A simple Massachusetts example of this was provided some years ago to a group of Cape Cod residents by Byron Rushing, a state legislator who represents a Boston district. Mr. Rushing was at the time chairing the Local Affairs committee, and when the scheduled hearing time came and went there was no apparent urgency on the part of the committee members present, or the chairman, to even explain themselves.

The committee members chitchatted among themselves and ignored the audience, and after close to 45 minutes delay Mr. Rushing gaveled the meeting to order. However, there was no quorum of the committee membership, and when the agenda item was taken up that had brought the Cape Cod group to Boston - early in the morning rush hour and on time for the hearing – one of the group questioned the quorum. Chairman Rushing then lectured that individual, instructing him that a quorum was not required by the committee in order to conduct business.

Shortly after that, another member of the Cape group asked to hear the views of the state rep from the Cape district directly affected by the issue at hand. Mr. Rushing intervened again and sternly advised the citizen that their rep was under no obligation to state his opinion in the public forum, but would certainly be given ample opportunity to discuss the issue later in executive session with the committee members, his legislative peers. At that point the Cape Cod group understood something that many people still don’t understand, and that our ‘ever-inquisitive’ media doesn’t discuss, and that is that the rules for most legislators, locally and nationally, and the rules for the rest of us are very different.

Imagine a local selectman or school committee chairman telling people in the audience that a quorum isn’t important, or that a member of the committee does not have to address anyone in the public forum, or answer any constituent questions, but will express himself or herself later, privately, in executive session with the other members! How long would anyone stand for that practice?

In fact, it was because of local variations on that sort of practice – slipping controversial issues into executive session - that the Massachusetts Legislature created the stiff and demanding Open Meeting Law. But the legislature is exempt from that law, and many others. The same is true of our national Congress, and in may other state legislatures. It is foolish to think that such a double standard has no negative effect on the individuals involved.

We have people in the U.S. Congress, and in state legislatures, who have been there for decades, and they are not burdened by many of the same basic laws that they have created and seen implemented. In effect, they have enjoyed a career where they can regulate others while remaining free of regulation themselves. It is very hard to keep well grounded in the world of the average person and at the same time know that you can be aloof from many of the regulations people live under.

That this should be the practice among the very people elected and trusted to handle our law structure is of course disgraceful.

That we are largely ignorant of it and its ramifications is shameful, yet the weight of this blame must fall on the media that has historically avoided such important issues, and on our educational systems that have not been aggressive in understanding how our governing bodies actually function, so that people might be taught the practical truth, rather than just the historic theory.

So what can be done? Not much in the normal give and take of newsgathering and editorial posturing where lawmakers and the media have developed a symbiotic dance to the melody of the status quo. But a great deal can be done if more and more of us talk about these issues. Our legislators must become aware that we will not tolerate a double standard in the application of the laws.

Return to top