Michael Jonas lays it out in MassInc.’s excellent Daily Download (email, no link: why on earth isn’t this newsletter posted online? If it is, I can’t find it):
Newspapers across the state are waging a coordinated attack to beef up the Massachusetts public records law, long regarded as one of the weakest in the country. The law is widely seen as further hamstrung by Secretary of State William Galvin, its principal enforcer, whose office often seems to rule on the side of less, not more, public disclosure.
In a set of editorials over the weekend in which the papers cite — and sometimes even link to — their competitors, the institutions that rely the most on the law to do their work are speaking in one voice on the need for a dramatic overhaul in the state’s approach to public records access.
Leave it to the Boston Herald to cut to the chase in unvarnished, direct language. “With every passing day the state’s public records law – never one of the best in the nation, but hardly in the sorry state it finds itself today – is being nickel-and-dimed to death by regulations and the bureaucrats who interpret them,” read the paper’s Saturday editorial.
Joining in the effort were the Cape Cod Times, the Boston Globe, the Patriot Ledger and all of the GateHouse Media papers in the state.
“The Commonwealth has remained notorious weak in providing public records, since the laws governing them are essentially toothless, and thus easily ignored,” opined the Globe.
Galvin, of course, was recently whining in the press about proposals to make it more difficult for him to give patronage jobs to his friends and relations cut his budget. Presumably, the budget negotiations and the statewide transparency campaign are, or can be, related. If a few million extra dollars for the Secretary’s slush fund is the price to bring that offices disclosure practices into the 21st century, so be it.
In all events, the newspapers are right: the Commonwealth’s secrecy rules have more in common with the medievally-minded theocracy that was our foundation than contemporary best practices — they need to be comprehensively opened up, from the legislature to the departments to cities and towns.
paulsimmons says
…here.
Bob Neer says
Right you are 🙂
edgarthearmenian says
to tell us again how inherently evil those republicans are))))compared to our democrats))) Bob, i give you credit for not playing this cowboy vs. indians charade that some of the contributors here revel in. Malfeasance and incompetence are potential qualities found in all men and women, regardless of religion or political party.
SomervilleTom says
You’ll get no defense of the current crop of Democrats in the legislature from me.
johnk says
Now, I still find it unconvincing that Galvin needs 2 million since he had to print out Constitution Party and Green party ballots now. But then along comes budget wizard Charlie Baker.
Holy crap Charlie, so you have no clue. Then right one cue, the fix it squad.
Sure, thanks.
TheBestDefense says
You know, the obnoxious attack you launch without any facts:
make it more difficult for him to give patronage jobs to his friends and relations
C’mon, give us just one tiny piece of evidence. This is “reality-based commentary” after all.
SomervilleTom says
At this stage of the game, I don’t think ANY nepotism should be tolerated in state government. I understand that some relatives may be well-qualified, and that being related to a legislator should not — in a perfect world — be a barrier to employment.
We do not live in a perfect world. We live in a state with pervasive and devastating corruption. We have a government that cannot roll out IT systems, cannot operate its public transportation system, operated a crime laboratory that fabricated evidence against defendants for more than decade, allowed a poorly-regulated in-state compounder to kill consumers with contaminated preparations, and turned its Probation Department into a massive criminal conspiracy. We have a legislature where three successive Speakers left office after felony convictions and the last was named as an “unindicted co-conspirator”.
A significant factor in this corruption, certainly in appearance and probably in fact, is the pervasive nepotism. I don’t care whether or not Christopher Bulger was the most qualified individual who applied as Chief Counsel to the Probation Department — his family connection should have ruled him OUT. It’s worth taking another read of lists like this:
Patrick Bulger, son of Billy Bulger: Assistant Court Services Coordinator
Mindy Burker, Program Manager, Electronic Monitoring Program: daughter of William H. Burke
Kerrin M. Costello, Probation Officer in Charge: Wife of Rep. Michael Costello, D-Newburyport
Edward Flynn, Probation Officer: Son of former Mayor Raymond Flynn
Brian W. Mirasolo, Acting Chief Probation Officer: Godson of Bob DeLeo
That list contains hundreds of names, and that’s just the Probation Department!
In my view, claiming that such nepotism is “just politics” is like a drunk and destitute alcoholic arguing that “a glass of wine isn’t going to hurt”.
I think it’s time to impose a nearly absolute ban on employment by the state of family and perhaps even “friends” of legislators and government officials — being a bartender at a favorite bar is NOT a qualification for Probation Officer (see Frank M. Glenowicz and Christopher Hoffman in the list cited above). Electing a representative should NOT mean bringing a dozen or two family and friends onto the government payroll, especially when our government is so completely incompetent and dysfunctional.
When Massachusetts is again held up as a model of smoothly operating public transportation, flawless rollouts of leading-edge information systems, noticeably better highways and bridges than our neighboring states, and a criminal justice system envied by the rest of America, then perhaps this question can be revisited.
For now, I think it’s time to adopt a “zero tolerance” approach towards nepotism in state government.
Christopher says
Just as family connections should not be per se rewarded neither should they be per se penalized.
SomervilleTom says
We have a serious crisis in governance, and nepotism is a significant player in that crisis. Civil service exams are not perfect, and no advise/consent process is perfect.
In my view, we need a period of nearly absolute abstinence from nepotism. Not forever. At the moment, I am sick to death of seeing relatives and cronies destroying our state. I don’t want to hear about how “qualified” they allegedly are — I want it to stop.
Christopher says
I guess there’s nothing left to say but that I strongly disagree. Do you know for a fact that each individual you named or could have named really has committed misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance on the job? (Not just by saying look at the department or some vague reference to “culture of corruption”; I want to know individual faults or bad acts on a case by case basis.)
SomervilleTom says
Did you READ the list that was published?
How are we ever going to measure, in any objective process, the baggage that comes along with being Billy Bulger’s son or Bob DeLeo’s godson? Being a relative of Bob DeLeo is going to chill a supervisor’s report of “misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance” that you intend to measure. It will happen, and it won’t be reported.
Let me spell it out for you. Mrs. Supervisor files a formal notification that Joe Nepotism has been missing appointments on Mondays and Fridays, has been fabricating report data, and has failed to properly maintain his case load. A few days later, Mrs. Supervisor gets a phone call from Mr. Nepotism Sr, who happens to control the campaign coffers of Mrs. Supervisor’s boss, an elected representative. Joe Sr says “I’m sure there’s been a mistake here, I just want to clear it up. You MUST be talking about somebody else.” Mrs. Supervisor says “No, there’s been no mistake”. Joe Sr says “Do you know who I am”, and Mrs. Supervisor says “Yes, sir, I do”. Joe Sr says “Ok, then, nice talking to you”. A few days later, Mrs. Supervisor is informed by HER boss that her services are no longer needed, citing a pending budget cut (there are always pending budget cuts). Joe Nepotism stays on the job, Mrs. Supervisor is looking elsewhere, and life goes on.
Until a year or so later when the Globe does a spotlight article on Joe, with pictures and arrows showing his Friday and Monday golf and drinking dates.
Get REAL, Christopher.
No, I am NOT going get into a pissing contest with you about finding “misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance on the job” on a case-by-case basis.
Hiring is already a soft process, even in the best of worlds it’s fraught with pitfalls. I want my government populated by staff that:
– Is not laden with political baggage from connections to powerful people, and
– Is held to a higher standard than you suggest, and
– Comes with professional recommendations and credentials.
If one of my managers ran a department like “Software Development”, “QA”, or even “Sales”, populated it with friends and family, and that department turned in dismal performance year after year with failures, missed deadlines, and even criminal convictions growing out of their hiring practices, I would:
– Fire the manager.
– Impose an across-the-board freeze on ANY applicants that had such ties to ANY manager
– Maintain that freeze until my company’s performance turned around.
Your apparent naivete about how real organizations work seems to be blinding you to the consequences of what has already happened and the role that nepotism plays in those consequences.
Christopher says
Maybe Joe Nepotism hasn’t been missing Mondays and Fridays. In fact maybe he shows up early to get a jump on the day and stays late to not leave something undone before going home. Maybe his elected relative has taught him that public service is the highest calling and he should treat it as such. If you won’t go case by case you are violating the same principle that says better to let 100 guilty men go free than let even one innocent man go to jail. Mrs. Supervisor should make a beeline to the press and the opposition party if she has to. I’m fine with professional recommendations and credentials, but every once in a while those just might favor a relative. The idea that you should assume the positive and require the negative to be proven is among the closest thing I have to an absolute principle.
SomervilleTom says
Douglas Maclean is on the list. Mr. MacLean is the son of former state Senator William “Biff” MacLean. Douglas MacLean was hired as a probation officer at the Bristol County Probate and Family Court.
Douglas MacLean was also a convicted felon with long history of drug addiction and criminal convictions (emphasis mine):
I note that the formal rules under which the Probation Department operated (4.304(a), from the Ware report ) already prohibited the appearance of “nepotism or favoritsm” (emphasis Ware):
In addition to his well-connected father, Mr. MacLean was also engaged to the administrative assistant of the supervisor he was to report to (again from the Ware report, para 588) (emphasis mine):
How did that hire turn out? Again, from the Ware report (para 599) (emphasis mine):
The guidelines and prohibitions you suggest were (and are) already in place. They haven’t worked. The culture is corrupt. Well-connected white men violate drug laws, even while employed by the Court, and charges are dismissed. We see that in Mr. MacLean’s case, and for that matter we see a similar pattern in the history of Jared Remy. In my view, the only reasonable conclusion is that, at least until this cultural problem is solved, much stronger prohibitions are needed.
“Assume the positive and require the negative to be proven” is a vital component of a criminal justice system. It is prescription for disaster when applied to the recruiting process. I suggest that your “absolute principle” requires some serious adjustments for context.
In particular, it appears to need some moderation based on wisdom gained from experience in recruiting and management.
Christopher says
You appear to have a solid case against Mr. MacLean. I still think, however, that hanging a sign on state agencies that says No Family Members Need Apply is just as wrong as No Irish Need Apply or anything else. In both cases you are prejudging and prepared to discriminate on the basis of something other than one’s qualifications for the job.
Christopher says
Isn’t the management of agencies in such things as hiring/firing more of an executive rather than legislative function? Maybe one advantage to having a GOP Governor is he can insist on some changes without regard to intraparty politics.
rcmauro says
Well . . . your example is writing software, and there it would be pretty hard to slot in someone who’s just “someone’s niece” or whose “parents gave to my campaign.” Not that IT companies don’t have their own problems (as some of the horrific stories coming out of Silicon Valley lately would illustrate).
Then there are all the “make-Power-Point-go-to-client-meeting” businesses, where I would contend there’s just as much nepotism outside government as inside. You mean you never worked with the boss’s kids, or noticed that all the executives played lacrosse with the boss at Dartmouth?
Where I really see the pernicious effects of patronage in state government is that in order to keep the racket going, there have to be a large number of unskilled openings at all levels. And here I mean both the ward heeler’s cousin’s cousin’s son who’s now an administrative assistant at some agency, and the big donor’s daughter who just graduated from BC and is now a “policy analyst” churning out useless documents somewhere else. And if they stay there long enough they become managers and break that $100,000 mark so they can be called “hacks” by Howie Carr. Not that this doesn’t happen in the private sector! It does, and I suspect a thousand times more! But all of this makes state government bloated, throws sand in the gears, and works against the kind of technological efficiencies that you might see in some private companies (because of $$, let’s admit it). You have to keep a lot of bodies employed in state government in order to absorb the types I just mentioned, and that works against efforts to build new technology or remove redundant people and processes.
SomervilleTom says
I certainly make no claim that government has a monopoly on these kinds of abuses.
For all its issues, the market still offers at least some pushback to restrain such cultures in a private company. If the MBTA had been a private concern, it would have been dissolved in 2009 (according to the D’Alessandro report). We must also make a distinction between publicly held and privately held companies as well — stockholders of a publicly held company arguably have a louder voice at preventing such abuses than any party in government or in privately-held businesses.
We are learning, right now, just how little voice voters have in correcting the corruption that pervades Massachusetts government.