Finneran was a very powerful man in 2001. With a Republican governor in a state controlled by Democrats, he had no rival. His style of ruling did not tolerate dissent. He wasn’t someone who agreed to disagree. He wasn’t someone who respected opinions that differed with his. In his house you had to vote with him, on every issue, or there were severe repercussions. Committee memberships, fundraising, earmarking, and office space were all tools of his power. He was smart and skilled and was able to bend the state house to his will. He kept on winning his battles, year after year. He didn’t think he could lose.
In 2001, several voters’ rights groups fought the redistricting plan approved by Finneran’s house. They claimed the redistricting hurt minority groups. I don’t think that the minority groups were Finneran’s target. Minorities were just collateral damage as Finneran re-wrote districts to eliminate his foes and reward friends. Look at the original plan in October of 2001 – there were clear winners and losers, and the losers were reps who opposed Finneran.
Finneran thought that the lawsuit couldn’t harm him. His redistricting might be overturned, but that would be the worst of it. That is where Finneran finally made a mistake that could hurt him. He failed to realize that he was in an arena where he didn’t write the rules. In the state house, he could always make it so that his way was the right way. The federal courthouse was in his state, but it wasn’t in his jurisdiction.
He took the stand in 2003. He lied. He lied repeatedly. He brazenly said that he didn’t approve the redistricting plan. He said that he didn’t give input for it. He said that he had never seen the plan. He claimed not to even remember the name of the district that he represented. He took an oath to tell the truth, and he lied.
It finally caught up with him, and he pleads guilty. Now he’s a felon. He paid a $25,000 fine. He lost his job.
But his severance package is four times as large as his fine, and he already has a new job at WRKO. I guess it’s a punishment, but not much of one.
As the week’s events unfolded, I found myself wondering if he’d changed. Did he learn from any of this? Is he humbled? Did he learn the error of his ways? I looked to his statement on the courthouse steps: “At a very young age, my mother, who is now 86, taught me to admit my mistakes clearly and without hesitation, and I have passed that lesson on to my own two daughters. Today I acknowledge, clearly and without any hesitation, my errors in judgment concerning my conduct in court on that day.”
Actions in 2001, perjury in 2003, admission of guilt in 2007. That qualifies as “without any hesitation”? Those aren’t the words of someone who has learned his lesson. Those are the words of someone who still thinks that he can make something false become true, just by saying it is so.
Crossposted on http://www.dandunn.o…
the court found that Finneran did not discriminate.
<
p>
You really have an axe to grind. Did you lose a nice office space? You don’t like him because he had power and used it to promote his policies. You did not like his policies, and hence you did not like him. Grow up Dunster.
From the post:
<
p>
<
p>
No one’s calling Finneran a racist here, Ernie. But he did lie in federal court, which is generally frowned upon.
Kudos on the post Dunster. Very well written and honest.
<
p>
Ernie,
<
p>
I don’t know what you read, was it this same post? Perhaps your point of view is the one that may be biased by your feelings for Finneran. Maybee he cut you some sort of tax break for one of your dealership đŸ˜‰
is the tone of the comment and many others, including Globe editorial.
<
p>
Tom Finneran used the powers allowed by the state constitution, General Laws, and House rules to advance his policies and politics. Many of these policies were not popular in some circles, thus he became unpopular with those people.
<
p>
But now those same people say in a round-about way say he had it coming. His legislative history is evidence of a pattern of corruption.
<
p>
This to me is scary. When a government official uses his power for albeit unpopular issues, is that evidence of corruption? What does that say to other elected officials who dare use the powers given them to promote their policies.
<
p>
Tom Finneran had a target on his back, that is scary.
<
p>
I could not care less about him personally. However, the ability of a public official to use discretion and inherent power to promote legitimate yet unpopular policies has taken a serious blow and sends a chilling message to a population of “free people”.
<
p>
The Globe points to Clean Elections (tax payer funded elections) and his Republican help in winning the speakership. Sooooooooooooooo
is the tone of the comment and many others, including Globe editorial.
<
p>
Tom Finneran used the powers allowed by the state constitution, General Laws, and House rules to advance his policies and politics. Many of these policies were not popular in some circles, thus he became unpopular with those people.
<
p>
But now those same people say in a round-about way say he had it coming. His legislative history is evidence of a pattern of corruption.
<
p>
This to me is scary. When a government official uses his power for albeit unpopular issues, is that evidence of corruption? What does that say to other elected officials who dare use the powers given them to promote their policies.
<
p>
Tom Finneran had a target on his back, that is scary.
<
p>
I could not care less about him personally. However, the ability of a public official to use discretion and inherent power to promote legitimate yet unpopular policies has taken a serious blow and sends a chilling message to a population of “free people”.
<
p>
The Globe points to Clean Elections (tax payer funded elections) and his Republican help in winning the speakership. Sooooooooooooooo
Ernie,
<
p>
Tommy is a crook. He is corrupt as the day is long. He plead guilty of pergury and he did this to avoid being found guilty of screwing with the redistricting to favor his friends. I am pretty sure those aren’t included in his “powers allowed by the state constitution, General Laws, and House rules”. He was also tied to many other crooks, like Billy Bulger.
<
p>
Yes his positions were unpopular with some, but that does not appear to be the only motivation to me. And don’t forget that he didn’t just disagree with you, he tried to embaris you. Remember when the Pats were trying to get public funding for the new stadium? (For the record, I am a huge Pats fan but agreed with Tommy’s position, no sports teams should have stadiums built with public money) After winning that battle, he showed up for the Southie breakfast with a Pats shirt on and did a speach that had the sole purpose of embarising Bob Kraft. That attitude of “not only am I going to beat you up, but I am going to spit and piss on you while your on the ground” is why so many people dislike the man.
<
p>
So as far as your arguement about what this will do to other politicians, I hope it teaches them to be better winners instead of trying to rub the other guys nose in it.
As the former ED for one of the voting rights groups involved in the redistricting lawsuit, it should be noted that one of the districts that Finneran racially gerrymandered (and let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what it was) was his own.
<
p>
He moved 5,000 Black voters out the Mattapan portion and replaced them with 5,000 white voters from Milton. He then took the original 5,000 and packed them into other districts of color. The removal and packing of voters based on race is a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Period. That’s why the districts were ordered to be re-drawn.
<
p>
He also redistricted a Republican Rep out of her elected seat by completely eliminating her district and slicing it up among the 3 Lowell Dems. That’s actually legal in our system. What he did in Boston was not.
<
p>
So, why did he do it? Is he a racist? I have no proof one way or another. What I do know is what he orchestrated behind the scenes during the redistricting process. And I also know that in his own district, the blank votes in his uncontested race had reached nearly 45% by 2000. That’s a pretty big statement by voters.
<
p>
Finneran took it upon himself to try and stop that potentially embarrassing trend. It didn’t work and the voters of the 12th Suffolk district had their voices heard in the 2005 special. The fact that Finneran was so drunk with power that he felt he could lie to Federal judges and get away with it speaks for itself.
yes. At least with respect to the 12th Suffolk. As part of winning the case against the illegal redistricting, the district was re-drawn to return the 5,000 Black voters and unpack neighboring districts (including the 6th Suffolk). The lawsuit focused on illegal redistricting in Boston and Chelsea. You can contact MassVOTE and the Lawyers’ Committee in Boston if you want to see before and after maps.
<
p>
Unfortunately, what happened to Carol Cleven, while quite wrong, was legal. The courts have said repeatedly that partisan gerrymandering is ok. See Texas for the most obvious example. Obviously, I don’t agree, but the courts don’t take cues from me. The only reason some of the Texas districts were re-drawn recently was because of Voting Rights Act violations against Latino voters. Otherwise, there’s nothing you can do to challenge partisan redestricting in court.
Thanks for all the comments.
<
p>
Ernie: First, please go back and read what I actually wrote about race, not what you thought I would write.
<
p>
Second: “You did not like his policies, and hence you did not like him.” My writing failed me here, because I didn’t make my point clearly enough. I’ll try again in this comment.
<
p>
Whether I agree with Finneran’s positions or not, I strongly disapprove of his management style. I believe that his take-no-prisoners, brook-no-disagreement style of government inhibits good decision making. I don’t want decisions made on the basis of “winning” or “losing” an argument. I don’t want decisions made on the basis of who suggested the solution. I want decisions made on the basis of what is best for the commonwealth and its citizens. That means listening to everyone and creating the best solution.
<
p>
If Finneran and I were ideologically identical I would have the same complaints. I would decry his tactics and hold him to a higher standard. In fact, I’m more likely to agree with Finneran than DiMasi on matters of policy. But I am much happier (so far) with DiMasi’s style.
<
p>
I’m not suggesting that Finneran’s tactics were illegal. I do think they were (are) inappropriate. I also think that people who use those tactics lose sight of what is important and only see “the grand game.” That loss of perspective is what got him in hot water – and he reaped as he sowed.