Shortly after being sworn in on the first Wednesday in January - this year on New Year's Day - each Member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives stands at his or her seat casting a vote to elect a Speaker. For the past three sessions, Thomas Finneran has been the only candidate. Over the years, it has become increasingly uncomfortable for me to vote for him.

My House colleagues are conditioned to ceding power to a dominating Speaker. To his credit, Tom Finneran is a fascinating personality, charming, intelligent, strategic, and articulate. He has vision for his Speakership, the House and the state and is quite forthright and bold about articulating and advancing his ideas. He has everything that it takes to be a brilliant and effective leader. Unfortunately, his every instinct leads him to dominate instead. He has a well-deserved reputation for seeing House members as either with him or against him, and for rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.

It has become increasingly difficult for me to reconcile my faith in democracy and his very undemocratic leadership. For years, reform-minded colleagues have engaged the Speaker in conversations about how his one-man rule compromises the effectiveness of our institution. We also tried to implement a series of rules reforms, only to realize that the fundamental problem was not the rules but the ruler. We then turned to a succession of possible alternative Speaker candidates. In all these, we looked to a House with vigorous debate, with respect for different points of view, with Members' talents, experience and expertise encouraged rather than suppressed, and with votes and decisions based on the merits of the arguments, not a desire to please (or fear of reprisal from) the Speaker.

As January 1 approached, I had to accept the sad truth that, however obvious the need for change in the House, and however many colleagues were willing to acknowledge this need in private conversations, there was not a majority with the courage or will to stand up and demand that change. That left three possible courses of action: swallow hard and vote for Tom Finneran, vote "present," or find a candidate who embodies change and around whom we could build a sustained, reform-minded loyal opposition.

There is a legitimate, even compelling, case for each of these three positions. A vote to re-elect Tom Finneran is, first, a vote for a very capable guy. It is also the only vote to cast if I want to avoid providing yet further incentive for him to marginalize me within the House. (I've had to work doubly hard and be very strategic in order to serve my constituents and to advance my bills, given that I have not always played "follow the leader.") One alternative, a vote of "present" is an honest and honorable denial of my affirming vote, reflecting my belief that the incumbent Speaker is unlikely to change but that the institution and the causes I care about would be best served if we changed the Speaker. The last option is a vote for a qualified alternative candidate, signaling, at the same time, a commitment to a sustained effort as a long-absent loyal opposition.

Happily, and at long last, such a qualified and willing candidate has finally emerged. Byron Rushing is in his third decade as a hard-working, articulate, intelligent and creative leader in the House. He has faith in the democratic process and is inspiring in his appeal to the best in each of us. He knows that it will take the collective judgment and will of all 160 House members to navigate the deeply-troubling fiscal and policy crises that lie ahead. He is not running for Speaker out of any need for a title, and he is obviously aware that it is unlikely that he will win. But he and the dozen of us who stood with him when he announced his candidacy are in this not just for the vote on New Year's Day but for however long it takes for a new day in the House.

Byron Rushing and I have the privilege and responsibility of serving in the oldest, longest continually-serving democratic legislature in the world. Sadly, we have been part of an institution that has fallen well short of the ideals ascribed to it and well short of what the times and citizens of Massachusetts need and deserve. We will not end this on New Year's Day. But, with pride, humility and the knowledge that our course is difficult and risky, we will commit ourselves to a new beginning. It is the right - indeed, the only - thing to do.

January 14, 2003