for a session to be sent out to all Reps and staff at least 15 minutes before the start of the session.

Rep. Galvin speaks in opposition to the amendment saying, “This amendment would impress an additional burden on the house clerk staff."

He neglects to recognize that Reps enjoyed a pay raise during the pandemic while their staff are still gravely underpaid, per @BeaconBloc

Amendment 11 is rejected by a vote of 33-126. Are you starting to notice a pattern of which votes are bold enough to vote for transparency? 👀

Reps speaking in defense of the status quo will often rhetorically pit transparency against the wellbeing of their staff. But the truth is staff are underpaid and overworked as a matter of policy choice of their bosses.

Amendment 12 has been skipped, no explanation.

Amendment 13 is now in a roll call. If passed, it would give members 60 minutes to consider consolidated amendments instead of 30.

Amendment 13 has been rejected, 32-127.

Amendment 14 is up next. This one would require the House to determine minimum funding for Chapter 70, AKA funding for elementary and secondary schools, to be presented by March 31st every year.

Pro is: municipalities will have more information earlier in crafting their own budgets. Right now cities and towns have to guess how much money they’ll get from the state

Con is: It’s unclear what this would mean in practice and how money could get (re)distributed.

And before we could finish tweeting about what Amendment 14 even is, Speaker Ron Mariano has called a voice vote and noted the measure is rejected.

This is not how a transparent government operates.

Amendment 15 was also just rejected on a voice vote. This would require the ethics committee to issue a simple report at the end of each session with the number of complaints received and any dates of meetings held.

The House has now temporarily recessed. Amendments 4 and 8 were both withdrawn and therefore didn't come to the floor for a vote. No word on why Amendments 3 and 12 were skipped.

All that's left are Amendments 16 and 17, which are what we've been fighting for since last fall!

The House will be taking up Amendment 12 next. This would require committee votes be made public. This is just shy of our demands, found in Amendment 16, which would also include votes on study orders, a common way bills die in committee.

When a bill is "sent to study," it means Reps want more info before they are forced to go on the record and vote for or against a bill. But often it is misused as a way to continually stifle progress. Here are just a few bills that met their fate in "study"

“Members vote one way for one session and then the other way for the same exact amendment or legislation another session” — @rep_erika lays out exactly why this change is so important

Roll call on Amendment 12 is now in progress.

“There are interest groups and there are people who may have agendas… who would try to use votes in the affirmative to try and discredit a member” says Rep. Wagner

He’s arguing that we do not deserve to see how our Rep votes because then we might not like them anymore…

Amendment 12 does not pass, 38-121.

Now we’re on to Amendment 16 for public committee votes.

In order to know how our Reps vote on a bill, 16 Reps must physically stand and demand so. Only 10 Reps stood and therefore, we will not get to find out how our reps vote.

This is cowardice.

We will have no way to know if those who committed to voting for this amendment kept to their promise.

Thank you to @rep_erika for speaking truth to power and standing strong on the House floor in support of Amendment 16!

"Justice has never been a popularity contest"

Recount on roll call request due to technical difficulties reveals Rep. Uyterhoeven has sufficient support for a roll call! We will in fact find out how each Rep votes.

"We owe it to our constituents, our supporters, the advocates & activists we work with, and most importantly to ourselves, to vote, which means we do everything we can to thoughtfully & carefully consider bills put before us and share with the public where we stand" — @rep_erika

Rep Cahill argues “Our staff is working tirelessly as a result of COVID-19 and to have them take on additional duties, to publish granular data would be unfair.”

How a Rep votes is not granular data. And again, you can always pay your staff a living wage.

https://twitter.com/beaconbloc/status/1364673833924452353?s=21

While we wait for the roll call on Amendment 16, it’s worth noting that Rep. Galvin has filed Amendment 18 during this debate, after voting had already begun.

This would bring the language of the Rules package up to par with the Joint Rules package, as well as the recommendations filed last week, to post the names of all “no” votes in committee. If not for the watchful eyes of advocates, this detail may have fallen through the cracks.

Amendment 18 also contains language similar to Amendment 1 and Amendment 8 surrounding remote voting for medical and military purposes

Amendment 16, which would have made the very basic and democratic reform of requiring our State Reps to show us how they vote in committee just failed, 41-117.

This is undemocratic and unacceptable.

It's important to note that this is a significant improvement from the joint rules debate, where a similar amendment got 36 votes. This movement is growing, and Reps are starting to listen!

Thank you to the brave reps who voted in favor of public committee votes:

@rep_erika
@TamiGouveiaMA
@mciccolo
@MikeConnollyMA
@NikaElugardo
@TeamBrandy617
@VoteRussell
@RepLizMiranda
@VoteSteveOwens
@RepDanSenaMA
@RepAdamScanlon
@Rep_Robertson

Amendment 3 is now up for debate. This would give reps 48 hours to read a bill before voting on it. This is just shy of our demands, found in Amendment 17, which would require 72 hours.

Rep. Peake argues that this would stifle the progress of important bills, and raises the example of the ROE Act, which was watered down & only passed after years of advocacy.

Also, abortion is not just a women's issue. Please use gender-inclusive language next time, Rep!

There are over 700 days in a legislative session. If Rep. Peake is so concerned about good bills being left in the "dust bin" at the end of the session, perhaps committees should release these bills with more than 1 day left in the session.

After months of closed-door deliberation, what is the rush to limit the amount of time the public has to respond to our bills before we take a vote?

"Institutional change is challenging to say the least, but the need for a transparent, accountable, and accessible State Legislature is too great and I and many others refuse to give up hope." — @rep_erika spitting facts!!

.@rep_erika begs the question: "When a bill is in committee for several months, unavailable from public view, and then is rushed to a vote in a day, one must ask: why?"

Rep Balser is speaking against having 48 hours to read a bill, making reference to emergency bills that needed to be passed in less than 24 hours. Luckily, as @erika4rep clarified, this amendment has a provision that allows it to be waived with 2/3 vote!

Rep. Uyterhoeven responds to Rep. Balser, clarifying that any bill with a veto-proof majority, like the ROE Act, would be able to waive the 48 hour requirement.

Roll Call is in progress for Amendment #3, which would require bills to be released in their final version at least 48 hours prior to a vote.

Amendment #3 is struck down 39-119. With only 24 hours to read bills, constituents will be further cut out of the legislative process. Our State House’s culture of inaccessibility and secrecy could not be more clear.

Thank you @MikeConnollyMA @NikaElugardo @TamiGouveiaMA @Rep_Higgins @VoteRussell @DavidLeBoeuf @ChrisMarkeyRep @erika4rep @RepAdamScanlon for voting in favor of Amendment #3.

Amendment #17, Rep. Uyterhoeven’s amendment to require 72 hours to read bills, has been dismissed under the grounds that the House has already refused to extend the timeframe to 48 hours.