Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

First Lady, Diane Patrick, Esq.

By

It has seemed a bit odd to me that there has not been a more substantive discussion of the role of the First Lady and the responsibilities and contributions of the spouses of officials to elected office.  Maybe it’s because women are undervalued, underpaid and traditionally expected to work constantly for little or no compensation (homemakers, mothering). Mass Commission on Status of Women [http://www.mass.gov/…] are conducting hearings on wage gap.

According to the MCSW’s recent “State of Women: A County By County Report on the Status of

Massachusetts Women & Girls,” women earn less than men in EVERY county of Massachusetts – an average

of 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. The Commission, in collaboration with the Massachusetts

Coalition for Women’s Wage Equality, and state legislators, introduced pay equity legislation for this

legislative session.

Diane Patrick is an extraordinary asset to the Patrick administration [http://www.mass.gov/…]  She is listed at the top of The Team, ahead of the Cabinet.  I expect great things from Ms. Patrick and believe that she should have the tools to accomplish her goals and that of the administration.  Can we have a voice here to support the spouses of elected officials who contribute and sacrifice for the good of the Commonwealth?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Nobody voted for Diane Patrick.  Your expectations aside, Patrick will find himself in great trouble if he attempts to introduce a ‘Hillary’ model to Massachusetts.

    <

    p>
    Mrs. Patrick is a partner in Ropes & Gray – what has prevented her from runing for office, if she wants it?  Why should she enjoy public responsibility without corresponding public scrutiny – of HER, not her husband?

    <

    p>
    I know several female legislators, and the role of their sposue is always a challange.  Would you also support these men being given a portfolio of state business to conduct?

    • Spouses do play a role in campaigns and do often become spokespeople and partners once they have a husband or wife who is elected into office.

      <

      p>
      I mean, what the hell does Laura Bush or Lynne Cheney have to do with anything? Yet, there they are yaping away on the teevee.

      <

      p>
      If spouses were unimportant, they would never be campaign issues, but we all know that every one who runs has his or her family interviewed and scrutinized.  We see Romney holding up his wife as a prop, we see Kerry Healey’s and Shannon O’Brien’s husbands finances and ties questioned.

      <

      p>
      So, yeah I’d prefer a world where a candidates family/spouse was irrelevent to their public service, but we all know that isn’t the world we live in.  So if you want Dianne Patrick to be irrelevent, then someone please get that harpy Lynne Cheney off my screen and someone tell all the candidates to keep thier spouses off the campaign trail.

      <

      p>
      Until that happens, expect spouses to have a role.

      • Here in Mass., we haven’t seen a ‘co-governorship’, not even with Susan Weld or Kitty Dukakis.  Both had causes they were interested in (Kitty was espeically inteesed in Cambodian refugees from Pol Pot, I remember) but neither expected to participate in state government.  And just because we have a Federal precedent, why hsould we import it?

        <

        p>
        Lynne and Laura are at least working on private charities.  would you like to see Lynne presideng over the Senate if Dick is feeling poorly?  This is bad on many levels.

        <

        p>
        BTW – spouses ARE featued in campaigns.  Campaigns have little to do with government.

        • Here are the hits.  I’m getting a wholesale list of states here.  Clicked on the first link for Utah, she has her own dedicated website, click on the Staff link, and she lists 2 people and Director and Manager.  Next state Nevada, 2 people listed again under “Meet the Staff”, Florida has a Chief of Staff, Alabama has a event coordinator as well as an Executive Assistant, Wyoming, Wisconsin .. and that’s just page 1.  I think you get the point.

          • Diane Patrick’s taxpayer funded scheduler may be the first step on a slippery path – and I am WILLING to say ‘may be’, as others are not.  Best case – she is asking for something that should be a part-time job, given that she is not leaving Ropes & Gray.  Frankly, this is why God made interns, who can do a good gob and do not require $72 grand (a typical Chief of Staff, vetting all legislation and arranging and scheduling all public hearings and notifying those who testify for a Committee, is paid about $35,000, to put this in perspective).

            • to have a staff for the first lady.  Why is it an issue is the question?  To say you could have an intern is not have states do, hired staff has been noted here.  You could say that since they hired only a single chief of staff that they have less paid personel than other states.  Why not a pat on the back for not over staffing and only hiring a single paid person?

                • I mean, “Roasty”?

                  <

                  p>
                  Honestly, the salary for a staffer is questionable, but I am not surprised by the desire of the spouse to be involved.  This is nothing new and very common throughout history and the US.

                  <

                  p>
                  I bet if there were a scandal involving Dianne Patrick your party would have used it against Deval during the campaign.  Right?

                  <

                  p>
                  So to expect that spouses are fair game during the campaign but should then shut up once electon day passes is unfair.

                  <

                  p>
                  As long as spouses and family are used as fodder on the campaign trail, it is harder to then make the argument that they should play no role in the functions of the administraton.

                  <

                  p>

                • …and didn’t want to call you Potty!  :~)

                  <

                  p>
                  It’s not right, it’s not wrong, it’s just true.  Spouses are like ringtones or wallpaper on a computer – they say a great deal about your taste and values, but are tangential to your ability to govern.

                  <

                  p>
                  Campaigning isn’t Governing.

    • …or Michael Chertoff or Matt Amorello. 

      <

      p>
      If Diane Patrick proves not to be an asset to Massachusetts, then $72K/year is a steep price for an assistaint. For now the jury is out. I am betteing she will be an asset, but would probably be willing to give Gov Patrick the benefit of the doubt based on the other state’s handling of first spouses.

  2. The Mass. Commission on the Status of Women website does post the Report on Wage Equality…but whether or not women who work receive the same pay for equal work is not really relevant to the issue of what role spouses of elected officials should/could/want/don’t want to play in their husband’s or wife’s office.

    <

    p>
    Diane Patrick has a full-time job with full-time responsibilities at one of the most successful law firms in Massachusetts. Citizen’s of Massachusetts should not expect that by voting for one person, you automatically get to control the schedule of their spouse, as well…it is up to Mrs. Patrick to decide how much of her personal time she can afford to volunteer to a special cause or issue of her choosing.

    <

    p>
    You are right. She was not elected to do anything. But, given that she would be an asset to her husband’s Administration, you could not expect him to turn down her offer to volunteer her free time. I believe the controversy comes in whether or not the taxpayer’s should be paying $72,000 for a scheduler to coordinate the time Mrs. Patrick donates. It stands to reason that eyebrows were raised and the press attacked. It might have been best to ask Ropes & Gray to donate the time it would take Mrs. Patrick’s own legal secretary to coordinate her volunteer schedule with her professional schedule. There is precedent. Corporations have been allowing employees to do pro bono work for government entities for a long time as public service. That would have been the best non-controversial, win-win solution.

    <

    p>
    Spouses are expected to show up for ceremonial events (whether they want to or not)…I think that’s enough to ask of them…especially if they already have career and family responsibilities of their own to fulfill…it’s up to each couple to decide what works best for them…but voters have no right to expect/demand/require a spouse to be involved…and conversely, elected officials should not assume when voters elected them, they were hiring the whole family.

    • I agree, Peter, that all the aids and so forth and chiefs of staff, and district liaisons are underpaid.  For some it is a kind of paid internship, “and then” they go to law school, etc.

      <

      p>
      As to the salary for Diane Patrick’s staffer, and the heat you have towards the idea, I admit I do not understand at all.

      <

      p>
      Diane Patrick spoke in public, is a seasoned and hard working attorney, and not a “Susie homemaker” shadow.  That all being said, whether I as a taxpayer will feel it is money well spent is something that will take a significant amount of time for me to determine.  The way I evaluate things, I would suggest an entire budget cycle/legislative cycle, so it will take me a minimum of eight months and possibly two years to come to a conclusion as to this issue.

      • an accounting of what the exact details of the position of the “assistant”to the Governor’s wife entails.
        Job description:
        Specifics:
        weekly hours worked
        appointments booked
        expenses
        travel arrangements
        contacts
        public appearances

        <

        p>
        What’s the big mystery here??? For $ 72,000 a year, I want a job description and SPECIFICS. Sorry, but having been Deval’s campaign fund raisigng manager is NOT a qualification for a $72,000 a year State job  (with perks and benefits no doubt)..Enough already!!! Where is the departure from the Massachusetts corruption that we were promised? Why are we seeing Caddilacs , fancy office furniture and now political hackery???

  3. 1) The initial posting seems like a little bit of a smoke screen to disguise the real issue that no other governors’ wives have required this additional position.  What does the wage gap between men and women have to do with it?  She maybe listed on “The Team” but what does that mean?  She wasn’t given a “cabinet” position.  If her busy schedule as a lawyer is problematic for scheduling the few events that the governor’s wife is expected to attend, why can’t her administrative people at the law firm schedule those as well?  I’m sure they schedule all kinds of personal things for her already.

    <

    p>
    2) For someone who claimed to be above the “big dig culture” during the campaign, this stinks of big dig culture.  You win the election and reward your supporters with a $72K/ a year job at the publics expense.  How is this not typical cronyism?

    • You ask: How is this not typical cronyism?

      <

      p>
      There are two plausible scenarios. 

      <

      p>
      One is: We need a job for Person X, what is there?  How about coordinating Diane P’s schedule?  That’s cronyism. 

      <

      p>
      The other is: “Diane P. needs a scheduler b/c she’ll get so many requests to do public speaking et al.  It’s awkward* if the law firm admins end up doing a ton of non firm work.  The right person for the job is probably someone she knows already and feels comfortable with, and is someone we know first-hand to be very detail-oriented?  How about Person X?”  I don’t think that’s “cronyism” – do you? 

      <

      p>
      And I think the second scenario is more likely than the first. 

      <

      p>

      <

      p>
      *I suspect that if Ropes and Gray hired/hires a new staffer to do Diane P’s non-firm scheduling, as you suggest, we’d see critics arguing the other side of the coin — that it “looks bad” because the public may wonder if Ropes and Gray clients get preferential treatment (which is likely to emerge as an issue anyway at some point, no?)

        • Weld staffers (paid for by our taxes damit!) handled Susan Weld’s scheduling.  From the Glob

          <

          p>

          During the Paul Cellucci administration, one of the assistants in the scheduling office handled any matters involving Jan Cellucci. William Weld’s office handled it the same way.

          • And as I said earlier,if that is not Ms. Patrick’s choice,  this is why God made interns.  How many College Dems would pay the STATE to handle this job, rather than demand $72,000?

            • Peter, my point narrowly addressed the “cronyism” charge.  I didn’t address the “bad judgment” charge.  Do you agree that this is probably not a case of cronyism?

      • Ew, that sounds disgusting.

        <

        p>
        On the face, you second scenario does not sound like cronyism. 

        <

        p>
        However, in this case it does still appear to be cronyism.  When was the last time you hired an administrative assistant?  Now it is admittedly hard to judge with out a job description but based on what we have been told, that this position is to coordinate the governor’s wife agenda only as it relates to “official” responsibilities, the pay seems high.  A little quick research on Salary.com and I came up with this:

        <

        p>
        Job Description

        Administrative Assistant I
        Performs a variety of administrative functions. Schedules appointments, gives information to callers, and takes dictation. Composes memos, transcribes notes, and researches and creates presentations. Generates reports, handles multiple projects, and prepares and monitors invoices and expense reports. May assist with compiling and developing the annual budget. Requires a high school diploma with 0-2 years of experience in the field or in a related area. Has knowledge of commonly-used concepts, practices, and procedures within a particular field. Relies on instructions and pre-established guidelines to perform the functions of the job. Works under immediate supervision. Typically reports to a supervisor or manager.

        <

        p>
        This position has a salary range of about $28K to $45K for someone working in Boston.  If you increase the experience to 2-4 years, the pay range increases to $32K to $50K and if you increase again to over 5 years, the pay range increases to $36K to $53K. 

        <

        p>
        So the $72K a year appears to be extremely high for what we know the responsibilities for the position to be.  And that doesn’t even take into account the possibility of using an intern for this position.  The high pay for this position brings me back to cronyism.

        <

        p>
        As far as your point about Ropes & Gray, I would expect the governor’s administrative person to coordinate with the firms administrative people.  That way the governor’s office is still involved but extra burden due to her career would be on the law firm.  As far as you point about the firm’s clients getting preferred treatment, that would happen regardless of who does the scheduling.

        • hey, i’m open to your view that this job is some lower-end secretary, particularly if it’s 15 hours a week intern-ish thing, spread into a full-time job.  if so, i agree the pay level would be way out of whack. 

          <

          p>
          it also seems plausible that the job is kind of “higher-end” in responsibilities — sort of halfway between a “chief of staff” and a pure admin ass’t,  who sometimes represents Diane Patrick. 

          • The problem, as I see it, is that Deval is not giving many details on any of the mini-scandal things.  If the had more transparency, something he promised during the election, a lot of these issue may have gone away.

Archives