Hey all you One Party Massachusetts fans, have you heard the one about the Dem hack who plays his cards right and ends up with a cushy job for life? No, not your cousin, this OTHER Dem hack who plays his cards right and ends up with a cushy job for life!
In all seriousness, the latest wrinkle in our MA Dem-ocracy might be ugly enough to disturb even those who are true blue through-and-through…
Chris Speranzo, do-nothing State Rep. in Berkshire County is so incompetent, he nearly lost his seat to a Green-Rainbow Party candidate who spent a grand total of $3,074 on his campaign. Speranzo can’t even play his hack cards right, raising the hackles of half of the members of the Governor’s Council. While Speranzo had been a quiet shoe-in for the $110,000/year clerk magistrate position at the Central Berkshire District Court, the simple fact that Mark Miller ran against him last year has led to the slow unraveling of the quiet hack job… and now Governor Patrick and Lt. Gov. Murray are on the cusp of turning this thing into a hack-fest, even at this politically dangerous time when the dirty business of State House politics and Massachusetts corruption are landing people double-digit jail terms.
The good people of Pittsfield are steamed at Speranzo, who denied 3rd Berkshire voters a real campaign and tried to quietly leave them with a vacancy in the State House for his own benefit. But it’s the other people raising questions that has me thinking this could be the perfect example for preemptive hack-tion to resist the madness:
Mr. Speranzo’s lack of legal experience troubled several councilors at yesterday’s confirmation hearing, and while their concerns are valid, his qualifications are a lesser issue than how he got the nod for the position in the first place. Two assistant clerks who have been doing the job since the clerk magistrate left two years ago both applied for the job but were bypassed for Mr. Speranzo, who doesn’t have their experience. They, however, don’t have his political clout. The bypassing of the assistant clerks bothered a couple of the council members and the fact that the job was vacant for two years should bother taxpayers paying the $110,000 annual salary for a position that in the private sector would surely have been axed by now.
Criticism of Speranzo at his confirmation hearing was strikingly harsh:
Councilor Mary-Ellen Manning ripped the decision to keep his constituents in the dark.“You stole their votes. That’s what you did,’’ said Manning, a Salem Democrat. “Nobody thinks it’s offensive here to be a public servant. Anybody who uses public service and the cloak of public service for their own private gain, I do think is offensive. It was offensive to the voters.’’
Councilor Jennie Caissie, an Oxford Republican, cited Voltaire as she suggested that Speranzo lacked the qualifications to work as a clerk magistrate.
“There seems to be a glaring lack of experience here,’’ she said. “In your entire professional career, you’ve basically been a public employee. You’ve never received a paycheck that hasn’t come from the taxpayers of Massachusetts.’’
And now there’s this:
One of the four members of the Governor’s Council who opposed Rep. Christopher N. Speranzo’s clerk-magistrate nomination last week is questioning the Patrick administration’s decision to cancel a meeting originally set for Wednesday that would have featured a vote on the nominee.
Four of the eight council members have expressed opposition to Speranzo’s nomination, citing a variety of reasons and raising the possibility that Speranzo would need Lt. Gov. Tim Murray’s tie-breaking vote if the other four councilors support him.
In order for Murray to break a tie, Patrick needs to preside over the council. Patrick plans to attend a biotechnology convention in Washington D.C. Tuesday and to return Wednesday and aides said last week they want to ensure that Patrick is available to participate in the meeting, if needed.
In a letter to Patrick’s chief of staff Mo Cowan Monday, Governor’s Councilor Marilyn Devaney said she had learned Patrick would be at the State House Wednesday, noted the council has two hearings planned Wednesday on judicial nominees, and questioned the delay in the vote. “The Governor could preside over the Assembly on this day,” Devaney said in her letter.
The councilor also noted Secretary of State William Galvin has twice presided over Governor’s Council meetings when the governor and lieutenant governor were out of state. Another potential complication is the fact that Councilor Christopher Iannella is traveling out of the country. Iannella was not in attendance at Speranzo’s hearing and, according to an aide at his law firm, is not expected to return until late this week.
So even though 7 out of 8 councilors were present, the vote was postponed to stack things up for Speranzo’s confirmation. The great thing about this is that Murray and Patrick have to follow through with this bullshit in order to seal the deal. If people raise enough of a stink, all we need is one more member of the Governor’s Council to come to their senses, or for Patrick and Murray to back down.
Now’s the time to draw a line in the sand and resist hacks-a-chusetts Dem-ocracy.
You’ve detailed who and what was said against him, but that leaves me curious as to which members spoke in support of the nomination, and their reasons.
So who DOES support this candidacy?
What are the local news outlets saying?
In addition to the paragraph above raising questions about how Speranzo got the nod for this position, they’ve got this to say:
The locals are angry, but none angrier than this one:
Claim: “Christopher Speranzo is an experienced attorney who will serve the region well as Clerk Magistrate of Pittsfield District Court,” wrote Patrick’s Deputy Press Secretary Alec Loftus (Berkshire Eagle)
Fact: “Speranzo has three years of legal experience.” (Berkshire Eagle)
Fact: “During the hearing, Speranzo acknowledged that he didn’t have any criminal law experience, which he said he understands is a “large volume” of the work he would be doing. However, Speranzo told the council he was always up for a new challenge. “I don’t deny that there will be a learning curve, but if you look at my background, I’ve tackled a lot of learning curves in my life,” he said. Clerk magistrates are responsible for managing the court’s day-to-day business, but they also preside over criminal show-cause hearings and certain civil hearings, where they render decisions that carry the same weight as a judges.” (Berkshire Eagle)
Claim: “Nominated for the post by Patrick, Speranzo, 38, said he opted against disclosing his application to protect the confidentiality of judicial applicants.” (State House News Service)
Fact: “When pressed on the question, Speranzo acknowledged that under the judicial nominating process, applicants names aren’t disclosed, but applicants are not prohibited from doing so themselves… Since The Eagle reported that he was seeking the job last fall while running for his House seat, Speranzo hasn’t to responded to inquiries on the issue. Asked by a reporter after the hearing why he’s been silent, Speranzo bit his lower lip and shrugged. “You can draw your own conclusions,” he said, adding: “No comment.” (Berkshire Eagle)
Claim: “I believe that public service is a very honorable profession,” [Speranzo] said, adding, “The reality is, I am an elected official, but I see that as just a further extension of public service.” (State House News Service)
Fact: “The phantom Third Berkshire District state representative campaign continued this week. Incumbent Chris Speranzo remained a no-show, including on what many consider his home turf.
Speranzo skipped the annual Berkshire Labor Breakfast on Sunday, then left IUE Retirees confused by skipping a “coffee & doughnuts” talk they had invited him to months ago. “This group did a lot of work for him, they made phone calls for him,” said organizer Pete Menard. No candidate has ever before failed to show up when invited to the IUE Retirees’ morning meetings, he added.” (Pittsfield Gazette)
Fact: “The incumbent candidates for state representative in the 3rd and 4th Berkshire districts were both no-shows Monday night at Berkshire Community College for scheduled debates with their respective opponents. State Rep. Christopher N. Speranzo, D-Pittsfield, avoided the debate with Green-Rainbow Party challenger Mark C. Miller, claiming he hasn’t run a “credible campaign.”” (Berkshire Eagle)
Commentary: “It’s not enough, apparently, that Chris “No Show” Speranzo ducked two debates with Mark Miller, refused public comment on it, will not make public appearances, will not knock on doors, and will not return media inquiries about his furtive double dipping. Nope. The Great White Dope pushed the sword into his ample gut a little further, putting him one twist from harikari. The Planet refers to the unmitigated gall of the Speranzo “campaign” to run radio spots looking for your support.
Cowardly no-shows are one thing, but at least be consistent about not wanting to campaign. Radio spots have the great convenience of impersonality. Radio ads allow Spurious to mail it in. They are recorded, in a secret bunker, and thus people can hear his voice without seeing his flesh. In that sense, Spurs is like Osama bin Laden. Q: Is he live or is he Memorex?” (Planet Valenti)
I have no idea if Mr. Speranzo is qualified to be a clerk magistrate, or how qualified (since I doubt qualification is binary). I’m not even completely certain what a clerk magistrate does.
Here’s what I do know:
These comments from Ms. Manning are out of line. It’s perfectly acceptable for someone running for office to also simultaneously pursue other career options. When I was applying for a job, I was also applying for other jobs too. He didn’t steal their votes — he earned them. There is absolutely no stipulation, no requirement that a candidate serve his full term if elected. Being elected a politician isn’t a prison sentence.
I also think that Ms. Caissie is barking up an irrelevant tree when she states that
It’s entirely plausible to me that lifetime civil servants — elected, appointed, or otherwise — could be perfectly qualified to be clerk magistrates. This idea that Mr. Speranzo’s lifetime dedication to government work should be held against him is nonsense.
But, Mr. Cipollini takes the cake when he
Firstly, it is not Mr. Speranzo’s obligation to reimburse the cost of a potential special election. That’s not how our democracy works. To suggest otherwise, or to suggest that one’s vote as a G’Councilor is predicated on that promise, is entirely out of line. Secondly, I fail to see how Mr. Speranzo’s vote on gay marriage or any other issue is relevant. Mr. Speranzo was representing his district as a member of the General Court, and his positions as a politician don’t immediately imply an inability to be impartial as a clerk magistrate.
I have no idea if Mr. Speranzo is a good pick for clerk magistrate. I do know that empowerment‘s excessive use of the word hack right out of the gun was a total turn off for me as a reader, and that I think the G’Councilors mentioned in the Globe article were focused on wholly irrelevant and improper issues with respect to Mr. Speranzo’s ability to serve the Commonwealth well as a clerk magistrate.
If, while campaigning, Speranzo said – As your Rep, I will do x, y, ans z – there was some obligation to add, ‘Unless something better comes along’. Would you take a job, stomv, and then quit a few weeks later to take another you applied for at the same time? At best, he misled the voters.
There’s nothing wrong with mentioning that the man had no private sector experience, but this wasn’t a private sector job, either.
Mr. Cippolini often fails to be germane.
the “there” is always implied. There’s always the change that an elected rep will walk for any number of “better somethings” — rehab, a cabinet position, a better place.
To answer your direct question, I might. If, for example, the first job offer required me to accept or decline by a specific day and was inflexible, but the second job offer was the one I really wanted and was that much better and came in a few weeks later, then sure, I might.
I just feel like this is always out there. Any elected politician can bolt for any reason, and that’s always a “risk,” even if that candidate claims he won’t.
Stomv, I was going to comment, but you nailed it.
The two assistant clerk-magistrates being passed over is the only thing here that’s even mildly relevant. But this post doesn’t say why they were passed over. There are any number of reasons they could be less qualified for the job even though their experience would seem more directly applicable. For example, this is a job that presumably requires some leadership ability (at least enough to manage those two assistants plus any other staff), and maybe those who were passed over just don’t have what it takes.
Perhaps that person demonstrated a kernel of leadership?
Or is ‘what it takes’ something different than leadership, like ‘juice’?
Oops, replied to the wrong comment. I was trying to make the case with less rhetoric and less use of the word “hack” ; )
I think the use of clerks’ offices as landing pads for run-of-the-mill politicians is a really bad idea, especially given that court staffing and patronage in the judicial department (I’m referring to the probation scandal) are now politically salient issues. The other recent example I can think of is Maura Hennigan, who ran for and won the office of Clerk for criminal business of the Superior Court in Suffolk County after her loss to Mayor Menino in the mayoral race, though as far as I know she is not even a lawyer. Frankly, I think the clerk’s office should be apolitical and professionalized, with a merit selection process.