The Massachusetts Legislature might as well be the wild, wild west right now.
Months into the new session, the House and Senate have yet to agree on a new package of internal rules that govern the relationship between the two branches, including guidelines for how legislative committees can advance bills in their possession to floor votes.
A group of six lawmakers negotiating an internal joint rules agreement disagree on a number of major policies, including when formal business should conclude for the two-year legislative term and who exactly should draft summaries of legislation before committees.
But one of the biggest sticking points by far is whether to require lawmakers’ attendance at committee hearings.
It is an issue that burst into public view this past week when Rep. Tackey Chan, a Quincy Democrat, denied Sen. Jake Oliveira, a Ludlow Democrat, the chance to testify remotely on his bill at a Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee hearing.
The kerfuffle, which also involved Lawrence’s Sen. Pavel Payano, turned into a tense moment between Democrats by Beacon Hill standards and even drew a stinging rebuke from Senate President Karen Spilka, who described the incident as “deeply troubling.”
The back-and-forth boils down to a view among Democratic leaders in the House that lawmakers should show up to hearings held by committees they are members of.
House Majority Leader Mike Moran, a Brighton Democrat who is one of the six pols negotiating the joint rules package, said he wants legislators to “just show up at some point.”
“We would be willing to allow remote — anytime, anyplace, anywhere — just as long as we have attendance, which we think is reasonable,” Moran told reporters this past week.
That is a reversal from the House’s original joint rules proposal, which sought to require lawmakers’ physical presence during hearings and only granted remote participation privileges to members of the public.
Senate Democratic leadership originally bristled at the idea of barring remote attendance, with top lieutenants to Spilka arguing senators sit on more committees than representatives and have larger districts.
Senate Majority Leader Cindy Creem, a Newton Democrat who is also a part of the joint rules negotiating committee, said she has recently had a day when she had four hearings at once.
“Nobody has questioned my work schedule,” Creem said. “I couldn’t do four hearings. I could maybe go five minutes here and five minutes there so I satisfy attendance. I think we need to focus on what people really care about.”
The flare-up between Chan, Payano, and Oliveira put the issue of remote attendance squarely in the spotlight.
Payano, who co-chairs the Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee with Chan, tried to recognize Oliveira for virtual remarks on legislation relative to municipal control over liquor licenses.
But Chan shut the attempt down.
“The chair is not recognizing committee members who are not here physically, in person, as a result, the chair does not recognize Sen. Oliveira,” Chan said.
That drew swift condemnation from Payano and Spilka.
“I think when you deny a duly elected state senator the right to testify, especially in a public hearing where all other residents are allowed to participate, you’re not just simply silencing one person, you are silencing the voice of thousands,” Payano said. “You’re telling an entire community your concerns are not welcomed here.”
Chan shot back.
“The position of the House at the moment is to require that members of the committee appear in person. We do understand that there are complications with some folks, but that is the position of the House chair to have folks actually show up for work, for lack of a better term,” he said.
In a statement after the dispute, Spilka said Oliveira was meeting with childcare providers in his district to discuss ways to lower early education costs in Western Massachusetts.
“The notion that one branch’s rules can bind the operations of joint committees is without merit,” she said.
Moran, the House majority leader, said he had a “little bit of an issue” with the idea that Oliveira was not allowed to testify but said Chan had the authority to block him because “he had the chairmanship” that day.
“That’s a dangerous slope to go down,” he said of Chan’s decision. “This is all going to go back to attendance. That is a stickler for House members, and has been since I’ve been in this body.”
Creem said there is nothing in the package of temporary joint internal rules the House and Senate adopted earlier this year that precludes someone from speaking remotely.
“It’s just not in there,” Creem said.
