Legislature Looking to Expand Permitting Power?

Boston Globe Business writer Steve Bailey had an ominous column in Friday's paper that I didn't notice until this morning. The piece is about House Speaker Sal DiMasi's hesitation over a bill that would essentially reverse a Supreme Judicial Court decision that found the Department of Environmental Protection does not have the power to exempt companies from state law that requires public access to property near the water. That ruling had, according to Bailey "raised serious questions about the permits and titles for scores of current and planned buildings and projects." While DiMasi's office explains his hesitation by saying he's just running everything by the lawyers, others think that his reticence means he's interested in more legislative control over the permitting process.

The column ends thusly:

DiMasi tells a story about having lunch years ago at Pier 4 with restaurateur Anthony Athanas. Mike Dukakis, then the governor, was pushing hard to move the permitting from the Legislature. DiMasi was fighting a losing battle. His question to Athanas: Wouldn't you rather be negotiating your deal with Tommy McGee (the House speaker) and Billy Bulger (the Senate president) than some faceless bureaucrat?

No doubt Anthony would. And that is exactly the problem.

Indeed. The permitting process in Massachusetts is an insane web of competing regulations that thanks to Governor Deval Patrick is at least going in the right direction. Under his direction, approval time for development projects has gone from two to three years in some cases to just six months. Inserting the legislature into that process could either upset the apple-cart and stretch out the permitting process, or worse, create even more incentives for developers to grease the palms of politicians to get their permits approved faster.

Update: A Thursday Globe Editorial provides more context on this issue.

Did I Miss Something?

Tucked away at the bottom of this morning's Boston Globe article about Rep. John Rogers (D-Norwood) and his mysterious consulting fee is this bombshell:

As speculation mounts over DiMasi's future, Rogers has been laying the groundwork for what many on Beacon Hill believe will be a succession fight. His major rival is Representative Ronald Mariano, a Quincy Democrat.

Speculation mounts? Okay, I know that I haven't been quite as plugged-in of late, but this is the first I've heard that House Speaker Sal DiMasi's "future" was in doubt. The only stories about DiMasi that have been in the news lately have been of the "Sal is the one true power on Beacon Hill" type and not the "will he stay or will he go" type -- the latter which preceded former Senate President Robert Travaglini's departure from the statehouse. Does anyone know anything about this? Is he destined to go off and join Trav, hand in hand, in the land of high-paid lobbyists?

As far as Majority Leader Rogers goes, there seem to me to be only three reasons he would not let the Globe see the records of the consultant (and friend and business partner) he paid nearly $200K over the past few election cycles. Either there's something fishy going on that he doesn't want us to see, the records don't actually exist, or he doesn't think that the public has a right to know how he's spending his campaign contributions and he doesn't want to set a precedent. None of those explanations make Rogers look very good.

Update: Ryan does the smart thing and asks Frank Phillips about his story's last sentence. Phillips says there's "no evidence that DiMasi is actively looking to leave."

Is DiMasi Playing Hardball?

Two articles now have suggested that this week's possible vote on the marriage ban amendment are test of House Speaker Sal DiMasi's political power, first David Bernstein's in the Boston Phoenix and this morning, Frank Phillips' in the Boston Globe. Neither of them gives any indication of what sort of pressure DiMasi is applying. Is this because DiMasi doesn't want it to be known that he's threatening members' chairmanships and committee assignments, or because he's not applying those sorts of hardball tactics his predecessor was known for? Are those options even within his power at this point? Anyone have an answer?

DiMasi Demands his Due

MetroWest Daily News opinion editor Rick Holmes quotes Governor Deval Patrick speaking about his recent dinner with House Speaker Sal DiMasi in his column yesterday:

"I told the speaker I would be calling on some of his members to talk about the Municipal Partnership Act," Patrick told the editors Wednesday. "He said 'you should be talking to me instead."'

This is pretty much the statehouse in a nutshell -- the majority of state legislators are largely irrelevant to the way laws are made. I'm not sure what bothers me more about this, the fact that DiMasi is brazenly saying that he controls the votes of House members, so don't bother talking to them, or the fact that it's true. DiMasi is clearly upset with the way the Governor is trying to circumvent him on this issue by appealing to the public, to individual legislators, to municipal leaders, and so on.

The larger point of the column, though, was to advocate for the passage for the Municipal Partnership Act, and particularly the ability for cities and towns to levy their own meals taxes. Holmes notes that since DiMasi represents the restaurant-rich North End, he's unlikely to allow that to pass. Even so, that's not a battle DiMasi should be having with the Governor. He should, Holmes argues, allow other municipalities to control their own revenue streams and fight out the particulars of Boston's restaurant tax with Mayor Tom Menino. I agree. Why should the Speaker stop Framingham, for example, from enacting a meals tax simply to ensure that his North End constituents never have to be subject to one?

Triple Threat for DiMasi

This morning's Boston Globe features three different stories that cast a bad light on House Speaker Sal DiMasi. The most prominent of the three is the front page, above the fold article about the pension his outgoing executive assistant will receive. The aide, Donna Sweeney, was 'fired' last month after almost exactly twenty years of service, coincidentally the exact amount of time she needed to qualify for early pension benefits. The fact that she was fired, rather than resigned means coupled with her years of service boosts her pension a whopping $15,400 a year. Bob over at BMG is outraged, and he's not alone.

Part of me wonders whether this article was the result of a tip someone from the administration gave to the Globe in retaliation for DiMasi's constant willingness to throw the Governor under the bus. That would fit in nicely with my theory about Andrea Estes, but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.

In the local section, Frank Phillips notes that DiMasi's budget may end up costing the state $20 million in federal funds for the MBTA. DiMasi wants to move the Transportation Oversight Division from the Department of Public Utilities to the Executive Office of Transportation, but the Feds think this would compromise the agency's independence. The most curious part of the move is that the DPU was just reorganized earlier this year to be put under the jurisdiction of the Office of Environmental Affairs without DiMasi's objection. Not only that, but his putting this change in the budget breaks his own stated policy against putting new policy or major changes in that bill. I guess if you're the one making the rules, you get to break them.

Finally, on the op/ed pages, columnist Joan Vennochi says that DiMasi is standing up for 'unfairness' by standing in the way of the closure of business tax loopholes proposed by Governor Patrick. She makes a good point, noting that if DiMasi thought it was only fair that businesses help pay for healthcare in last year's plan, why is it so unfair now that they should exploit the tax code to get out of paying what they owe. In her words:

But DiMasi rejected Patrick's proposal. Instead of making sure business pays its fair share, DiMasi would rather dip into savings to close a projected budget gap. In doing so, the speaker stands with the coalition of the greedy at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and other business-backed groups.

The business community argues that closing so-called loopholes amounts to a tax increase. I suppose it does -- in the same way that making a millionaire pay for a previously free lunch is an unwelcome strain on the wallet. But that doesn't make it unfair or too big a burden.

Vennochi then goes on to detail the proposed changes, all which sound perfectly reasonable, and makes the point that the business tax burden in Massachusetts is just not high anymore, if it ever was.

New Wrinkle in GIC Propsoal

Casey Ross over at the Boston Herald's Daily Briefing noted tonight that House Speaker Sal DiMasi is interested in allowing municipalities to join up with the state's GIC Health Plan without first negotiating with unions. The bill currently before the legislature, endorsed by Governor Deval Patrick, would require cities and towns to collectively bargain with their employees before changing their health plans, as a compromise to win over skeptical unions. DiMasi's proposal would obviously make it much easier for localities to take advantage of the state's group health insurance as they would not have to do it on a union by union basis.

Now, I had thought last week that the votes wouldn't be there if the collective bargaining language wasn't included. With DiMasi on board, however, that becomes a real possibility. There's no reason to think that DiMasi couldn't get his version of the bill through the House -- otherwise he likely wouldn't have floated the idea. The next question is whether new Senate President Therese Murray supports removing the collective bargaining language. If she does and can get it through the Senate, all that remains is whether the change is acceptable to Governor Patrick.

I would have to imagine that he would sign a bill that did not include the collective bargaining language. First, Governor Patrick has hitched his wagon to his package of municipal reforms and he needs a policy victory. Stymying a stronger version of one of his proposals would be a serious blunder, even if it means upsetting public employee unions. They're already upset with him over his proposal to force underperforming pension funds to be taken over by the state. In any case, this could also be a good opportunity to compromise with DiMasi. Would the speaker soften his stance on local option taxes or closing the telecom loopholes in exchange for Patrick taking the heat from the unions? If so, the cities and towns of Massachusetts would benefit.