Difficult Choices: Speaking Truth to Power

For 24 years, I had the privilege of serving in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Our state legislature has a storied history. It led the nation, establishing free compulsory public education in 1852 and, on my watch, codifying equal marriage in 2004 and mandating universal health care in 2006. However, in the past two decades, the Massachusetts legislature has come to be known not for breakthrough accomplishments but as one of the least transparent and least productive state legislatures in the country.

And it’s no longer just the national organizations that track state governments that are paying attention. The Boston Globe and other local news outlets have begun to focus on the legislature’s failures and shortcomings. I was recently cited in a Globe article about how dysfunctional and disheartening the legislature has become. I was quoted saying “I am offended…[and] disgusted” by recent “deceptive, dishonest, and undemocratic” actions.

Virtually all the comments in the online edition of the Globe echoed my sentiments. But consider this reaction to the article from a frequent commentator with the pen name OccamsRazor: Jay Kaufman never would have uttered a peep about something like this while he was actually in office. His push for transparency is correct. But his long career of participating in the very behind the scenes dealmaking that he now decries makes him a great big hypocrite.

I felt that comment deserved a thoughtful response, not to defend myself so much as to paint a picture of the realities of governance in this state. Here’s what I wrote in response to OccamsRazor:

During my 24 years in the legislature, I served under four Speakers with starkly different approaches. Two of them knew how to exercise leadership as the first among equals. They encouraged – even demanded – independence of thought and active engagement. The other two knew only to control and dominate, rewarding obedience and punishing dissent.

In my first 14 years, under three Speakers, I prided myself on speaking truth to power and rarely had to choose between serving in office and being true to myself. Sadly, for my last years under the fourth Speaker, things got significantly more complicated. I had asked for and been granted the chairmanship of the Committee on Revenue in order to address the inequities in our state taxes. We developed and ultimately passed the Fair Share amendment to the Constitution, despite the Speaker’s serious reservations and, at times, opposition. He ran a “follow the leader” House. His Majority Leader (the current Speaker) was the lead enforcer of the top-down culture and a vocal opponent of Fair Share. I had to walk a very fine line and was constantly at risk of being removed from my chairmanship and left to watch the reform campaign summarily terminated. Passing Fair Share was important enough to me to justify this careful navigation, even when it meant holding my tongue.

It is absolutely fair to question my calculations and judgment. But in a properly led legislature, no member should have to sacrifice his or her integrity and effectiveness on the altar of obedience. Sadly, the Massachusetts House is not such a body.

I have witnessed the erosion of democracy and good governance. The House in which I served, first with pride and then later by holding my nose and withholding my criticism, falls well short of the effective and democratic institution it should and could be.

Since I left office six and a half years ago, it has become increasingly clear on the national stage that our democracy is on the line. In that light, it is particularly important to question when being silent (even in the name of maintaining some level of effectiveness) is to be complicit, when you are part of the problem, when you are guilty of a sin of omission, if not commission. We have Fair Share in Massachusetts, but it is fair to question the price. I was on a mission and working in a repressive environment. Did I do the right thing? Under the circumstances, I’d like to think so.

But I am in a different role now. Legislators are accountable to their constituents but must also account for the power dynamics of the institution in which they serve. We, the citizens, do not. Over the past three years, I have joined with other observers and critics of the legislature to reverse its decline. I am part of the nonpartisan Coalition to Reform Our Legislature (CROL) actively committed to identifying a reform agenda. We know that absent an informed and mobilized electorate, nothing will change. Happily, the Globe’s news and editorial teams have maintained a steady drumbeat and call to action, so responding to their requests for comment is integral to the CROL campaign.

I carefully considered the choices I made while in office. Even if they were right for me at that time and under those circumstances, I might make different ones today. Serving in public office necessarily entails making many difficult choices, frequently with competing values on the line, often with incomplete information, and always without being able to predict the future. It takes careful consideration and discernment to sort out when, where, and how to speak out, when and how to compromise. Given limited time and political capital, legislators must choose which of the many different complex policies – education, healthcare, environmental protection, public safety, economic development, transportation, taxes, elder affairs, children and families – they will prioritize. All these choices, all these decisions, have real consequences.

In turn, we, the people, need to be vigilant. We need to know about and hold our elected officials to account for the choices they make. Democracy and our times demand no less.