Why wouldn’t he? What again did he do wrong? Putting it in context I am not sure how he can be reprimanded. He’s allowed discretion. Hiring people suggested by politicians is not an abuse of discretion. He’s performed his job responsibilities. Because Mulligan and a few others don’t like his style that’s too bad.
Mulligan, the sanctamonious bastard, is a judge because he’s from a politically connected family. (Remember Boston corporation counsel Joe Mulligan.) Judge Mulligan was interviewed for the story in which he bitched and moaned about O’Brien. It was clear from his quotes he does not like the guy. It was also clear the Judge Mulligan was aware of what the Globe reported. So again, why act now?
Hey Judge Mulligan; who hires all the court officers and security guards in the courts around the Commonwealth? Are you saying your Honor, that none of those hires were made with some prodding of a rep or senator? You never take a call from a politician and then try to accomodate? How about an audit of all the court employees you have hired? Let’s see who’s who through out your dynasty.
Nowhere in the Spotlight series do we see any evidence of corruption. His decisions maybe questionable. But show me a consistent pattern of abuse please. Not a consistent hiring pattern of the politically connected. If that is the problem then Judge Mulligan should go too.
Here’s the money quote from Maggie Marshall
“We are deeply concerned with not only the proper administration of the Probation Department, but with how such reports may affect the public’s perception of the integrity of all aspects of the judicial branch,”
In other words Jack O’Brien ‘s job hirings should not have become public. Because it did they must now act? Sorry judge, that reason does not cut it. By the way Judge, did you have anyone make a call for you when you were in the running fdor the SJC post? Would it have been unethical if you did? What about your fellow judges? Who did they know. What about Judge Cordy?
Where do we draw the line? I guess good patronage is alright but bad patronage is not and like porno we know it when we see it.
Perhaps the court will come up with a definition of patronage and a formular for the percenatge of patronage hires within the probation department. Sort of like a Roe v. Wade trimester reasoning. Result oriented. Just like the SJC likes.
P.S. Expect Petro to lose that lame Spaker Pro tem title come January. This is just what Booby D. needs to rid himself of Petro.
P.S.S. How much of this Spotlight thing was Johnny Rogers doing? A cape house thief yelling about abuse. Another fraud.