The State Senate is really the only alternative that’s even marginally acceptable, and if they get this power it will be abused for patronage deals.

The AG has to bring cases before the SJC. HUGE conflict of interest. Deans of private law schools have no public accountability, just like the Mass Bar Assn. The Dean of UMass Law School can be pressured too effectively by the Governor to have any independence, since the trustees can fire the Dean and the Governor appoints 17 out of 19 trustees.

These decisions need to be made by a body that is independent, publicly accountable, and not subject to a lot of logrolling. That’s the Governor’s Council. Take away their salaries if you really want to be a cheapskate. We have plenty of volunteer commissions that function just fine. But don’t take away their power. Are there idiots on the GC? Yes. Are there idiots in the State Senate? An immigration amendment worse than the Perry amendment passed with a 3/4 majority last year. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
There’s a really easy solution to this problem:
Step 1: Don’t vote for idiots for Governor’s Council
Step 2: Encourage your neighbors to join you in not voting for idiots for Governor’s Council, the same way you would in a legislative race.

I am sorry for having confused you.

It’s not a question of apology. If you’re here to discuss you ought to make the effort to be coherent. I wouldn’t have said anything If I didn’t think you were capable.

This is Coakley’s and Blodgett’s statement for some background from people who know what they are talking about:

May 2, 2011

Re: Nomination of Justice Barbara Lenk

Dear Honorable Governor’s Councilors,

Although we did not attend the Supreme Judicial Court nomination hearing for Justice Barbara Lenk, we understand from news reports and from others who attended the hearing that concerns were raised about an Appeals Court decision, Commonwealth v. Jason Chau. The result of the decision was that Mr. Chau’s conviction, along with his brother’s, for committing the crime of incest against an immediate female family member, was upheld.

During the appeal, Mr. Chau’s counsel, perhaps creatively, but without much legal reasoning, argued that the conviction should be overturned because the statute under which he was convicted defined incest as limited to sexual events between opposite sexes, and therefore was discriminatory in violating the equal protection clause.

The decision by the Appeals Court panel which included Justice Lenk merely determined that the criminal statute did not violate the Constitution, as the Legislature had a reason for focusing on particular sexual activity. For members of the Council to speculate that the decision may support the legality or propriety of homosexual incest would be laughable, if it were not so misleading. No close reading of the decision, designed to let Mr. Chau know that his conviction would be upheld, could accurately reach that conclusion.

We expect, as do the nominees for the Court, that the Council has the right to fully explore the competence and character of those who would serve on the Supreme Judicial Court.

But the public, as well as the nominees, have the right to expect that those inquiries will be relevant and based upon accurate information.

Justice Lenk has served admirably, well, and fairly to date in the courts of the Commonwealth. She is a highly qualified nominee, and would serve the Commonwealth well if she is approved for the Supreme Judicial Court.

Cordially,

Martha Coakley
Massachusetts Attorney

Jonathan W. Blodgett
General Essex County District Attorney

This “non-partisan professional” scheme is worst than the current system. At least the GC is elected primarily to confirm judges. There is nothing seriously flawed about the current system that we have to throw off centuries of political heritage. I still think it also has the advantage over the federal system that allows the Senate to tie confirmations to other legislative deals.

Clearly, they’ve got some work to do.

Oh yea, Perry should not have been hired, nor should Brock Cordiero.

(And I agree – what does this elected position have to do with ‘hack hires’? The GC members aren’t legislators, and don’t have that much pull)

There has been an article to abolish the Governor’s Council on the agenda of the Constitutional Convention for at least a dozen years, and probably longer.

But, beginning with Birmingham, the Senate Presidents have gaveled these CC’s open and shut without allowing a vote which would allow these matters to proceed to the ballot. Gay marriage began this, but it has also affecting progressive causes like a progressive tax rate, and of course, abolishing the Governor’s Council.

My comment was in response to David, who noted that a vote would have to be allowed. I agreed, and offered the opinion that Senate President Murray has a lot of face for complaining about the Governor’s Council when it is her own action of gavelling the CC closed without allowing action that has prevented the vote – which in my opinion would be passed by the electorate in a New York minute.

I said it was a problem for the majority in that many other things, like independent redistricting, that the electorate would ALSO pass in a New York minute would ALSO then proceed to the ballot, and they do not want that. Yet allowing that to happen is the only way to get the Governor’s Council abolished.

I am sorry for having confused you.

Why is hiring Jeff Perry any different than hiring Marian Walsh? (+)
by: David Whelan
Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 12:25:35 PM EST
[edit diary]

(This is an interesting topic of discussion. If I read this story right while the position that Perry is filling has been vacant, it looks as though the position vacated by Viera will not be filled and the title will be changed.
Nonetheless it is a fair question to ask. – promoted by Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno)

Or more appropriately titled, attempting to hire Marian Walsh.

So why is it so important to fill a position that has been vacant for many years?

I like Perry but $110k for a position that has been vacant for so long?

Jeffrey D. Perry, the former state representative who narrowly lost in a hard-fought campaign for Congress in November, begins today serving in the position of special sheriff of Barnstable County.
In that $110,000-a-year position, Perry, a Republican of Sandwich, will be the top assistant to James M. Cummings, the long-time Barnstable County sheriff. Perry, 47, could not be reached for comment this morning.

The special sheriff, which is a position set out in state law, serves as the sheriff’s top assistant.

Cummings said he has gone without a special sheriff for several years.

One top deputy, Republican David Vieira, of Falmouth, resigned recently after being elected to the state House of Representatives, allowing Cummings to fund the special sheriff’s position in part with money previous paid to Vieira as a deputy.

http://www.boston.com/news/loc…

David Whelan :: Why is hiring Jeff Perry any different than hiring Marian Walsh?

Tags: (All Tags) :: Add/Edit Tags on this Post
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Why is hiring Jeff Perry any different than hiring Marian Walsh? | 111 comments | Post A Comment

http://redmassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11213

http://redmassgroup.com/diary/11745/patrick-vetos-perry-job

I wouldn’t throw too many stones – wouldn’t want to crack the glass Barnstable County Sheriff’s department.

If that process costs a few hundred thousand bucks a year, it’s worth it. If that process doesn’t require the spending of a few hundred thousand bucks a year, then of course we shouldn’t spend it.

But let’s focus on finding the right process, not on the teeny tiny portion of the MA budget.

Pity that President Murray herself gavelled the ConCon closed without allowing a vote last June, which would allow the electorate to decide.

This will be a thorny problem for the Majority Establishment. How can they allow the GC vote to proceed if they don’t choke off the ConCon to prevent other things like independent redistricting which share the agenda to be voted on?

I sometimes can’t help but imagine that “peter porcupine” is, in reality, two separate people, utterly hostile to each other and each occupying wholly different spheres of political thought, acumen and experience, sharing one keyboard by alternately typing words.

I’m serious: there are so many thoughts, none complete, and disjoint attempts at sniping, here (and not for the first time) that I’m reduced to the plaintive request: please, if you’re going to say something, please please please take the time and effort to say it coherently.

The Governor’s Council dates way back…

to when the Governor was appointed by the King!

… since the rest of the state government only dates back to the adoption of the Massachusetts Constitution (1780) which was written in response to throwing off the shackles of the King! Chapter II, Section III must have been the one section that Ole George III wrote… Seems like an awful big thing to let slip through the cracks…

This will be a thorny problem for the Majority Establishment. How can they allow the GC vote to proceed if they don’t choke off the ConCon to prevent other things like independent redistricting which share the agenda to be voted on?

Next-to-last paragraph from link in post:

Senate President Therese Murray supports the idea, Joyce said, along with several other senators, including Sen. Barry Finegold (D-Andover), Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), Sen. Robert Hedlund (R-Weymouth), Sen. James Eldridge (D-Acton) and Sen. Steven Baddour (D-Methuen).

Killing off voter initiative, and citizen legislative filings is in their sights too.