The Committee for Pulic Counsel Service sent out a Constant Comment email saying, among other things: “We understand the frustration and concern this delay has caused for many of you, and because of this we will work as quickly as possible to pay your outstanding FY 2016 bills,’’ the committee noted in the e-mail. Of course, you would think all the data was input long ago and just waiting for a Supplemental Budget to be passed. Note that the Committees employees did not have a month plus of payless pay days for work already done like court appointed attorneys. I note that the rate the state pays is 1/5 the rate for my private pay work. But I do it because it matters. Still, it would be nice to get paid timely.
So the State House News reported that a caller managed to reach Baker directly on the Braude show about not being paid for $6000 grand of work she had already done. And rumor [also known as the State house News, picked up by the Globe] is that then Baker signed the supplemental budget shortly after being questioned live during that Thursday afternoon show about the issue. I heard, and the State House News reported that in fact a woman called WGBH’s “Boston Public Radio” with Jim Braude and Margery Eagan to grill Baker.
According to the Globe, what she said was something like “Why is it that every single year, the Legislature has to vote on a supplemental budget to cover these costs?” the woman asked Baker. “I mean, it’s a constitutional right for poor people to have representation.”
She said the state owes her family more than $6,000, and they could not pay their bills.
“I was thinking of sending you a bill to cover the late fees and interest charges that we’re incurring,” she said on the radio show.
Baker said the woman was raising “an absolutely legitimate point” and promised to try to get the supplemental passed before the end of the month. He also said a supplemental budget for about $30 million has already been filed for fiscal 2017, in hopes that it would pass early, and payments could be made regularly throughout the year.
“This is a huge issue and a big problem,” he said. “I apologize on behalf of the Commonwealth.’’ I love that Baker is reported to have apologized. I do not remember Romney apologizing for a several month payment wait, or DeLeo. Or for anything, actually, ever. Apology followed by doing the right thing is good stuff. Way to go Baker. Next step: Fix the problem and treat those who represent the indigent with respect. Those attorneys who take court appointments are often the worst paid folks in any courtroom.
tedf says
This is an important issue, and you’re right to give credit where credit is due. May I say, my favorite thing about the post is that you wrote “Constant Comment” for “Constant Contact.” Constant Contact is some kind of email software. Constant Comment is my favorite tea, and maybe yours too?
SomervilleTom says
I’ve been making the same mistake (“Constant Comment” instead of “Constant Contact”) for as long as the email company has existed, and I’m in the business. I, frankly, think it’s a TERRIBLE name for that very reason.
I need to say that I also have no use for the spam company. I wish there was a way to say to “Constant Contact” that I want NO mail from them on behalf of any of their clients.
Christopher says
They are used by plenty of legitimate organizations whose email lists from which you can legitimately unsubscribe.
SomervilleTom says
Constant Contact is a company that makes its profit by sending bulk emails, 90% of which are unwanted, on behalf of third parties in exchange for payment from those third parties. The “unsubscribe” link is present because it is required by law.
We actually don’t know what uses CC makes of the email addresses it collects. We know that those lists are enormously valuable. We know that the ToS of their customers (those click-through agreements that NOBODY reads) allow CC to do whatever they like. We don’t know what CC does with the lists because we lack the regulations and regulators needed to find out.
So what we have is a company that is paid to collect and retain enormous volumes of email addresses from third parties with the explicit purpose of sending bulk email distributions to email addresses collected from those third parties. I’m sorry, but that’s “spam”, whether or not there’s an unsubscribe link at the bottom of a given email.
Oh, and by the way, clicking on that link does NOT remove your address from the CC database and does NOT prevent CC from selling it. It only stops email from the specific third-party that commissioned the email you use to unsubscribe.
There is an old joke in my industry that goes “A ‘feature’ is a documented bug”. I agree that the customers of Constant Contact are legitimate companies, and I agree that CC (the acronym is not accidental) stays within the law.
CC is still a spam provider — it’s just perfectly legal spam. Kind of like the “legal corruption” that is so well established here in the Massachusetts political system.
Christopher says
Anything I’ve received from Constant Contact has been either for lists to which I have subscribed or it might be reasonable to believe I would be interested in (say, out-of-state political campaigns). If the latter, I unsubscribe and don’t hear from that provider again. True spam in my view is the blatant attempt by a “Nigerian prince” to acquire your SSN for the purposes of transferring a too-good-to-be-true sum of money into your bank account. Unsolicited and spam are not exact synonyms and my email account at least does a near-perfect job of telling the difference based on what it sends to my inbox vs. what it sends to my spam folder.
SomervilleTom says
I agree that nothing from CC compares to the various Nigerian banker scams.
For me, “spam” means “unsolicited”. It is exactly the same as the rubbish I get in my mailbox (and have to throw away) and thrown on my porch by “Globe Direct“.