Don't Patch...Rebuild

The Massachusetts State House looms imposingly on Beacon Hill, but the government it houses resembles a colonial saltbox overlaid with the bureaucratic gingerbread of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Legislature has patched up the holes in the Constitution with occasional adhesive tape and bobby pins, but still refuses to recondition its whole structure. Since the political atmosphere on the Hill fosters hesitancy and inertia, only a Constitutional Convention can accomplish complete and intelligent reform of the State's government.

Several antiques from the 18th century remain us useless and costly impediments to efficient government. The colonials instituted the Governor's Council out of suspicion of George III's governors, but today no one considers Furcolo or Volpe despotic enough to merit such a millstone. Yet the Council remains, duplicating other posts, clogging bureaucratic channels and obstructing the chief executive. The county government as well (except for its courts) serves no purpose other than devouring the state's taxes.

Under an ancient constitutional provision, the Legislature must play city council for every town in the state, and as a result it holds the longest legislative sessions in the country. Numbering a clumsy 280, it needs a smaller, more efficient body and must have freedom from constitutional restrictions on tax legislation. Finally, the governor should have a four-year term unburdened by holdovers from the previous cabinet.

The Legislature has mulishly blocked general reform. It must pass constitutional amendments in two consecutive sessions; when several years ago it passed an amendment giving the governor a four-year term, it proceeded to knock it down in the next session. Many of the possible changes are, indeed, very much against the interest of the legislators and their friends. And political interest aside, the side and turmoil of the Legislature rule it out as the proper place to make a thoughtful and comprehensive revision of the state's basic structure.

As the achievements of the Constitutional Convention of 1917-1919 witness, such a body can provide an unhurried and well-organized forum for revisions. Its novelty would command a large public audience and stimulate political interest or participation of people who normally have little to do with politics. Co-operation between professionals and research staffs has been the formula for successful conventions in other states, and the support of many politicians for reform in general and the amount of research already under way indicate that a convention could be productive here.

Opponents of a convention--and there are some who also honestly desire reform--fear that it would run wild and possibly remove the protection against self-incrimination. But the bill calling the convention will limit it at the start from tampering with the Declaration of Rights; with 140 members, it would be small enough to be efficient and large enough to be representative. Even if some unwise proposals come out of the Convention, the electorate will have a year to simmer down and strike them out in the referendum. These provisions make very small the possibility that a Convention would turn the government into a domineering glass-and-steel monolith, and it could well convert it into a structure suitable to the 20th century.