Deval Patrick talked about changing the Big Dig Culture, and involving the grassroots as a means of governing. So it wasn’t a big surprise when he got criticized for meeting with über-lobbyist Tom O’Neill during the campaign; or that Tim Murray took some heat and had to cancel a breakfast with the same on Friday; or that Patrick has been criticized for planning (or allowing to be planned, whatever) an expensive, corporate-funded inaugural.
Although it’s true that O’Neill and Associates represent a wide variety of interests (do a search on “O’Neill”), from Bechtel to environmental groups to Chris Gabrieli’s Mass2020. Doesn’t matter. If you’re waiting for me to jump to the defense of Patrick and Murray on this issue, you’ll be waiting a long time. I’m not gonna.
Let’s have this discussion. Let’s talk about who has influence on Beacon Hill — and by extension, who does not. Are lobbyists bearing campaign-finance gifts now politically toxic? Does a governor now get screaming headlines in the Herald for meeting with them? Are we willing to set the bar that high?
Why the hell not?
But please, please, please, professional media-folk: Don’t just make Patrick and Murray pay for not living up to their own vaunted standards, and let all the other pigs feed at the trough. Hold the legislature, AG, and Sec. of State to the same high standard. If it’s unseemly for Tim Murray to have a breakfast with O’Neill & Assoc. (for example), what does that say about the longstanding “relationships” — including the legalized bribery of campaign contributions — that lobbyists have built up with other public servants over the years?
Let’s not have a double-standard: high for Patrick and Murray, low for everyone else just because they don’t aspire to anything better. Let’s have a uniformly high standard of transparency and responsiveness.
Shoot, let’s have some screaming headlines — just spread ’em around fairly, for everyone who deserves it.
Brian Burke, who was appointed to the technology advisory board of Patrick’s transition team, worked so hard to get the state to reject open source software he forced one CIO to quit (Peter Quinn) and got he other one to bar him from his office (Louis Gutierrez).
<
p>
No surprise he co-opted Bill “the Shill” Galvin and got him to speak against open source. I don’t know Senator Pacheco, but he held a hearing on the subject of the state’s new technology standards, trying to put the breaks on open source. Senator Michael Morrissey went the farthest sponsoring an amendment to a business stimulus package; the amendment would have virtually eliminated the ITD’s power to make decisions, putting that authority into the hands of Galvin and a “task force.”
<
p>
Mark
<
p>
don’t elect them.
<
p>
I don’t get this. All this stuff, to which people are raising objections, now seems at best symbolic. There are no actual directives or appointments or policies or laws involved.
<
p>
It just doesn’t seem helpful to transfer the old double bind for women (whores or saints) into the political arena. It feeds into the “what’s the use” crowd’s perpetuation of the status quo.
… once the checks get written. And checks will be written — certainly for the inauguration. Aren’t you at least curious to know who’s writing those?
<
p>
Sorry, but I think you’re the one presenting a false choice: “Perfectionism” vs. lobbyist-rule. But if you don’t ask for higher standards from anyone, guess what? You won’t get them. As I said, let’s hold Patrick & Murray to their own stated high standards, but let’s not limit it to them alone.
Patrick’s platform is ambitious. Some of achieving it depends on his reputation. Are we will willing to sacrifice some of that reputation over luncheon appointments and inauguration expenses?
<
p>
Honestly, if we are really, really concerned about corruption how about worrying about LA-02 and Bill Jefferson? How about worrying about Rep. Allan Mollahan being chosen as chair of the panel overseeing the FBI? Let’s be substantive here.
<
p>
The media seems to like destroying Liberals. (Who was it again who invented the Internet?) Could you perhaps wait until you detect an actual conflict of interest, an actual problem with Patrick before creating a Big Worry?
Deval Patrick is going to have to earn his good reputation, every last scrap of it. I happen to think he’s capable of doing that. That’s why I like the tone of the coverage so far.
<
p>
You don’t raise standards by comparing your guy to the worst people in Congress. How about bringing up some real role models instead?
I’m not comparing Patrick to the worst people in Congress. I’m comparing your position to a more concrete one that actually opposes actual corruption and influence peddling as opposed to imagined corruption and imagined influence peddling. (Man, I think you don’t read me carefully. Slow down or something. Piu adagio.) If you really care about this influence stuff and about reputation, why aren’t you asking our delegation about Jefferson and Mollahan? Why are you worrying about luncheon appointments?
<
p>
This site wrings its hands about the disappearing Republicans. Fine, but if you are going to jump to negative conclusions at the first hint, what the heck do we need Republicans for?
It’s simple.
Knowing who exerts what influence is the first step in bringing our elected officials and representatives in line with the majority of the voters.
<
p>
Patrick’s technology team pairs Louis Gutierrez, who banned Brian Burke from his office, with Burke himself. There may be a political reason for Burke’s presence on the team.
<
p>
People should know that Burke, lobbying for Microsoft, tried to get legislation passed to change how our state’s government does business. Senator Michael Morrissey aided and abetted him. This may be business as usual, but transparency is necessary for responsiveness.
<
p>
Power to the people,
<
p>
Mark