Gubernatorial Oomph

Every two years Massachusetts voters grow disgusted with their Governor and elect a new one. The new one invariably spends his first year repaying campaign debts and favors. At mid-term--straight with the world--he steps courageously forward and advances his legislative program of "reform and progress." The second year is devoted to retreating hurriedly from the program and to acquiring new debts, all in a headlong attempt to stop making enemies. The attempt, which invariably infuriates the voters, always fails. And Massachusetts elects a new Governor, hoping that this time he will be a "strong" one.

What are needed, of course, are not a strong Governor but a strong Governorship. The problem lies with the office, not with the parade of hapless men who have tried to fill it. Fortunately this year's ballot offers the state's voters two opportunities to bolster that office.

Question #1 would increase the gubernatorial term to four years. This long overdue reform would enable the chief executive to spend two leisurely years playing campaign politics and still have half a term to be Governor of all the people.

Question #5 would "curb the Governor's Council" by taking away its authority over contracts and leases and most gubernatorial appointments. A relic of days when the Bay Colony hemmed and hawed with the Hanoverians, the Council has consistently thrown up hurdles to administrative harmony and efficiency. Also, its ratifying function invites corruption. Passage of Question #5 is essential to vigorous executive government.