In defense of Angelo Scaccia
By Liam DayAugust 30th, 2008
Well, not exactly. More of a defense of the procedural tactic he is using to block all legislation right now up on Beacon Hill. Well, actually less of a defense of the tactic itself than of the democratic spirit that underlies it.
In case you haven’t been following the latest kerfuffle emanating from the State House – and, let’s be honest, who has, as there are only a handful of legislators reverberating through the hallowed halls these days – the state representative from Hyde Park is blocking a petition that would grant the Wegman’s supermarket chain a license to sell beer and wine at a new store in Westwood. However, as the House is in informal session, all such matters must pass unanimously.
In retaliation, Westwood’s representative, Paul McMurtry, doubted the presence of a quorum in the House, essentially freezing deliberation of all further legislative matters. To boil it down, the House closed for business because Angelo Scaccia doesn’t want Wegman’s selling beer and wine in Westwood. (I will ignore for now why that is.)
It would be easy to wring our hands at yet another example of legislative inactivity, of how our elected representatives spend far more energy and time on such petty matters than on the real problems confronting us right now, but to do so would be short-sighted. Legislative procedures, whether at the state or federal level, were designed precisely as a brake on hasty action. They were, in fact, designed to be bulwarks against the majority’s tyranny over the minority.
As now, whenever I hear the White House’s party complain about the filibusters that so often block judicial nominations, I think, yes, politics should not halt the administration of justice, but the filibuster can be used to block far more than a judicial nomination and I am not willing to blow it up simply because I don’t agree it should be used to play chicken over the federal courts.
The same way, should Angelo Scaccia use his vote to block a single liquor license for a store that’s not even in his district? No, he shouldn’t. But I will defend his right to do so. What if the petition he was blocking was for something more serious and more pernicious than simply a liquor license. In such a case, I would want our representatives to have the right to make a principled stand by blocking legislation with a single vote.
In other words, just because one state representative may be misusing a legislative procedure, I’m unwilling to throw the democratic baby out with the bath water.
Entry Filed under: News
7 Comments Add your own
1. Mike | September 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
Liam,
I’m from Rochester, where Wegman’s originated. I bagged groceries, stocked shelves, and pushed carts for them all the way through high school. It’s impossible to explain to the uninitiated how incredible that store is. Think Target meets Whole Foods with the cache of the iPod but still keeping its indie rock credibility. I share your love of democracy, even the annoying procedural parts, and there are few things I would willingly trample under the Constitution for but a Wegman’s in MA is deffinitely one of them. Honestly, if they want to sell crack out of the loading docks and operate a brothel out of the bakery I’d still be on board.
2. Liam Day | September 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
As a libertarian, I’d be on board too – as long as the crack and the brothel weren’t taxed.
3. The Esteemed Gentleman | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
A brief thought: The only reason Scaccia can block this legislation is because the House is only conducting informal sessions, which are usually reserved for noncontroversial bills. Home-rule petitions, such as the one Rep. Scaccia is blocking, usually are not controversial – and it is considered incredibly bad form to block a home-rule petition from a district that you yourself do not represent. In fact, legisltive approval of home rule petitions is usually a “rubber-stamp” action by the Legislature. If Formal Sessions were still being conducted, this bill would have sailed through with or without Scaccia’s consent.
4. Liam | September 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Esteemed Gentleman: You are absolutely correct. If the House had been in formal session, the petition would have sailed through whether or not Representative Scaccia opposed it. But, though you are also correct that informal sessions usually compose little that is controversial, I do not believe it does so by writ and that the reason all legislation conducted during informal session must pass unanimously is for precisely that reason.
5. Ed | September 3rd, 2008 at 7:56 am
Local petitions should NOT sail through with a rubber stamp. The purpose of legislative review is to protect the rights of those who don’t live in the municipality.
For example, the vast majority of those who work in Boston don’t live (hence vote) there. The city that gave rise to the cry “no taxation without representation” thus to tax those without representation, and tried this in the 19th Century.
Home rule review thus exists to provide representation to those otherwise denied it.
6. Liam | September 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Ed, you raise an interesting point (though I think you are arguing past the Esteemed Gentleman just a little bit – I don’t believe he was arguing for the efficacy of letting home rule petitions sail through, simply that they do; in other words, he was saying would, not should, and you were saying should not, not would not).
On home rule, though, there is a another side to the coin you flip. Yes, home rule petitions do sometimes affect people who don’t live in the particular municipality to which the home rule petition might pertain. Still, imagine the frustration of a town or city manager, council or mayor, who feel they must go hat in hand to the legislature every time they attempt to enact anything. And, looking forward, as more and more municipalities face tighter and tighter budgets, how will they feel as they face problems they have not the power to solve precisely because of home rule?
7. Margaret | December 10th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
You gentlemen are missing the real issue here. I bet it has nothing to do with Wegmans. And I’ll bet it has everything to do with the person who filed the bill. Just a gut feeling. They play like that on the Hill.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed