Just received at BMG central:
JOINT STATEMENT OF SENATORS MOORE AND BARRIOS
Yesterdayâs event surrounding the school nutrition bill was unfortunate, and reflected errors in judgment by both of our staffs. After investigating the matter, we have both concluded that this was a misunderstanding. Together, we have been able to resolve this internal matter and move forward.
That’s all, folks. Apparently, Senator Moore is satisfied, and both Senators have refused further comment. But it does leave one wondering a couple of things. First, were the reports of what actually happened accurate? Second, if so, why was a Barrios staffer at a computer in Senator Moore’s office with two lobbyists? Third, is this staffer still working for Barrios, or have any other changes been made? We do pay these people’s salaries, after all.
Just askin’…
How about this? A possible minor breach of protocol was blown up into a purported Watergate-scope criminal enterprise while anyone paying attention overlooked the real story here – the State Senate, embarrassed by a Boston Globe article saying that nothing was getting done on Beacon Hill because of the health care deadlock, rushed out a piece of public health legislation that looks suspiciously like it was crafted by the special interest beverage industry, without even giving public health advocates a chance to weigh in. Nothing that was reported about this matter has any connection to what really happened, and the facts won’t come out because they are really embarrassing to people other than Senator Barrios. Whatever problems you may have with Senator Barrios, he courageously took a stand with public health advocates against a reprehensible piece of big business sponsored special interest legislation that should embarrass anyone interested in good government. Barrios wasn’t going to get any political chits out of this to begin with, and now he is getting whacked by the blogosphere for his efforts. Take a look at the legislation that has thankfully been shelved for the time being, and think about what we on the left want from our government before you go back to irresponsibly whacking Barrios. For the record, I don’t live in Senator Barrios’ district, nor am I involved in his campaign, and I know and have the greatest respect for Jerry Leone. I just think people are missing the big picture here.
No one’s irresponsibly whacking anyone, nor do I have any problem with Barrios or any idea what his position was on this bill or what the contents of the amendments that were supposedly emailed off of Moore’s computer might have beben. If you have any information to share on what “really happened,” please feel free to do so. But don’t take shots at me for reading the paper.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
and we wish you would.
Let me try this again – The underlying legislation, rushed out for political reasons, represented the beverage industry’s position on school nutrition issues, and completely bypassed public health advocates. The whole story about a break-in of Senator Moore’s computer was a smokescreen (now called a “misunderstanding” by Senator Moore) to mask the reprehensible, special interest legislation that the Senate was prepared to pass, but for Senator Barrios’ opposition. That is the real story here. I am not going to inflate the smokescreen any more than the blogosphere has already inflated it, because that only detracts from what is really a prime example of how our State Legislature, nominally Democratic, is all too often a pawn in the hands of special interests. I’m old enough to remember a time when this kind of corporate influence would aggravate the Left, but I guess those days are gone.
While I don’t know either Senators or the Senator’s staffer, and am not from Massachusetts, I think I have a sense of the politics behind the Senate bill.
<
p>
I support the getting junk food and soda out of schools and so was surprised by the Senate bill because it tracked so closely the industry guidelines put out by the American Beverage Association (“ABA”). (I specifically support the MPHA in its efforts).
<
p>
Going to his webpage, I learned (unless my pre-morning coffee eyes are deceiving me) that Richard T. Moore (D-Uxbridge) represents Worcester, home of Polar Beverages. Polar’s head is ABA Chairman of Ralph Crowley.
<
p>
Ralph’s brother Chris is the head of the state soda association. Chris reports that he and Ralph –both are said to be very classy and conscientious folks — are hiding in their foxholes. You likely won’t see them quoted any more. He and his brother, in their respective roles, were just looking to do their civic duty in leading the state and national trade association.
<
p>
But while I’m sure they supported Senator Moore’s bill, maybe they’ll have a change of heart and agree to its withdrawal. I’ve asked Senator Moore to withdraw it given that he appears to just be serving the interest of a business-constituent that is being passed it off as a health measure. France and England are going junk food and soda free in public schools. The US should do so on a nationwide basis so attention can be focused on other pressing health issues. At the very least, states like Mass., Conn, Rhode Island and Idaho that have pending bills should see things through without compromising on kids’ health.
<
p>
Just last year Polar had incredible graphics on their website encouraging kids to have their mom take a picture of them and their friends at school building a pyramid with soda cans. But then they took it down.
<
p>
I certainly don’t think it is improper for the Senator representing Worcester to advance a bill favoring a local business.
And I am no less disinterested — having long advocated that public schools be rid of junk food and soda throughout the world.
<
p>
http://www.schoolpouringrights.com
<
p>
But I agree with both commenters that it helps to have a clear picture of things — both as to the facts and the bigger political picture.
<
p>
Indeed, if the bill is not withdrawn today, I’m sure we’ll learn much more.
David this ran in the Metro West today:
<
p>
No action to be taken against Barrios staffer
By Emelie Rutherford/ Daily News Staff
Friday, February 17, 2006 – Updated: 08:32 AM EST
<
p>
BOSTON — State Sen. Richard Moore is not taking action against a staffer of state Sen. Jarrett Barriosâ who strode into Mooreâs office with another person Wednesday and e-mailed documents tied to a junk food bill to Barriosâ office without Mooreâs knowledge.
<
p> After a day of State House speculation over how the Wednesday flap that angered Moore would play out, the two senatorsâ offices released a joint statement late yesterday afternoon saying they resolved the matter. It said:
<
p> “Yesterdayâs event surrounding the school nutrition bill was unfortunate, and reflected errors in judgment by both of our staffs. After investigating the matter, we have both concluded that this was a misunderstanding. Together, we have been able to resolve this internal matter and move forward.”
<
p> Several hours before the statement was released yesterday, Helen Flaherty, chief of staff to Moore, D-Uxbridge, said the senator likely would file a complaint with the Senate Committee on Ethics and Rules if Barriosâ office didnât apologize.
<
p> Moore and Barrios, D-Cambridge, could not be reached for comment yesterday. Their tight-lipped spokespeople refused to comment at all–even to confirm if an apology was given.
<
p> Barrios is running for Middlesex district attorney.
<
p> The Barrios staffer has not been fired and no complaints have been filed with the Senate Ethics committee or the state Ethics Commission, sources said.
<
p> “They have resolved it among themselves,” said Ann Dufresne, spokeswoman for Senate President Robert Travaglini and the Senate Ethics committee.
<
p> The incident happened late Wednesday afternoon as senators debated a bill to limit sugary and fatty snacks sold in school vending machines.
<
p> According to multiple sources, the Barrios staffer and an employee of a health association (who is not a lobbyist) entered Flahertyâs office when it was empty, accessed a computer in the office and e-mailed an amendment the association had worked on with Moore back to Barriosâ office.
<
p> Moore has said he was upset about the uninvited use of the office and computer–not that Barriosâ office obtained an electronic copy of the amendment.
<
p> “If they had asked we probably would have been happy to cooperate,” Moore told the Associated Press Wednesday night.
<
p> Moore had decided not to offer the amendment, which would make the junk food ban more restrictive than what was before the Senate, but Barrios had agreed to offer it.
<
p> Moore confronted Barrios about the incident during a caucus of Senators trying to hash out different proposals for the junk food bill. Travaglini then delayed debate on the legislation for a month.
<
p>