On the Issues
The role of the Governor's Council
It’s been 18 years since the Governor’s Council last rejected a judicial nominee put forth by the governor. Governors at least as far back as John Volpe and Endicott Peabody have tried to abolish it, and both the Globe and Herald have editorialized in favor of its elimination. In light of all this, what is your best argument as to why the council should remain?
Republican
Republican
It is absolutely essential for the people of Massachusetts to have a Governor's Council.
The Governor's Councilors are elected by the citizens of Massachusetts and all their duties are set forth in the Massachusetts Constitution. The Governor's Council (also known as the Executive Council) has many duties and I believe each one is extremely important.
Our Governor's Councilors are there to make sure only qualified gubernatorial appointments are appointed and that they are not politically appointed, which will happen without having a Governor's Council.
The Governor's Council does the vetting and asks tough questions to all of the nominees. This is very detailed work and needs to be done by the elected Governor's Councilors, not the Senate.
When there is a balance of 2 parties on the council, it brings more debate. This is needed to make sure the right nominees are put through.
Without the Governor's Council, it will become an inside game with many political appointments. We need to make sure all nominees answer to the citizens on the Governor's Council, not members of the Senate.
The Governor's Council is the check and balance we have in place. If there is a balance of citizens on the Council and not a group of lawyers appointing lawyers, then I strongly believe it will serve its purpose of putting qualified and competent nominees through, not political appointments from the inside.
I firmly believe the Governor's Council should remain.