Governor's Council 101

That gets nicely into like, what is it to provide oversight? A lot of the times people have, you know, the tax on the governor's council is twofold.

One is like, a lot of the times it's just a rubber stamp.

So it's just perfunctory.

So like, it's not like, what purpose is it if it's just going to approve whatever the governor says? And the other is that like, what does it do? Like, why does it even matter? Like the governor makes an appointment in most places, a Senate or whatever, some other sort of body um does the work like why this weird why do we keep this archaic thing from the founding of of the sort of massachusetts constitution um as one of the complaints so like you know when you think about the job like why why should we care and why is it that you guys you know more than just perfunctory i guess is the question

yeah i hear both those things uh you're right and um I mean, they're very separate things in my mind, but I'll start with the second one first.

I have heard people push back and we should abolish the governor's council.

It's archaic.

But as much as I am always the kind of person who comes at things with things can always improve and looking for you know, what are the problems? What are the solutions? Let's make things better.

When you step back a second and look at how we do it, what option would be better? Would elected judges actually serve our state better? That's so much more political.

If a judge has to be concerned about their next election when they're sitting on the bench and giving opinions that could be held up as a reason they don't get reelected, I don't see that serving justice uh, better than currently, or if it kicks over to the Senate in the way that we do it federally for having the Senate give their advice and consent, that's not less political than, than, you know, so, and not to mention, you know, they're pretty busy already.

So having a, having a role that is specifically outlined to within the executive branch, have, have the advice and consent role that we does that we do, um, you know, Could it be better? Sure, there's many things I'd love to see us do in a slightly different way, but by and large, the system is actually quite good.

And before it ever gets to us, and this is by governor's order, not by a statute, but the judicial nominating process, the clerk magistrates go through it as well.

The process that precedes the nomination is intense.

Like there's multiple stages of intense vetting, due diligence, background checking, before it ever gets to the point that the governor brings someone forward.

So to the second point, and I don't want to talk forever, but the rubber stamp aspect, you know, in this moment, since I've only been serving since Governor Healey's been in office, I started the same year she did.

So I only have experience of one governor, but the Governor's Council exists across multiple administrations.

There's many members who have served with multiple governors.

But my experience with the Healy administration, by and large, her administration is aligned with the values and the things that I would like to see are the things that they also would like to see.

And so the people that they're bringing forward are, from my perspective, at least, I only will always speak for myself, but highly qualified, have the kinds of values, have the kinds of are the kinds of human beings that I do want to see on the bench.

Having said that, I have voted no since I've been on the council more often than any of my colleagues.

Don't consider myself a rubber stamp.

I take the deliberation process very seriously.

I do my own due diligence.

These are lifetime appointments.

Judges are appointed, lifetime appointments with a mandatory retirement at 70.

That gets nicely into like, what is it to provide oversight? A lot of the times people have, you know, the tax on the governor's council is twofold.

One is like, a lot of the times it's just a rubber stamp.

So it's just perfunctory.

So like, it's not like, what purpose is it if it's just going to approve whatever the governor says? And the other is that like, what does it do? Like, why does it even matter? Like the governor makes an appointment in most places, a Senate or whatever, some other sort of body um does the work like why this weird why do we keep this archaic thing from the founding of of the sort of massachusetts constitution um as one of the complaints so like you know when you think about the job like why why should we care and why is it that you guys you know more than just perfunctory i guess is the question

yeah i hear both those things uh you're right and um I mean, they're very separate things in my mind, but I'll start with the second one first.

I have heard people push back and we should abolish the governor's council.

It's archaic.

But as much as I am always the kind of person who comes at things with things can always improve and looking for you know, what are the problems? What are the solutions? Let's make things better.

When you step back a second and look at how we do it, what option would be better? Would elected judges actually serve our state better? That's so much more political.

If a judge has to be concerned about their next election when they're sitting on the bench and giving opinions that could be held up as a reason they don't get reelected, I don't see that serving justice uh, better than currently, or if it kicks over to the Senate in the way that we do it federally for having the Senate give their advice and consent, that's not less political than, than, you know, so, and not to mention, you know, they're pretty busy already.

So having a, having a role that is specifically outlined to within the executive branch, have, have the advice and consent role that we does that we do, um, you know, Could it be better? Sure, there's many things I'd love to see us do in a slightly different way, but by and large, the system is actually quite good.

And before it ever gets to us, and this is by governor's order, not by a statute, but the judicial nominating process, the clerk magistrates go through it as well.

The process that precedes the nomination is intense.

Like there's multiple stages of intense vetting, due diligence, background checking, before it ever gets to the point that the governor brings someone forward.

So to the second point, and I don't want to talk forever, but the rubber stamp aspect, you know, in this moment, since I've only been serving since Governor Healey's been in office, I started the same year she did.

So I only have experience of one governor, but the Governor's Council exists across multiple administrations.

There's many members who have served with multiple governors.

But my experience with the Healy administration, by and large, her administration is aligned with the values and the things that I would like to see are the things that they also would like to see.

And so the people that they're bringing forward are, from my perspective, at least, I only will always speak for myself, but highly qualified, have the kinds of values, have the kinds of are the kinds of human beings that I do want to see on the bench.

Having said that, I have voted no since I've been on the council more often than any of my colleagues.

Don't consider myself a rubber stamp.

I take the deliberation process very seriously.

I do my own due diligence.

These are lifetime appointments.

Judges are appointed, lifetime appointments with a mandatory retirement at 70.