Below is a hard to find copy of John Connolly’s official law firm bio. You know, the one that tells the client exactly what the lawyer does. What he knows. His area of expertise. The reason why he gets the big bucks. Luckily for us an old client of Connolly’s posted it on their website thus avoiding the Connolly campaign’s on-line purge of anything but teaching.
John R. Connolly
Attorney, Schofield Campbell & Connolly, LLC – Legal Counsel for BusinessJohn Connolly has a wide array of experience representing companies and individuals in commercial transactions. John has extensive experience advising companies and investors on the formation and financing of businesses of all sizes and at all stages of development as well as facilitating the purchase and/or sale of such businesses. His experience includes: representing the original owners of a mid-sized air freight company in their buy-back of the company from its publicly-traded parent corporation; representing an investor syndicate in a leveraged buy-out of a large, privately held publishing company; representing a distressed software company in the sale of its assets to a multinational corporation; representing the stockholders of a radio station in its sale to a large media conglomerate; and advising a start-up software company on various business formation and financing issues.
John graduated from Boston College Law School in 2001 and Harvard College in 1995. He also graduated from The Roxbury Latin School in 1991. Prior to joining Schofield Campbell & Connolly, John practiced at Hanify & King P.C. and Ropes & Gray LLP in Boston. During law school, John also worked as an assistant to the General Counsel for the Committee on the Judiciary in the Massachusetts General Court and for the Government Bureau of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office. John is also an At-Large Councilor on the Boston City Council where he currently serves as Chair of the Committee on Environment and Health and Vice Chair on the Committee on Education.
I must have missed the part about his extensive teaching background.
Now add this to the fact that Connolly has no problem with Menino’s bust out of the mayor’s office. Over the objections of the Inspector General and watch dog agencies the mayor did a big favor for his guy Bob Travilignini and in exchange for chicken shit gave the Red Sox permanent rights to use the streets around Fenway as their private money making Times Square. Not to mention permanent air rights for the monster seats.The deal stinks to high heaven,
On top of this the mayor is giving out last minute tax breaks that have some smell problems.
It’s the timing that sucks. The mayor should be like the home owner with the purchase and sales agreement signed and he’s moving early January. Red Sox deals and BRA deals should have been done before he announced he was leaving.
Anyway John Connolly has no problem with the what the mayor is doing. Why? Everyone else does. He says the mayor has to keep steering the ship and blah blah blah.
Looking at Connolly’s hidden resume, his reluctance to take on the status quo developers and business people who maybe pillaging the place on Menino’s way out, and his smarmy anonymous mailing attacking Steve Murphy says to me that there is much more to John Connolly than he wants us to know. And it’s not good.
This race is about transparency as much as anything else.
A click on the client’s site shows:
The Financial Plan for the project envisions a small group of investors that will include both individuals that would participate with a minimum investment of between $50,000 to $100,000, …. The overall projected after tax internal rate of return on investment in this project, on an annual basis over years 1-5 is 15.9%, over years 1-10 is 14.6%, and over years 1-15 is 13.8%, based on a 33% tax bracket for the investor. http://www.essexriverdesign.com/Ipswich_A_E/ipswich_properties.html
Boston voters deserve the truth about what Connolly has done, where and when, including the “teaching” experience that has been the backbone of his campaign.
like pretty much everything else the BRA touches. Did Walsh say he would abolish it? If so that’s a point in his favor.
Did he have the quiet flush? Come on Ernie keep digging….!
EB3, has this satisfied your curiosity? If Connolly had posted something like this on his website, would you have raised an issue? It strikes me that this bio shows that Connolly had fairly typical experience for a young business lawyer.
You just don’t get it.
The whole point is that it’s NOT on his website, and he seems to have tried to strike it from the entire internet to promote the narrative that he’s a seasoned inner-city educator. His whole campaign is about that, most decidedly not about being about a “typical…young business lawyer.”
Connolly is a fraud-teacher my arse! As a lawyer, I’m sure all of his hours are billable, so why does he expect teachers to support extending the school day (which isn’t actually a great idea, a story for another day) without compensation? I believe that was his reason for not voting for the BPS teacher contract. Worse, he would lift the cap on charters, driving a stake into public school equity (oxymoron, I know). Charter schools are a sham, and those who support their expansion need to be exposed as the corporate sellouts they are!
Connolly, particularly on education and development tax breaks is sounding more and more like another corporate neoliberal in the Booker-Bloomberg-Rahm mode. Rahm has been a disaster for Chicago, and Walsh is our de Blasio. The choice is easy folks. No way a progressive can back Connolly.
What’s with all this hysteric vitriol directed at Connolly? From my perspective, these issues are being blown up way out of proportion. As someone who is trying to decide between the two (I didn’t vote for either in the primary), I don’t find this kind of rhetoric convincing. In fact, it smells to me like a smear job and makes me more inclined to give Connolly a chance.
I don’t really care exactly how much teaching experience Connolly had or every single detail of his law firm experience. I don’t think either is especially relevant or interesting nor do I think most voters will care about this either.
I care about what each man is going to do when they are mayor. I would rather see the discussion on the race focus over actual issues that confront the City rather than obsessive resume character attacks.
Just saying.
and stated emphatically because it’s so glaring absent from the Globe, Herald, Boston Mag. etc.
Just saying.
I think it’s pretty damn relevant that the version of himself the guy presents is based on ignoring the last 15 years of his life and focusing like a laser on nine months’ work in 1997. By that standard I should run for office claiming to be the greatest waiter who ever lived. With this sleight of hand he creates a (false) positive image as a longtime educator and avoids a (possibly negative) discussion of his more salient experience.
1) There’s the fact that Connolly is hiding things.
2) There’s the fact that the things that Connolly is hiding, while not things that would normally endear himself to progressives of any stripe, aren’t in and of themselves disqualifying.
So, if he had been open about these things from the beginning, you wouldn’t have seen these posts. I’m not sure he would have gotten through the primary if everyone knew he was really a high-priced attorney who worked with Boston developers, but you wouldn’t have seen these kinds of criticisms.
PS: This stuff is far more than “obsessive resume… attacks.” You throw in the word character, but that’s really what it’s all about. Character is hugely important in any election. If a candidate tries to hide things, especially things so basic and important as what the heck he really does for a living, then there is a legitimate issue.
PPS. Ernie really could be writing these posts about Stand for Children and how Connolly doggedly sought their endorsement, knowing how much it would mean in the race ($$$), until he got his hand stuck in the cookie jar. The fact of the matter is he won that endorsement by his answers, for an organization that favors shutting down public schools and replacing them with charters that don’t seek to graduate every student who enrolls and who seeks to profit off the backs of the taxpayer, while selling the valuable real estate of the public schools that are shuttered for pennies on the dollar.
That’s what the corporate-backed, Walmart-backed Stand for Children is all about. The “Education Mayor” did everything he could to get them on his side — and succeeded. So, frankly, I think any Connolly fan should be ecstatic that the criticism directed toward him is over his weird choice not to be honest about what he does professionally, instead of over the fact that his raison d’être is a farce.
There is the fact that you guys are really turning me off by your comments. I am sorry that you don’t want to face the fact that your rhetoric may not win over all voters to your point of view. I really don’t want people telling me what I am supposed to be outraged about.
From my perspective I don’t know if I see much difference from Connolly taking money from Stand for Children and Walsh taking money from unions. I don’t like it in either case.
I think your views are every bit as much of a turn off. You really want to compare Stand for Children, which seeks to destroy the public education system, to organizations that seek fairness in the workplace? That represent workers who are struggling to afford to live and raise families in the historically working class neighborhoods they grew up in?
Your view goes a great length toward explaining just why the American dream is ceasing to be a reality for ever increasing numbers of Americans. The idea that a city like Boston should only be the playground of the elites is an idea that should be condemned — so your attack on unions here, organizations that have been under assault for going on 30+ years in a time period where working families are earning less now, in real terms (not even counting inflation), than they were a decade ago — is really surprising.
All the new money our economy has grown over the past ten years is going to the tippity top and you’re buying into the anti-union nonsense? Seriously?
So, yeah, I’m sorry if I’ve rubbed you the wrong way, but your post has me every bit as annoyed — and more than just scratching my head. You should be much more thoughtful than to have engaged in this false equivalency, and to have lumped the corporate-backed Stand to membership-driven organizations who’s sole offenses in life are being working families trying to stand up for other working families, seeking things like affordable health care and safe workplaces.
I know a lot of people, especially some on the left, get uncomfortable with conflict and seeing anyone’s world views challenged… but if you want to compare Stand for Children to organizations that are trying to fight for regular people struggling to get by, it demands strong criticism.
The world isn’t kumbaya. I wish it was, but it’s not. I really am terribly sorry that I don’t have nice things to say about Mr. Connolly or have spoken uncomfortable truths. I like the Councilor on a personal level, but he’s bad for the city of Boston. I know the passion that it takes to say something like that is uncomfortable to many, but we need more passion in this world, not less. Passion is far better to indifference, indifference that I believe leads people to being uncomfortable about criticisms in the first place and that leads to lazy false equivalencies.
If there are concerns on Connolly, I think this is a great platform to discuss them. At this point, I haven’t read anything specifically addressing Connolly and what he has done as a councilor. I think those specifics will educate everyone why you have such strong feelings between these two candidates.
At the same time, those who championed money in campaigns should be called out if they conveniently change their position because it’s their candidate who taking the money. I’ve been commenting and not posting on some things which I have trouble with. But maybe it’s time to get them posted.
Also, my apologies. I just read your response to an earlier comment. It was all on me. Thanks for your comment, but re-reading the exchange I took offense to something that you didn’t do.
Yes, overall we have to get big money out of politics. But I didn’t complain when Obama managed to outraise McCain, because the policy differences are more important. And I categorically reject any kind of equivalence between labor funding and Walton funding.
Connolly’s council record is pretty much the same as Consalvo, Ross, etc. Most of these votes are close to unanimous. The big glaring exception, the one he touts every chance he gets, is that Connolly was the only council member to vote against the 2012 teachers’ contract. Because overstressed teachers wouldn’t extend the school day for no additional pay. That’s his calling card. I think it’s despicable.
an outside group’s influence is a problem, and using a group to do your dirty work, instead of standing up for yourself and running your own campaign that’s another problem. So yes substance.
Have you seen the September reports? At this point, it would be impossible for Connolly to not accept money, he’s getting slammed by outside spending. Being a realist here, and if it were me I’m not going to lose because of outside groups. We’ll see what Connolly will do.
That’s where Walsh has lead us to and it should have been addressed with him instead of looking the other way making excuses. Very poor.
My issue with Connolly and Stand has very little to do with money; it has to do with ideas. Stand’s endorsement process was particularly onerous. They wouldn’t have endorsed Connolly unless Connolly supported all of Stand’s major issues and a large majority of all of them.
Connolly had to want it. That’s just how endorsements work — especially when there are plenty of other candidates that sought Stand’s endorsement, including Conley, who may have particularly benefited from it.
Most of Marty’s union support comes from building trades, so imagine what kind of questions they’d ask. Collective bargaining. Picket lines. Dispute resolution. Affordable health care. Weekends. Etc. Maybe you can even find them online for all I know and see for yourself. The point being, they’re going to rest on whether a candidate supports the rights of someone who does backbreaking labor to be able to raise a family in the city and have a decent life, in between installing toilets, laying cement or screwing in wooden planks all day.
They’re certainly not asking if candidates would shut down neighborhood schools or strip teachers of their basic human rights or anything along those lines. They don’t seek to shut down any aspect of the city, just have a city that works as well for them — living modest lives — as it does the millionaires and billionaires.
So I don’t have an issue with the money being spent in the mayoral race; goodness knows both candidates have the money to complete. I just have a problem when a major candidate wins Stand’s endorsement, because that means they line up with almost all of Stand’s priorities and ideas. I’d feel the same way if it were the NRA or the American Family Association. So should we all, at least us progressives.
you aren’t even remotely sorry you rubbed me the wrong way. And it is crystal clear that you really really hate to be contradicted and just cannot stand the fact that everyone doesn’t just take everything you say for Gospel truth.
I really don’t have a dog in this fight. I am lukewarm about both candidates. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am just pointing out that your combative rhetoric is turning off some set of people that you hope to convince. You don’t want to believe that and simply want to discount my opinion as not counting. Too bad for you.
I also don’t see why being uncomfortable with huge amounts of outside money being spent on either candidates behalf comes down to an “attack on the unions”. Really you are coming off as really, really angry and paranoid. Is that really the impression you want to give?
with outside money being spent here on either side. Stand should feel free to spend its money on Connolly. Connolly’s ‘earned’ it by supporting their agenda.
I have a policy issue with Stand, and by extension, Connolly, for that agenda.
The money is not the issue; what candidates agree to support to get the endorsement is the issue. Candidates should support labor, organizations that support basic human rights and dignity and have been under assault for decades. They should never support Stand, which is leading the charge in privatizing our public school system and attacking the rights of teachers.
Huge distinction. You see that, right?
Nothing could be further from the truth — and it doesn’t jive at all with my previous comment to you. A snippet:
“I know a lot of people, especially some on the left, get uncomfortable with conflict and seeing anyone’s world views challenged… but if you want to compare Stand for Children to organizations that are trying to fight for regular people struggling to get by, it demands strong criticism.
The world isn’t kumbaya. I wish it was, but it’s not. I really am terribly sorry that I don’t have nice things to say about Mr. Connolly or have spoken uncomfortable truths. I like the Councilor on a personal level, but he’s bad for the city of Boston. I know the passion that it takes to say something like that is uncomfortable to many, but we need more passion in this world, not less.”
Your opinion is not discounted. Indeed, I’ve taken great cares to respond to it. I just don’t think unions and Stand should ever be lumped in together, since they are diametrically opposed to one another.
I come from a family of factory workers, teachers, nurses, mail carriers and plumbers, many of whom have benefited from unions — and some of whom suffered without them.
The fact that you’ve lumped all these people — my family — in with “Stand,” who would have seen my dad’s rights as a teacher infringed and would have seen neighborhood schools shut down — really did make me upset and continues to do so.
Stand would have sought to destroy every opportunity my father was able to provide for our family while working ungodly hours as a teacher, much of which he already wasn’t paid for. Stand would have rewarded that by asking him to work even more, being paid even less and to do so with worse benefits — and let me assure you now, my life wasn’t littered with excess as a kid, just a decent, very middle class background, one where when my dad wasn’t teaching or coaching, or trying to get his students and players into colleges, he was grading papers.
You really have no idea how many hours the guy worked — it was insane — but Stand would have asked him to do more, for less!
I hope that gives you some kind of context into why I would be upset here, and why I would approach this issue with as much passion as I do. Stand is a very bad, no good, terrible organization — and to get its endorsement, you have to support its policies.
Organized labor represents working families struggling to get by as the American Dream crumbles all around us. To get their endorsement, you have to think the American dream crumbling all around us is a bad idea.
I will almost always support candidates backed by labor. I will probably never support candidates backed by Stand, just like I’d never support a candidate backed by the NRA or the American Family Institute. I would hope we could all agree here, but you are certainly entitled to your own view.