The Harbor Towers people have hired Norwood state rep. John Rogers to run interference with the city on developer Don Chiofaro’s planned Taj Mahal on the Greenway.
Rogers served with Mayor Walsh and ran a couple of hard fought battles for the speakership with Walsh acting as one of his main lieutenants. Walsh went balls to the walls only to be on the losing side each time. Not good when you’re a rep.
Here’s what Harbor Towers didn’t consider. During Rogers’ battle with DeLeo for the big job and well after people like Walsh had committed everything to him it came out that Johnny Boy’s a major league unethical son-of-a-bitch.
Rogers had a huge war chest. He was in leadership for years (now he’s a back bencher) and raised a ton of dough. You know what he did with the money? Lemme tell ya.
He hired his no- experienced buddy as a $250,000.00 political consultant. You read that right. Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars. Then Rogers buddy took the money and bought a house on the cape and put Rogers’ name on the deed as a co-owner.
People were not happy when they heard about this but lines had already been drawn.
Now Rogers is a sitting rep. whoring his relationship with Walsh to influence this closely watched development. (different for former rep to do this. But a sitting rep?)
Not only should Walsh be insulted by Roger’s involvement, which alone should cause it to backfire, I doubt he trusts or respects him.
Rogers cape house move to me is as bad as anything I’ve seen up there except for taking money. This Harbor Towers move shows his lack of shame. Nothing more transparent than a guy with a tin ear and larceny in his heart.
—
I just heard Charlie Baker say he quit his day job so he can spend the next 90 day campaigning full time for Governor.
There’s a Moe Sizlack “Whaaaat?” for you. How would you like to be raising money and working hard for this guy and on August 17th you find out he hasn’t been working full time on this?
Does Charlie have it in his belly? He may be the smartest person in the room but campaigning is done outside, not inside.
Now he just said he wants “to give back”. Oh bruthah!
—
Obviously the Rick Perry indictment is outrageous but it’s a good example of how far over-zealous prosecutors can go in applying facts to the law in some political corruption cases. Someone benefits and someone loses when most decisions are made by legislators, governors, and appointed officials.
The O’Brien indictments and the slandering of Bob DeLeo and some reps who voted for him for speaker are other examples.
I don’t know about a Texas jury but here in Massachusetts Fred Wyshak could get a jury to convict some of our elected officials on similar facts.
And the Globe would be leading the charge from the get go.
——
How bummed is Larry Lucchino because he couldn’t make Tom Werner Baseball Commissioner? Talk about a win win situation. First off he wouldn’t have to deal with Werner’s whiney uselessness on Yawkey Way. Best of all he’d have a commissioner he could control.
—–
Hey Steve Grossman, if I were you I would…….ahh what’s the use?
——–
JimC says
If Rogers were hired by a developer in Norwood, it would clearly be a conflict. Is he covered because this is Boston?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
and not so sure he couldn’t represent a developer doing a Norwood project.
It’s state business he has to watch out for.
Just a dumb move by Harbor Towers and Rogers.
SomervilleTom says
You sound like Nixon-era republicans claiming that THAT criminal was the victim of a partisan attack by overzealous prosecutors. The Probation Department conspirators are GUILTY.
GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
You are convicted he is guilty of a crime. What exactly did he do which in your opinion are criminal.
That will make the conversation easier.
SomervilleTom says
I didn’t say Mr. DeLeo was “criminal” (he has not been indicted yet). You allege that he was slandered. I counter that:
– He arranged for his apparently unqualified godson to be made one of the youngest chief probation officers ever.
– He arranged for the spouse of his crony to be appointed to one of two specially-created “coordinator” positions. The daughter of convicted criminal conspirator Burke got the other
– He participated in the racket with a number of other “recommendations”
– He remained silent while the criminal enterprise operated, with his full knowledge and apparent consent, for years.
The criminals, who were properly convicted and are guilty, were the three accused. I remind you that telling the truth is a defense against slander — Mr. DeLeo was not slandered. He remains an “unindicted co-conspirator”. That’s not “slander”, it’s a simple fact.
SomervilleTom says
I guess EB3 decided not to continue this particular “conversation”.
The fact is that the truth about the Probation Department scandal, and Mr. DeLeo’s role as participant and unindicted co-conspirator, really does HURT.
JimC says
if you’re going to take the view, as you have, that out-of-control police are a problem and an abuse of state power, then you need to consider that some prosecutors are abusive as well, and that may result in wrongful (or at least excessive) convictions, even when you don’t like the people who got convicted.
I don’t agree with everything Ernie has said about this, and I think people who have been around for a while are too accepting of patronage … but I also don’t think these people should go to jail.
The whole scandal hurts, yes, but it’s a scandal, not a crime.
SomervilleTom says
The prosecutors in the Probation Department scandal haven’t shot anybody, they haven’t been handed millions of dollars worth of military equipment, and there is no hint of any racial agenda.
The premise that the actions of the Probation Department defendants were somehow not criminal is failed. The claim of “abusive” prosecutors doesn’t explain the grand jury that returned the indictments, a judge who instructed the jury or the unanimous jury verdict (never mind the damning report issued by Paul Ware and the original Globe investigative reports).
I’ll tell you what was “excessive” about the Probation Department racket — the number of incompetent hacks who were hired, the amount of money stolen from the taxpayers by substituting sons, daughters, godsons, and “friends” for qualified professionals, and the amount of hot air blown about by people like Mr. DeLeo who still don’t understand that crimes like this matter.
It most certainly WAS a crime, by any reasonable definition of the word.
JimC says
And there is, by the way I’m defining the issue: the encroaching power of the state (“state” defined broadly — federal, state, etc.).
Your mileage may vary, but I don’t think you can view this case uncritically. The charge was “mail fraud.” To me that says they saw a situation and tried to think of a way to go after it. EVEN IF IT IS A CRIME (I’m not sure it is), that’s not how you prosecute crimes. Why didn’t they use RICO? Probably because RICO’s reputation is not what it once was, and that would have set off alarm bells.
SomervilleTom says
I’m simply unwilling to conflate out-of-control cops killing unarmed people on the street with a lengthy court battle where the convicted defendants had fully-qualified legal counsel.
To me, your claim comes far too close to Bundy-style anti-government hysteria. Police should should obey the law. Politicians should obey the law.
JimC says
I don’t find it constructive.
You said, to paraphrase, our political system is broken. I said, to paraphrase, that in order to be intellectually consistent you have to consider that our justice system is broken too. But you draw the line there and say that’s paranoia. Because lawyers are effective, I guess?
OK.
SomervilleTom says
The autopsy of the victim in Ferguson shows he was killed by a shot that entered the top of his head and exited his eye. In other words, he was kneeling while executed.
The word I used was “hysteria”, not paranoia. Executing an unarmed teenager walking in the street is against the law. Prosecuting the perpetrators of a massive illegal jobs racket is not.
I’m not sure why you seem to have such difficulty embracing this distinction.
JimC says
I’m arguing that lack of trust in public prosecutors is a concern. A different branch of the same rotting tree.
jconway says
He did during his whitey coverage, but he has been quite insistent that in his view, patronage- giving jobs to people on the basis of politics and political favors, is perfectly ‘a-ok’ with him. It’s part of the old school, old Boston charm he feels is fallen from this world, or whatever bullshit of the week he is peddling. It’s why he goes after Howie so bad, especially on the rare occasions when Howie is actually right like the proverbial broken clock by pointing out hacks who shouldn’t be on state payroll but are.
I think it’s incumbent on the party that actually believes in government to root out every example of hackery, fraud, and an old boys network in government and clean it up and kick it to the curb. I think too many progressives here recognize that there is a code and a way of doing things on Beacon Hill, and, so long as they get gay marriage or universal healthcare out of it, so be it. These are the people that are crying over Sal di Masi. These are the guys who used to go to bat for Ray Flynn and Ed White too back in the day, giving them cover on their left flanks. It’s how the New Deal got made, I get that there was an era when it made sense.
But for those of us that work in the private sector, or those of us that have had family members in the public sector laid off or lose benefits because of budget cuts, we really lose our faith in good government when we see crap like that happen. It’s what built Reagan Democrats into a force, it’s what led to a generation of Republican Governors in the Corner Office, and it’s what will likely elect Charlie Baker in the fall. It’s a serious problem, and whether the law was broken or not, whether the prosecutors abused power or not, it’s still a problem, and we should hold our progressive politicians accountable for being so glib in their dismissals of a very serious investigation and charge.
SomervilleTom says
This reminds of the bogus political poll question “do you think we’re headed in the right direction”. That collects those think we’re too far right and conflates them with those that think we’re too far left.
I agree that lack of trust in public prosecutors is a concern.
My primary concern in that regard is prosecutors who will not pursue abuse by police and other law-enforcement agencies. I cite the Annie Dookhan scandal as a case where I simply don’t believe that nobody outside the lab knew what was going down.
I disagree that the Probation Department prosecution falls in that category. Read the charges (they are for more than mail fraud). The judge’s instructions to the jury were clear, and were exquisitely sensitive to the concern you raise (patronage versus crime). The jury heard those instructions, took them seriously, and convicted the defendants.
While I agree that lack of trust in public prosecutors is a very real concern, I strongly disagree that the Probation Department prosecution was an example of that.
Christopher says
They shouldn’t be allowed to have other jobs IMO, partly for this reason.
The Perry indictment stinks. We should never criminalize the making of a decision an elected official is constitutionally entitled to make, such as whether to sign or veto funding, regardless of the motive.
kirth says
It’s not the decision to veto the AG’s budget he’s been indicted for; it’s his openly threatening to do so unless she resigned that got the Grand Jury indictment. She’s an elected official from the other party. Blatant undermining of the electoral process on his part. Note that she does not seem to be someone who belongs in that office, but her term is expiring, and it looks like she’s not running again. Perry’s party’s candidate for AG is expected to lose, and he wanted to be able to appoint his loser for the remainder of the term so they’d have the incumbency.
Very sleazy actions on his part, and deserving of jail.
Christopher says
He has the prerogative to veto, and thus he can threaten to veto, regardless of motive – period. This is a constitutional deficiency, not a criminal act.
kirth says
In this case, a Grand Jury thought it was criminal. “Regardless of motive – period” is a somewhat novel legal theory, which said jury is apparently not familiar with.
Christopher says
If there are no constraints on the veto prerogative in the Constitution, no grand jury is entitled to make them up. No ordinary statute can contradict the Constitution. If vetoing is inappropriate for certain things then it is the Constitution that must carve out exceptions to allow certain items to be funded without the Governor’s signature.
Peter Porcupine says
It is a veto – which is subject to an override.
He did not veto the entire DA budget, just the ethics division, which he said she thought she was unfit to lead. The legislature apparently concurred in this.
She remains DA and the overall operations of her office continue.
kirth says
of the political makeup of the body which would can override the veto. Given that awareness, I think you’re being disingenuous.
ryepower12 says
Once upon a time, I had a conversation with a friend of mine who was a longtime legislative staffer and he told me that legally, legislators are considered ‘half time.’
At the end of the day, if we want to have clean politics in Massachusetts that aren’t strictly limited to those who are worth millions or more, then legislators have to be able to get side gigs, while we create enough regulation to make sure those side gigs aren’t a conflict of interest.
Christopher says
I think clean politics means that is all you do. I believe in politics as a profession and would even be open to raising the salaries. I believe Congress for example, is not allowed to make outside money.
stomv says
Something like $60k – $80k. You can get different numbers depending on how you include leadership bonuses, per diems, etc. Of course, there are other benefits too, ranging from pension to parking.
While that’s a lot of scratch for plenty of MA families, that’s not a lot of scratch to plenty of other families too. And, it gets tough — lots of legislators own businesses. Small law firms. Small insurance sales firms. Maybe even a bar or some other retail establishment. Do they have to sell their share?
If a legislator is spending too much time doing non-legislative-work, an opponent should beat ’em over the head with it in a campaign. It’s really hard to prevent all side-work legislatively in a way that is (a) fair and (b) doesn’t preclude a large chunk of otherwise qualified people from the job.
ryepower12 says
the median personal income in Massachusetts. That’s written into our state’s constitution.
Additional stipends can be had if you’re in leadership in some capacity, but that’s about it.
Yup. And of those incumbents who have lost seats over the past few years, it’s actually one of more common charges the opponents have made.
JimC says
… for a “half-time” job. Perhaps you can anticipate my next point.
I agree with christopher and stomv. Pay them reasonably (what they make now, more or less) but put some limits on outside work. And no bonuses for committee chairmen.
Christopher says
They do additional work and spend additional hours. Why shouldn’t they be paid for it?
JimC says
Are we sure? They have staff. It’s not like the Ways and Means Chair is poring over spreadsheets.
Chairs are appointed by the Speaker. The Speaker has more power because members kiss up to get the lucrative posts. Eliminate the money for them, and that helps.
Christopher says
I know that from my time interning at the State House. They put as much time as anyone into district business and spend time on committee business on top of that. Yes, I mean the legislators personally, not just staff.
JimC says
But I still want to reform that system. Reduce the money — recognize the work, and take the appointment power away from the Speaker. Maybe committee members can elect the Chair.
Christopher says
In my student Senate we elected all the chairs from among the entire Senate and then elected committee members, one committee assignment per Senator, from among ourselves.
ryepower12 says
A quick google search on your belief would have cleared that up for you.
Additionally, as has been made reported in many, many political stories over the years, legislators are exempt from a number of insider-trading laws. If, say, they know there’s a lucrative contract heading somewhere that isn’t public knowledge yet…. they can buy that stock. The profitability of a Congressperson’s stock portfolio is vastly higher than the rank and file — and even higher than many professional investors, who are bound by insider trading laws.
Christopher says
…when a member of Congress authors a book? Didn’t both Speakers Wright and Gingrich get a lot of grief for doing that?
Christopher says
…the more I think about it the more I can think of examples of outside income, including other books that haven’t raised questions. Maybe in my mind I was conflating rules about gifts with outside earned income.
jconway says
Fairly brilliant observation, I suspect that if it had been any other contender against Selig’s right hand man, they might’ve won, but a bad power play for the Red Sox ownership, as if they didn’t already have enough.
Annieboch says
John Rogers had Judge Mulligan create a position for Steve Frattalia in the probation department, making $80,000 back in the day, still pretends to work there and escapes sexy scandals or rumors…hmmmmmmmm in the van, wonder why Steve Frattalia(Rogers pillow talk buddy) left/ or got recommended to leave his position at Catholic Memorial High School,
Check out the ex-inspector general Greg Sullivan whom always had Johnny up his butthole, Norwood………..Sullivan nationwide nonprofit job, Steve sucking the taxpayers money hiding/not working,Rogers brother worked in probation too highly recommended by Johnny himself….or was it Mulli boy