Memo to the Patrick administration: pick up the phone once in a while!

Is that really the lesson? (6.00 / 4)

If you want to orchestrate the hiring of a political ally in a high-paying job, and you want to deny doing it, just make sure that you preserve plausible deniability by conducting your business over the telephone?

TedF

---

by: TedF @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 08:23:25 AM CDT

You've been way to easy on Mr. Rubin (0.00 / 0)

Dear Bob:

It does appear that he has been hard at work behind the scenes advancing some of the reckless and unethical decisions of the administration. Does he get a pass on this site because he posts to this site?

As I said in my post this morning, if arrogance were currency, the administration would have found a way to solve the budget crisis.  

---

by: Ethics Man @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 08:25:51 AM CDT

JQAdams/Ethics Man - didn't Mr. Rubin make a point of reaching out to you? (6.00 / 1)

How is this arrogant?

For me the issue is: is he personally attacking other BMGers. I don't think he is, here. He's just using the word "fag" in a way that is insulting to a whole group of people under the rubric of "discussing it." -- Bob Neer  

---

by: huh @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 02:11:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd like to hear Doug's side (5.00 / 1)

As I wrote in my diary just now, I'd like to hear the other side of the story.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 08:28:29 AM CDT

Sorry for the Delay (6.00 / 2)

In response to the Walsh articles on Saturday, we have been clear and consistent from the outset that the Governor recommended Senator Walsh for appointment to HEFA to perform a specific assignment.  Our determination to expand and improve the way quasi-public agencies support non-profits in obtaining financing -- particularly in this time of unprecedented tightness in the credit markets -- is also a matter of record.

Because this appointment was to accomplish a specific assignment, I wanted to make sure the job description was consistent with what we wanted to accomplish.  This was entirely appropriate and consistent with the Governor's view that no appointment in the administration should be to a job that does not need to be done.  Administration officials were therefore openly involved and in contact with the HEFA board chair and others about our expectations for the agency and Senator Walsh's role in realizing this vision.

Now clearly, we have not done as good a job as we should have in communicating this.  I take full responsibility for that.  As I have said, we don't always get everything right - but that is no excuse, we need to perform better.

On the Secretary Aloisi story, I take David's point about emails.  It is unfortunate that this exchange made the newspaper - the Secretary is working hard on meaningful transportation reform, made even closer by the Senate's passage of reform legislation last week.  However, we have always been an administration that strives to conduct our business in an open and transparent manner, which is why we of course complied with the public information request for these emails.

---

by: Doug Rubin @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 05:58:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for responding... (0.00 / 0)

You were writing this comment while I was composing mine (below).

Thank you for your reply.

It isn't obvious to me, on the face of it, that Ms. Walsh is an obvious fit for the position as you've described it. Your note this morning expresses your "determination to expand and improve the way quasi-public agencies support non-profits in obtaining financing".

Quoting from yesterday's piece by Mr. Phillips (emphasis mine):

The day before the board meeting where Walsh was formally selected, Gonzalez told Caswell that Rubin would create the job description that would be presented to the board. Caswell had already written and sent to Gonzalez a two-page job description for an assistant executive director. But that job description outlined duties that included working to develop new projects and procure new financing, expertise that Walsh did not possess.

It seems to me that if, as you've written above, your priority was to improve the ability of non-profits to obtain financing, and if Ms. Walsh does not possess expertise in procuring financing, then it seems to me that the appointment of Ms. Walsh is inconsistent with your stated priorities.

I'm certainly receptive to a suggestion that Mr. Phillips is mistaken in his rather abrupt summary of the financial expertise of Ms. Walsh. Perhaps some elaboration on the question of her expertise would be helpful.

We do seem to have a conundrum here, don't we?

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:35:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did you really write this? (0.00 / 0)

As claimed in the Globe: "you work for the governor now, and that has to be the one and only priority..." Do you think you could allow serving the public to be added to that list?

Probably you were only trying to make a point, but if you're in the habit of expressing yourself in such absolute terms when you don't think it will be public, you're inviting that 'arrogant' label.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 07:25:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd like a job too (1.50 / 2)

Dear Doug and Governor Patrick:

Please make a job for me, for a very specific purpose that in no way matches the skill set or experience I currently have. You can increase my salary by $100,000. oh, no that's okay.  I will settle for my salary being increased by $45,000.  I don't want to be too greedy when so many other state employees have lost their jobs.  Certainly, you and I can ignore the cost of filling my position.  My current position has to be filled, though the one you are creating for me, has not been filled in many years.

When people complain about what is going on, just tell them  how trivial it is, and when that inflames the situation even more, well just say uncle. The when it come out that that your office totally orchestrated the hiring, after claiming the job was offered from the board of the organization, just backtrack and tel them the importance of how you wanted a certain task to be performed.  Hopefully no one will notice all the back tracking and stories that have been created.

In the end, I would have to refuse that job.  thanks, but no thanks.  I have more integrity than that.

---

by: socialworker @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 09:05:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Doug's Comment (0.00 / 0)

  I am puzzled, Doug.  Just exactly how is Marian Walsh, who knows nothing about the tax-exempt bond market, going to "improve the way quasi-public agencies support non-profits in obtaining financings"?  

 And if the Administration has nothing to hide, why was Allen Larson, the Chairman of the HEFA Board, lying to the public and the media?

 There are two motivations for this whole effort.  The first is to counter bad polling numbers with respect to the public's perception of the Governor's effort to improve the Massachusetts economy.  The second is money.

 The Governor's strategy to improve his image on economic issues is to merge HEFA into MDFA, his economic development arm, and call it 'reform'.  I suspect he will lop of the Executive Directors of the two agencies as well to support his contention that he is making 'change' in the way the state is approaching improving the economic climate.  

 Second, to carry out this strategem, the Administration needs money.  You and a couple of others know that HEFA has cash (true, it is money that came from the community of non-profit institutions but, hey, no one will care as it is confusing and no one pays attention to those sort of things anyway...).  MDFA is cash poor.  Currently, the two authorities compete against each other for the right to do bond issuances, and they compete by cutting their fees to the non-profits in order to be selected.  By elminating the competition fees will no longer be cut - and to support spending at MDFA they may actually be increased. And then there is the HEFA-controlled funds in the bank, well over $20 million.  

 There is nothing noble about this and nothing that will help Massachusetts non-profits. It's about buffing a tarnished image and its about taking the money.

---

by: Choles1 @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 23:47:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Private example (0.00 / 0)

I just read that the CEO of one of the car companies (Chrysler, maybe) does not have any auto experience -- he was previously the head of Home Depot.

Is that a patronage hire too?

Isn't it possible that you don't actually need to be an expert in the tax-exempt bond market to be able to work within an agency to use those bonds to aid non-profits?  

---

by: NoPolitician @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:44:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Chrysler - Great role model (0.00 / 0)

  Is is possible, yes.  Is it likely, no.  I presume one would look at the experience of the person prior to being hired and compare it to all other possible candidates.  Oh, that's right, there were no other candidates.  And, I have googled her track record in the Senate.  Frankly, not much there.

 And, Chrysler as an example...lol.  What is the Italian translation for Chrysler, soon to be an important question for Fiat.

 So, assuming you wanted to hire a person to issue more bonds that 45 states and more bonds than the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the first and only place I would look would be the State Senate.

---

by: Choles1 @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 10:22:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Still a distraction (0.00 / 0)

I think a more important point is that entire episode is a distraction from our more important priorities: (1) transportation infrastructure, (2) health care, and (3) education.

Even if Ms. Walsh were the world's best expert at improving the ability of non-profits to raise money, it would still be a distraction and would still cause problems for Governor Patrick.

I think the public wants to see the Governor and his administration focused on the priorities that the public cares most about.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:18:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Priorities and the Raid on HEFA (0.00 / 0)

Tom:

  I agree.

  It makes one wonder why they are spending hours and hours and all this political capital on a matter that is "trivial".

---

by: Choles1 @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:33:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where is Doug? (0.00 / 0)

Last weekend he was all over the place doing damage control. What's up Doug?

---

by: Ethics Man @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 08:30:05 AM CDT

Aw c'mon folks. (0.00 / 0)

Gimme a break. It's Saturday morning, and I'm just having a little fun. (Plus, Ted, you know I'm right!) I did agree with JimC's point about bad governance, didn't I?  

---

by: David @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 09:06:49 AM CDT

Remember Martin Lomasney? Note the quote in "Trivia" at the link, below (6.00 / 2)

Martin Lomasney was an Irish immigrant who ultimately was one of the delegates to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1917.  He also was a Ward Boss of historic importance in forming the political culture that still endures in Boston; that is why there is a Lomasney Way in Boston - not a common street name.

Anyway, go to:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...  Scroll down to Trivia...and read the following:

Lomasney created a famous saying on the importance of discretion: ""Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink." Eliot Spitzer recently added the warning, "never put it in e-mail."

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 09:15:00 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

the culture takes hold (0.00 / 0)

Is anybody surprised?  Deval's people played the dime-cropping game with DiMasi, then with Cahill.  Naturally they're starting to play it with each other.  

Prediction: the next guy to be embarrassed by leaks from the governor's office will be a Milton Academy alumnus.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 09:23:47 AM CDT

ted kennedy? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: GoldsteinGoneWild @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 10:03:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Doing the impossible. (0.00 / 0)

Patrick is making Cahill look good. Ouch!

---

by: Ethics Man @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 10:35:30 AM CDT

aren't you an open Cahill supporter? (0.00 / 0)

What's that even supposed to mean?

For me the issue is: is he personally attacking other BMGers. I don't think he is, here. He's just using the word "fag" in a way that is insulting to a whole group of people under the rubric of "discussing it." -- Bob Neer  

---

by: huh @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 01:43:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Makes sense to me (0.00 / 0)

Cahill pretty much acts like an idiot.
At the moment, Deval is acting like a bigger idiot.

You picks your poison.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:24:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

that makes sense (0.00 / 0)

thanks

For me the issue is: is he personally attacking other BMGers. I don't think he is, here. He's just using the word "fag" in a way that is insulting to a whole group of people under the rubric of "discussing it." -- Bob Neer  

---

by: huh @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:44:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who's listening now, Doug? (0.00 / 0)

Oops.

I don't trust the context of the Globe's article in the slightest because I have seen them distort facts and events when they have gone after people before. But there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of amateur hour.

Deval, Doug and Co. better get their collective act together in the next year or 2010 will not be a fun election cycle.

---

by: GregR @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 10:40:08 AM CDT

It depends.. (5.00 / 1)

on how you define fun.  

---

by: Ethics Man @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 10:49:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Somebody actually complied with a public records request? (6.00 / 4)

Wow. Amateurs indeed.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 12:49:02 PM CDT

A couple of things (0.00 / 0)

I'm confused about the Governor's aides setting salary and job description.  I thought both would have been statutory.

I personally think Mr. Alosi was within his rights to defend himself here and I would have done likewise in his position.  In this case I think Doug Rubin came across a bit harsh.  Department heads should not have to run all press through the Governor's Office.

---

by: Christopher @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 12:54:28 PM CDT

Secretary Aloisi's post here was not a big deal. (6.00 / 3)

But because the Globe is outraged it has become a big deal.
It is sometimes scary how the media has so much control and power. They can make or break almost anything, just in their persistance with coverage and spin. It seems to me the Globe is perpetuating this story in response to being personally offended. Very immature.

But in light of the whole battle over reform and taxes, it is unfortunate that it appears that Ms. Walsh's job was created for her.  That was not smart.  It will make fighting for Governor Patrick for reelection all the more difficult.  Help us out here, would ya?

It all goes back to defensive politics, and a 99% integrity rate. Although 100% would be the most safe and appreciated.

"Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
-President Lincoln

---

by: liveandletlive @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 13:54:32 PM CDT

my only comment in this thread (0.00 / 0)

is doug rubin should have known better.

I've never said anything inappropriate in an email that hasn't come back to bite me. You just gotta learn not to do it. People would do well to use Deb's Mark 4:22 as their email signature...

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 14:02:58 PM CDT

A member of the governor's staff scolding a gubernatorial appointee (6.00 / 2)

Would seem to be exempt from public disclosure as a "personnel matter". Is there even any ethical concern here? It seems more like gossip material, and not terribly relevant to governance or matters of public concern. Menino would never in a million years have released these types of emails, whether they existed or not.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 14:39:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

When you are on the defensive... (0.00 / 0)

you cannot as easily say no to the paper of record. That is what Patrick's problem is as of today. He has lost the right to fight or he is too worried about the fallout from saying no. In other words....he is spiraling out of control.  

---

by: Ethics Man @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 14:52:28 PM CDT

Poor management! (0.00 / 0)

Looks like Aloisi is a disasterous selection, as many predicted before he took the post.  Walsh looks like an equally terrible move, perhaps worse.  It's such a bad time in the gov's office that the Globe is reporting this stuff; even though they ran it in the Saturday edition as a favor to the gov.  

---

by: JaDem @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 18:00:07 PM CDT

Keystone Cops (0.00 / 0)

Gabrielli would've been a phenomincal governor.

---

by: cater68 @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 18:49:50 PM CDT

Looks like the real lesson (6.00 / 1)

is, leave the PR to the pros. And for goodness sakes, stay off BMG.

I don't like it, but there's a reason why most government (or corporate, or other "official" blogging associated with an organization nor campaign) is so...corporate. On-message. Boring. You know what I mean.

---

by: Trickle up @ Sat Mar 28, 2009 at 22:45:48 PM CDT

Marian Walsh's appointment is the issue (5.50 / 2)

In spite of the Globe's best effort to demonize it, I have no problem with Mr. Rubin spanking Mr. Aloisi in an internal email exchange. The exchange was appropriate, truthful, and is precisely the way I expect an effective chief of staff to maintain discipline in a tough political environment. I think the Globe does Mr. Rubin a favor in publishing the stories.

The Frank Phillips piece on the Marian Walsh appointment is a different matter.

On the face of it, the piece asserts that the truth about how the appointment took place is at wide variance with the public statements, policies, and most of all, the stated values of Governor Patrick's administration. The rub with this appointment, from the very beginning, has been the perception that it was a reward for a long-time supporter.

I hope I am not the only active, loyal progressive Massachusetts Democrat who feels that I am owed an explanation.

I'm listening.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 06:08:06 AM CDT

Doug?. Doug??.... (0.00 / 0)

Hello Rangoon?!!!

---

by: ruppert @ Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 23:33:49 PM CDT

Fair game? (0.00 / 0)

Should such strategy emails be fair game to the press? I understand the need for transparency, but on the other hand, a newspaper's ability to request and publish any email at any time would seem to lead to politicians doing all of their business with untraceable phone calls and personal meetings.

Perhaps emails should only be released if there is an investigation, and then after a certain amount of time.

The Rubin rebuke was just plain muckraking, in my opinion. With any policy making, there are bound to be thoughts or discussions which would be embarrassing or politically damaging. Broadcasting this kind of stuff may sell papers, but it's going to drive things underground.

Did the Globe ever request emails from the Romney administration?  

---

by: NoPolitician @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 09:50:33 AM CDT

Yes! (0.00 / 0)

Email is always fair game to any employer. If you work for SomeGiantConglomerate, Inc., and you send or receive email, that email is available to anyone that executives of SomeGiantConglomerate deem suitable. The people are the employers of government, the people have a right to know, and an aggressively adversarial (to government) press is, however imperfect, the best option we've come up with so far.

There is no email expectation (or right of) privacy.

So my short answer to your question is "yes".

In my view, the potential harm created by shielding material like this (I'm thinking of the Cheney/Bush administration, for example) far outweighs the relatively minor discomfort of published articles like this.

Regarding the rebuke from Mr. Rubin, I'm glad the exchange was published. Mr. Aloisi was, in my opinion, acting -- again -- like a bull in a china cabinet. Mr. Rubin did exactly the right thing, I hope he does the same thing if it happens again, and -- frankly -- I'd add the Globe to the cc list of future such emails.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 10:52:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Public vs. open (0.00 / 0)

I'm not saying it shouldn't be eventually open. However, the extreme position of "openness" of email is that it should all be immediately published for the world to see. It wouldn't cost much to do that, would it?

So what do you think would happen if public email was completely open like that? Do you expect you would find nuggets like the Globe found? Or would everyone stop using it?

---

by: NoPolitician @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 11:16:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But it WASN'T public! (0.00 / 0)

"Eventually"? How long should Dick Cheney be allowed to hide the emails where he directed his staff to create legal defenses of the torture he wanted to institute? How long should Alberto Gonzalez be allowed to hide the emails where he directed his people to hire only right-wing believers?

The distinction is clear enough: personal email, sent and received through personal email accounts that an individual pays for, are private. The individual has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Email, sent and received through email accounts that an employer pays for, is the property of the employer.

A question remains about the status of email that public officials send or receive through private email accounts, where the subject matter is official business. That, too, has a corporate analog: when a person agrees to work for a company, they generally also agree that everything they do that is related to the business of the company belongs to the company.

We can argue about the fairness of all this, but this is, nevertheless, the current state of things. That's why the emails we're discussing here are, and in my view should continue to be, fair game.

I think that when you work for the public, the public in general has a presumptive right to know about anything you do that relates to the public office. That is the basis for our open meeting regulations, it's the reason why congressional investigators can be demand answers to their questions, and it's the basis for freedom-of-information regulations.

I think this is a much better approach than any alternative I've seen.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 08:06:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Missing my point (0.00 / 0)

I think you missed my point too. I understand that the emails are currently obtainable, I understand that work email belongs to the company. My question was "how open should they be", focusing on timeliness and content?

I understand your point, but I don't see any lines in it. So why not publish all state employee emails on the internet for everyone to see? All of them, right as they happen. Make them searchable. Complete openness.

I think that would be bad because people would simply stop using their state employee email for anything.

I'm suggesting that emails should be open to the public after some time period, and they should be open to the public sooner than that time period if perhaps a court agrees that there is a legitimate public interest in them. However, I don't think that what the Globe did with the "rebuke" email was a fair use of the sunshine laws.

---

by: NoPolitician @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 09:42:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No different than open-meeting laws (0.00 / 0)

I think the current approach -- using a FOI request -- is, essentially, what you suggest.

The reason to not "publish all state employee emails on the internet for everyone to see", in my view, is analogous to the reason that meetings are still held in meeting rooms, as opposed to a public square. The goal is to strike a balance between the public's right-to-know and the legitimate need to conduct meetings with some degree of management of the audience and process.

I therefore think that the current FOI approach strikes a reasonable balance. In particular, I think it's better than the alternative you suggest. I think there should be (and is, I think) an exception that can be invoked when a public official wants to argue that there is not a "legitimate public interest" in a particular exchange. In my view, this is tantamount to invoking the various exceptions in the open-meeting laws that allow officials to enter "executive session".

Perhaps the bottom line is that we simply disagree about the Globe's use of the emails. You see it as unfair "muckraking". I see it as revealing an expected and appropriate response of a manager to a subordinate who, intentionally or not, hurt the team and interfered with the mission of the team.

In particular, I'd rather accept the risk of "muck-raking" articles like this from a vigorous fourth-estate than erect even more barriers to transparency in government -- particularly local Massachusetts government.

"If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson

---

by: BrooklineTom @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 11:11:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]