Johnny-fraud-not-to-be-confused-with-Wad-Connolly stood in front of the cameras last night unshaven and looking tired. Admittedly nervous he tried to make a point. In fact a very important point. Here, I’ll let Connolly explain what happened
“I was nervous and I made a mistake,” Connolly said in an interview. “I was trying to make an important point on a really important issue, so I apologize on that front, and I will talk to him to make sure he gets my apology.”
It happens. We all make mistakes. Sheeeit, if I had a dime every time blah blah blah.
The “important point on the really important issue” was…gimme a second I’ll remember it. Anyway, it was important. And when I’m talking about something “really important” and the point I’m making is an “important” one in the point pecking order or the “really Important issue(s)” and then make me nervous, well there’s no tellin’ what could come out of my mouth.
Wait, now that I think of it, that’s not true. I would never call out someone by name as an example of a fuck-up. I know nobody really knows how they’d act confronted with a real battlefield. But last night was not something that should cause a reasonable person, never mind a seasoned politician, to allow the jitters to overcome decency ingrained in most people.
Now lets add the fact that he was a teacher outing a fuck-up student. Teachers know about this. It’s like doctor/patient lawyer/client bookie/bettor. Never mind relationships between friends, neighbors, strangers, enemies.
I was waiting for the happy ending. Where was the happy ending. That’s when you get to name drop you putz. What else are you going to say when you’re nervous but as a mayor. Many more nervous situations in that job.
Blaming it on being nervous rather saying “no excuse” is so par for the course. Sounds like a Ropes and Gray lawyer making an excuse for a client in a legal response. A lame excuse of course, but one they can churn tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees while arguing the specious thing and showing how clever he is.
—-
Ladies and Gentlemen, presenting With Friends Like That. A one act play presented by the EB3 players.
An upscale restaurant in Boston on a Sunday afternoon. A large gathering at a large round table in the center is enjoying dinner.
Susan: I think your mother is enjoying this. Seventy-Five today and she looks great. Also good that all your family is here.
Dave: Yeah, let’s just get through this and get home, see what I can salvage of the 4:00 games. The food is great though, I’m not rushing at the expense of a good meal. — Hey, sit in your seat. You’ll get us thrown out of here.
Little girl: Okay Daddy
Susan: Isn’t that your friend from school John Connolly?
Dave: Yeah, it is. I haven’t seen him in years. (standing” Hey Johnny C.
John Connolly: Dave-O. Wow. Good to see you. (approaches table with outstretched hand, they hug)
Dave: Mom remember John Connolly.
Mom: Of course I do. How’s ya muthah Johnny? Tell her I was askin for her.
Connolly: Will do. Hey Dave, remember the time we ate mushrooms and went to the Marshfield Fair and were so fucked up we stole the chicks purse and it had $300 bucks in it and we picked up those chicks from Somerville and we brought them to your house because your family was down the cape and you banged that really fat one on your parents bed and she gave you green dick and you just started going out with Susan at the time and you forgot she was coming over because we were so fucked-up on the shrooms and she came in and we made her believe that the fat chick was my girlfriend.
That was great. I was tellin someone that story the other night. Anyway nice seeing you all.
—-
The phony baloney arbitration game: First off there is no arbitration. The arbitrator comes up with a number but is has no force. Only a suggestion under current law.
With that as the end game, which isn’t an end game, it allows for bad government and more false narratives thrust upon the masses.
It’s like this with Boston municipal union contracts.
Both sides negotiate. If they can’t agree they go to non-binding arbitrations. In other words it’s a suggestion.
Now every time an arbitrator comes back with a number Menino says “go pound sand” and his popularity numbers go up. So if negotiate and say no to everything, drag it out, (everything at negotiations is confidential by law btw) hem and haw, allow to go arbitration, pay big legal costs for decision you know you will lose, expect big number, rant and rave, get more popular, cost city and unions unnecessary and exorbitant legal fees, make lousy case, stress out workers and their families with uncertainties, only publicly attack high-end unions but use same strategy with lower paying unions you will make the people love you at the expense of the truth while you could have negotiated a contrast less than arbitrator awards w/o going to arbitration and saving both sides significant costs.
But it’s all about loving Menino, isn’t it?
Walsh’s bill eliminates the bullshit that currently exists.
drikeo says
What prevents it from being fully binding is that a municipal legislative body (a city council or town meeting) is not required to accept the arbitration panel’s decision. Walsh wants to eliminate the separation of powers at the municipal level when it comes to public safety contract negotiation.
Walsh’s bill is terrible for any number of reasons. The three-headed panels consist of a party designated by labor, one by management and one appointed by the governor. It generally ends up being a 2-1 vote whichever way the governor’s appointee swings. Democrat governors tend to appoint pro-labor arbiters. Nothing wrong with that, but they’ve done some terrible analysis of what cities and towns can afford in recent years (basically they can afford to give gaudy raises to police and fire if they slash elsewhere). If no one gets to push back on that, then what you’re going to get is police and fire eating up money that would have paid for teacher, clerk and DPW raises as well as municipal projects and programs.
Simply put, that kind of preferential treatment is no way to run a city. On top of that, it would hand Republicans a golden hammer to swing during governor campaigns. Vote blue and they’ll appoint an arbiter who gives away the candy store. Vote red and they’ll appoint an arbiter who’ll hold the line on fiscal responsibility. If Menino can score points with tough negotiations in Boston, then imagine giving that issue to Charlie Baker as he courts independent voters across the state.
Walsh’s bill is both bad management and dumb politics.
David says
That’s not correct. The 3-member arbitration panels in Walsh’s bill (as is standard practice in all arbitrations) are constituted as follows:
drikeo says
The sticky wicket is when the two parties cannot agree on the 3rd arbitrator and the state board has to appoint someone. Right now municipalities don’t feel the need to dig in on the 3rd arbitrator, but they probably would if the decision were binding on both the executive and legislative branches of local government. Walsh’s bill almost invariably would lead to two parties otherwise at an impasse, reaching an impasse on the 3rd arbitrator.
And if those board-appointed arbitration chairpeople start handing out painful, unpopular awards, then the matter of who appoints the board becomes a political issue. I don’t want to give the Republicans that issue.
johnk says
NOT the mayor. Crissakes Ernie, even in your pretend stories you have no clue.
donnahobrien says
Holy Mother of God! As a retired BPS teacher and proud BTU activist, I thought I’d seen and heard everything: and that’s just with the adults! There is a sacred trust that students put into your hands each day. You know, sometimes, more about their struggles than the significant adults in their lives. As a parent of two BPS grads, it would never cross my mind that their foibles would become cocktail party thrillers. Nervous, smrivous: building your campaign on the back of a struggling kid is abuse of trust. Real teachers know better. Two years in a faith based school and a year at a charter doesn’t make Mr. Connolly a real teacher. If he were a real teacher, he would have done anything to protect the integrity of the trust of his student.
Mark L. Bail says
and George V. Higgins had a love child, you’d be him.
daves says
. . . a bigger insult to the memory of George V. Higgins.