Why wouldn’t he? What again did he do wrong? Putting it in context I am not sure how he can be reprimanded. He’s allowed discretion. Hiring people suggested by politicians is not an abuse of discretion. He’s performed his job responsibilities. Because Mulligan and a few others don’t like his style that’s too bad.
Mulligan, the sanctamonious bastard, is a judge because he’s from a politically connected family. (Remember Boston corporation counsel Joe Mulligan.) Judge Mulligan was interviewed for the story in which he bitched and moaned about O’Brien. It was clear from his quotes he does not like the guy. It was also clear the Judge Mulligan was aware of what the Globe reported. So again, why act now?
Hey Judge Mulligan; who hires all the court officers and security guards in the courts around the Commonwealth? Are you saying your Honor, that none of those hires were made with some prodding of a rep or senator? You never take a call from a politician and then try to accomodate? How about an audit of all the court employees you have hired? Let’s see who’s who through out your dynasty.
Nowhere in the Spotlight series do we see any evidence of corruption. His decisions maybe questionable. But show me a consistent pattern of abuse please. Not a consistent hiring pattern of the politically connected. If that is the problem then Judge Mulligan should go too.
Here’s the money quote from Maggie Marshall
“We are deeply concerned with not only the proper administration of the Probation Department, but with how such reports may affect the public’s perception of the integrity of all aspects of the judicial branch,”
In other words Jack O’Brien ‘s job hirings should not have become public. Because it did they must now act? Sorry judge, that reason does not cut it. By the way Judge, did you have anyone make a call for you when you were in the running fdor the SJC post? Would it have been unethical if you did? What about your fellow judges? Who did they know. What about Judge Cordy?
Where do we draw the line? I guess good patronage is alright but bad patronage is not and like porno we know it when we see it.
Perhaps the court will come up with a definition of patronage and a formular for the percenatge of patronage hires within the probation department. Sort of like a Roe v. Wade trimester reasoning. Result oriented. Just like the SJC likes.
P.S. Expect Petro to lose that lame Spaker Pro tem title come January. This is just what Booby D. needs to rid himself of Petro.
P.S.S. How much of this Spotlight thing was Johnny Rogers doing? A cape house thief yelling about abuse. Another fraud.
He can sue all wants, he’s toast. When the Independent Counsel/Special Master & investigators start poking around at the offices of Mr. Obrien’s probation fiefdom, is there really any doubt they will turn up a mountain of dirt? I’d expect that before too long the fallen commissioner will be thinking about spending his legal $$$$ more on defense…unless, of course, he can figure out a way to get the state to pay for it all. It is tough luck though to go down so hard for things one had done pretty much openly for such a long time, and are done done (at least to some degree) by virtually every able pol in the state. All things in moderation, probably is a lesson here.
<
p>The reason this is wrong is because people should not be at a disadvantage when seeking employment in probation just because they didn’t go to BC, earn a favor from King Tom, or fork over the cash to Prince Petro- not that there is anything wrong with going to BC.
All this ‘discretionary hiring’ – isn’t it a sort of stop gap?
<
p>I realize this may work differently in the courts, as they like EVERYTHING to be special for them, but for ordinary state job postings, the jobs are always sort of ‘temporary’ until the grades come out for the next civil service exam, to the held the Twelvth of Never.
<
p>Instad of blowing cash on a whitewash..INVESTIGATION! STUDY! SERIOUS INQUIRY WITH REALLY STERN FACES!…why don’t we just administer a couple of tests?
<
p>If the hack hires pass, mazel tov. If they fail, goodbye.
<
p>It’s cheap. It’s simple. It’s even scandal free.
<
p>So why not?
Shouldn’t probation be with the Department of Public Safety just like Parole and Corrections? Wouldn’t this allow for coordinated oversight?
<
p>It also serves the purpose of putting management in the hands of the governor whose performance in managing this agency is subject to election by the voters. If the Governor’s management fails, if the Governor lards the agency up with patronage appointments that are ineffective, we as the voters can turn him out.
<
p>Until we have this change, there will be a constant battle between the courts and the judiciary for control – the courts and judges themselves have not been immune to larding up with patronage.
<
p>Why should judges, not public safety professionals, have overall responsibility for management as long as their is judicial oversight of decisions that affect individuals?
You’re sort of on to it here… it is all about control. Everyone is saying “Give it to me; I know how to do it”. But make no mistake, this is just about jobs, and who gets to fill them.
<
p>I’m a big Gov supporter, but you can’t say this administration has been patronage free. His hiring of supporters is not much different than O’Brien doing it…
<
p>I don’t know what the best plan is here, but saying this is about good government is naive… it’s about who gets to appoint the thousands of jobs of probation.
But, for most people, the issues are transparency, oversight, and accountability.
<
p>Patronage, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad. There are thousands of qualified people in both the private and public sector who got their jobs through patronage (they call it “networking” in the private sector).
<
p>I do believe that the political accountability that rests with the governor provides the public with a greater degree of oversight than vesting this function with judges who are appointed for life and have little or no regard for fiscal or programmatic oversight of any kind.
I know it looks like O’Brien is being picked on, but every agency and department in the Commonwealth deserves this type of scrutiny.
<
p>I bet this state could operate with 33% fewer state employees and NO ONE would realize any reduction in service.
<
p>Patronage in MA … it’s THAT bad.
Oh shep. You’re so predictable. We’ve been here all along, and we always say pretty much the same thing when things like this probation story come along: that hackery is bad, that it hurts whichever party practices it, and that we are therefore against it from our side as well as the other side.
<
p>Sure, it would be great to scrutinize every agency the way you describe. But as you well know, the results would be far less impressive in most agencies. Sure, you’d find some questionable hires. But there’s a reason the Globe chose probation for its six-month review.
<
p>As for your 33% number, well, we all know by now that you just kinda made it up. Feel free to back it up with some actual data or something … I won’t hold my breath.
<
p>Margaret Marshall and Judge Mulligan want to run probation with all its goodies. Perhaps Margaret whispered in the ear of her pulitzer prize winning New York Times big shot husband Anthony Lucas and the next thing you know Morrisey Blvd. gets a call from New York “suggesting” a Spotlight topic.
<
p>Don’t kid yourself David about the reslults in other agencies being far less impressive.
Just how long has eb3 been working in probation… It’s kind of refreshing to see someone be this open in standing up for the hackocracy. Also depressing,
These posts are consistent with my long time stance against frauds. In this case Mulligan and Marshall. They want what O’Brien has. Plain and simple. O’Brien is what he is. Mulligan and Marshall are something other than what they claim to be.
<
p>Frauds
Aside from her ideology, and leadership in Goodridge?
You of course notice the choice to replace O’Brien is someone from her office. The guy that lost the job to O’Brien years a go.
<
p>Any sour grapes here perhaps.
<
p>But of course her guy is more ethical. Her and Mulli are on the high road here. Like always.
<
p>I wonder if her hubby Anthony Lucas did her bidding with the New York Times who then called the Globe about O’Brien.
<
p>Just saying.
I don’t read the cases that come down everyday (advace sheets) so I don’t have an opinion of her ideology. Goodridge is one case on one issue which divided the Court. Not enough to judge.
<
p>But as to her off the bench actions here, they suck.
Glad to see you letting that hack flag fly, eb3.
<
p>It does make your anti-woman anti-gay point of view a little more understandable. Intolerance and cronyism appear to be a point of pride for hack-kind.
Both parties can’t be wrong huh?
<
p>Hmmmmm.
Let me remind you of your defense of O’Brien and cronyism in this very diary:
<
p>
While I understand drinking on the job is not only tolerated, but encouraged, in the hackoracay, you really shouldn’t drink and post. Failing that, you should bug Mr. O”Brien to buy you a spelling and grammar checker.