Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Breaking: Barrios Leaving Senate

By

The AP reports that State Senator Jarrett Barrios has been offered the job of President of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation. This will create a special election for his Senate seat.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. becomes the line between beacon hill and the massachusetts medical-industrial complex.

  3. I never did understand why Barrios kept saying on the individual level to me and to other health justice activists, and voters in his district: “I support the Healthcare Amendment, I do, I do” but then he never seemed to do much of anything to work for its passage or to expend any of his political capital on the healthcare amendment’s behalf.

    <

    p>
    Now I understand.

    • for those who might not be familiar with the 10-year effort that I and others with the Alliance to Defend Healthcare have been engaged in working for health justice in Massachusets, here’s the link to a 4/12/07 post that will shed some light on why I find Barrios move very disheartening: Mass. Promise of “Universal” Health Care Forgotten.
      And here’s a brief excerpt from that post

      Thankfully there are some advocacy groups out there that are doing an honest analysis of the MA health reform plan and telling it like it is.  My hunch is that the groups that aren’t telling the truth and being appropriately critical of the new law are receiving big money “community grants” from the insurance industry foundations–the Blue Cross Blue Sheild Foundation here in MA is one of many of these health industry “foundations” that have found “community grants” to be an effective way to in essence silence dissent.

      <

      p>
      While we’re on the subject of health justice, please consider joining me and Jim for tonight’s St. Kermit’s podcast Tues. 5/22/07 from 8-8:45 pm where we’ll be talking about MA healthcare and health reform (see BMG Events on homepage left sidebar for details). Thanks.

    • Why are you throwing the guy under the bus? Perhaps he feels as if he can do more in the private sector.
      He always said, “You can trust me, I’m not like the others.”

  4. Middlesex County

    <

    p>
    CAMBRIDGE – Wd. 3, Pct. 2; Wds. 6, 7; Wd. 8, Pcts. 1, 2; Wd. 9, Pct. 1; Wd. 10, Pct. 2
    EVERETT
    SOMERVILLE – Wd. 1, Pct. 1; Wd. 2, Pct. 1

    <

    p>
    Suffolk County

    <

    p>
    BOSTON – Wd. 2; Wd. 21, Pcts. 4, 6, 7; Wd.22, Pcts. 1, 2, 5
    CHELSEA
    REVERE – Wd. 6

    <

    p>
    Essex County

    <

    p>
    Saugus – Pcts. 2, 6, 10

    <

    p>
    Because of the chaotic nature of the Senate and Rep districts around Cambridge, this district overlaps with 9 different Rep districts:

    <

    p>
    9th Essex (Falzone) for Saugus
    25th Middlesex (Wolf) for Cambridge wards 6,7,8,10
    26th Middlesex (Toomey) for Somerville and Cambridge wards 3,6
    28th Middlesex (Smith) for Everett
    29th Middlesex (Kaprielian) for Cambridge ward 9
    2nd Suffolk (O’Flaherty) for Chelsea and Boston ward 2
    16th Suffolk (Reinstein) for Saugus, Revere, and Chelsea
    17th Suffolk (Honan) for Boston wards 21 and 22
    18th Suffolk (Moran) for Boston wards 21 and 22

    <

    p>
    Only Wolf, Smith, and O’Flaherty live in the Senate district.

      • He came in 2nd. place when Barrios run, and had geared up to run for the seat when Barrios was starting to run for Middlesex D.A. last year.  I’d be shocked if he doesn’t run again.  The only question is whether anyone runs against him, or if figures he’s too strong to beat.

  5. We’ve had six in the past 21 months, and now we’re about to have two more (though only in about 1/10 of the city).

  6. One minute he was up-and-coming, the “It” legislator. Then he pulls out of the DA race, goes on record as opposing fluff, and now this.

    • I don’t get people getting on his case for being concerned about kids getting proper nutrition in school lunches.  I really don’t. 

      • He might as well have attacked Mom and Apple Pie.  He used the wrong vehicle to make his case. 

        • but you don’t propose to involve school children in them, do you?  Teaching happens by example as well as by rote. Giving a kid a sugar sandwich at school does not set the right example.  But feel free to Fluff up your own kids at home!

          • The drunken riots after sox games often include and are incited by “school” children or at least the students of our fine institutions of higher learning.

            • is a load of bull.

              <

              p>
              Most college kids can’t afford the price of ticket and beer.  I live a few blocks from the stadium, and every single fight I’ve seen — without exception — is white guys 25-45 years old, almost always with facial hair and good sized forearms, in groups of 2-4.

              <

              p>
              Just keep blaming college kids for everything, without any regard for facts.  And stay off my lawn.

              • I am not aware of regular on-going riots after sox games.  Could you provide documentation.  The riots I saw in 2003 and 2004 were all by college kids.  Those were riots. A few guys fighting does not a riot make.  Burning cars etc a riot makes.

                • . . . that this kind of diversionary attention from the press/public might be one reason he’s leaving.

                  <

                  p>
                  He meant well by the bill but didn’t frame it correctly.

      • Outlawing Fluff for lunches because his child got one for lunch was just plain crazy.  I am against dunkeroos and the insidious yoohoo chocolate flavored water drink. No those are treats to be outlawed.

        <

        p>
        This guy is an empty suit.  What has he ever done that warrants mention?  Nothing at all except, of course, for being gay.

        • Just saying it shouldn’t be served to small children who (a) don’t have a choice and (b) are taught to see their school as an authority figure, so any food served to them by this authority figure is coming with the implicit message that this is good for them.

          <

          p>
          Lots of other things are legal but shouldn’t be served to by schools to children.  Examples:  lollipops, hit chili peppers, beer.

          • they have seen their five year old classmates charged with sexual harassment or suspended for the possession of flatware, and are painfully aware that school officials are chronically unable to distinguish right, wrong, and indifferent, never mind able to deliver implicit messages about the nutritional value of fluff.  What psychobabble nonsense.

            <

            p>
            And no one was forced to eat fluff; it was the alternative choice for kids who didn’t like whatever was erved that day.  No different from PB&J.

        • … will always sound better than what actually happened.

          <

          p>
          The bill would have “severely limit[ed] the serving of marshmallow spreads in school lunch programs statewide” (see Globe Story), not banned it entirely.

          <

          p>
          How can peanut butter and fluff pass as a “nutricious lunch” for kids in public schools? 

          <

          p>
          (p.s the AP did carry a story claiming that Barrios wanted to “ban” Fluff in the title of it, but actually saying he only wanted to limit it in the body.  This is how rumors get started … AP Story)

          • Is actually a very healthy food.  Filled with fiber and good cholesterol that comes from nuts. 

          • the AP did carry a story claiming that Barrios wanted to “ban” Fluff in the title of it, but actually saying he only wanted to limit it in the body.

            <

            p>
            Thank goodness he didn’t try to limit the  ‘outside the body’ uses for Fluff. 

      • This is why a law limiting the serving of fluff (but not jelly) to kids is a waste of time and effort.

        <

        p>
        Two tablespoons of fluff has 9 grams of sugar.

        <

        p>
        One tablespoon of grape jelly has 10 grams of sugar.

        <

        p>
        The press conference was ill-advised and the politician’s stance was unresearched.

        • Barrios offered an amendment to add fluff to a pre-existing bill that was aimed at limiting junk food in schools, so the bill was not just about fluff (I’m responding to other comments above).  from the link above

          The bill in the Massachusetts Senate would prohibit most candy bars and potato chips, as well as soft drinks, from vending machines in elementary schools. Barrios felt that as long as they were removing junk food from vending machines, lawmakers should also restrict Fluff — a concoction of corn syrup, sugar, dried egg white, and vanilla flavoring — from the lunchroom

          while i agree that not addressing other popular forms of sugar was a weakness, you have to start somewhere.  It was great for him to point out that crappy nutrition isn’t found only in the vending machine.

          <

          p>
          ANyway, fluff under the bridge.  Peace.

  7. Wow! What a breathtaking sell-out! The president’s compensation for this foundation is uncommonly lucrative – to say the least —  especially for a nonprofit.

    <

    p>
    Sad and disturbing. So much for Mr. moral high ground.

    • So he’s a sellout for taking a job heading up a foundation that doles out grants? Or he’s a sellout for taking a job that pays well?

      <

      p>
      Legislators aren’t allowed to aspire to higher salaries than $55k/year + committee chair stipends?

      <

      p>
      I commend him for working in the legislature for nearly a decade when he probably could have been making a lot more money in the private sector a long time ago.

      • Fair enough question. In response, I will only recommend that you check out the compensation for this gig. State House News Service just now reported that Barrios is claiming that its not set yet. I don’t have full confirmation, but the money I hear bantered about this afternoon easily rivals that of a fat-cat corporate CEO.

        <

        p>
        Nothing wrong with heading up a foundation. But if the word of the compensation proves to be true, I will say: yeah, he’s absolutely a sellout.

        • Especially in the non-profit realm. Too often non-profits are unable to attract or keep the best executives because they can’t compete with the private sector. You want someone to run a foundation that gives away millions of dollars? You’d better be willing to pay that person well (and be ready to hold that person accountable for their performance).

          <

          p>
          I don’t know where the line is between acceptably high and ridiculous. When the bonus is in the millions, clearly that’s ludicrous (or is it ludacris?). But the bigger picture is executive pay relative to the company’s (or non-profit’s) performance, the pay levels of non-executive employees, the moral/social standing of the corporation, etc.

          <

          p>
          If Bill Gates weren’t already a bazillionaire, I’m sure he’d be well paid for heading up his foundation. And I’ll bet there are people working in top management positions there who get pretty nice salaries. (No evidence, obviously, just a hunch.)

          <

          p>
          Again, Barrios could have been making much more money as an attorney for the past decade, but he chose public service. And while salary may have been a factor in his decision, it’s also possible that he felt that he had accomplished all he wanted to in the Senate and was bored. Unless you are he (and I am certainly not), we don’t know for sure.

          <

          p>
          Point is, if I’m open to a new job and someone offers me a good one that pays a lot of money, it automatically makes me a sellout to take it? It’s not that simple.

          • You are right. It’s not that simple. The whole question is sort of emblematic of the “executive pay” excess that’s created an uber-class at the expense of everyone else. It’s a much bigger problem than this particular situation, of course.

            <

            p>
            I guess that I find it pathetic to see him now become part of that ugly problem. So, to be honest, yeah, I’ve lost any respect I’ve had for him.

            <

            p>
            Others may disagree. But there it is.

          • Barrios could have made more money in the public sector?  Upon what facts do you base this conclusion?  What has the man done?  Why is he famous?  You only know him because he is a gay legislator.

            <

            p>
            Why did he get his job?  Becasue of his qualifications?  I don’t think so.

            • … make a decent amount of money.  Barrios was/is an associate there, though I guess probably not after he leaves the State House:

              <

              p>
              http://www.dlapiper….

              <

              p>
              So yes, he could have been making a bunch of money working for the third largest law firm in the world. 

              <

              p>
              Just because you care about public service shouldn’t mean that you can’t get paid.  I see nothing wrong with this at all. 

        • Interesting compensation structure. 

          <

          p>
          Assuming I’ve got this link right,, (registration required) the Foundation president was receiving nothing from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation, which only has $17 million in revenue.

          <

          p>
          He was however, pulling down over $850K salary plus deferred comp. from Blue Cross Blue Shield Inc.  Same with all the officers of the Foundation.  Cha-ching.

          <

          p>

          • i think their set up was:

            <

            p>
            key execs for BC/BS the corporation worked for free as officers of the foundation — ie, volunteered their work for the foundation.  they’d go to the monthly meetings or whatever. 

            <

            p>
            nancy turnbull did the actual work — of deciding “okay, we’re going to give out a bunch of $50k grants, who should we give them to?”  i wonder what her comp was….

          • From what I can tell, the then-president Andrew Dreyfus was paid just under $500k, though he was paid as a Senior VP of BCBS, not the foundation.

            <

            p>
            The chairman and CEO, William Van Faasen, got over $3mil ($1mil salary, $2mil incentive compensation based on results), but was also the chairman and CEO of BCBS, so I assume his salary reflects that position.

            <

            p>
            It’s unclear if Dreyfus did anything for the BCBS corporation or if that was just his title while he was president of the foundation.

      • if he never does anything that uses for himself or his private employer the access and influence that he was granted as a public servant.

        <

        p>
        otherwise, it is influence peddling plain and simple.

        • Nancy Turnbull was a public health expert — the sort of resume you’d expect for a health care foundation. 

          <

          p>
          Barrios?  Not so much.  Like every legislator, he dealt with health care, but he’d be equally qualified to do education or public safety or whatever…ie, not an expert. 

          <

          p>
          So the question is:

          <

          p>
          Did they do a search to find someone who can fulfill the mission of the Foundation — ie, to wisely give away $ to advance public health — and end up with Barrios? 

          <

          p>
          Or

          <

          p>
          Did they basically, as you seem to suggest, hire someone to lobby for BC/BS at the State House….under the guise of “Foundation President”….assuming that anyone with a brain can rubber stamp the recommendations of Foundation staff on the actual grants? 

  8. Best of luck to Senator Barrios. He has a very formidable task ahead of him as president of the Blue Cross Foundation and I think he’ll serve it well, just as he’s served the Commonwealth well during his time in the legislature. As far as the compensation piece goes, even in non-profit you have to expend some capital in order to obtain the services of a top quality person. A progressive should not be required to forego financial security in order to remain ideologically pure. Calling him a “sell out”, in my opinion, is just another example of the overzealous self righteousness that exists in the blogosphere. I say, good for Jarrett.

    <

    p>
    It’ll be interesting to see who emerges as potential candidates. I think the possibility of a race between, say, Alice Wolf and Gene O’Flaherty is very intriguing as they represent both sides of the divide not only in the district but the Massachusetts Democratic Party as well. Stat Smith just got elected to the legislature and he’s going for the School Committee in Everett. I’d be surprised if he jumped in, but stranger things have happened.

    <

    p>
    Other possibilities?

    • Well, there’s financial security, to which we can all relate, and then there’s the type of thing we’re discussing here. 

      <

      p>
      The “financial security” argument is the same line of reasoning that corporate boards and CEO apologists use to justify the unjustifiable. Accusing critics of “overzealous self-rightousness” certainly sounds like part of the same transparent game book.

      <

      p>
      Not trying to pick a fight here, Ray. But really…

      <

      p>
      OK, I’ve said my part. Peace.

      <

      p> 

    • With Barrios leaving it’s even more important to get another independent voice in the Senate – and East Cambridge, Cambridgeport get the chance next Tuesday to vote for Dan Rizzo for the 1st Sufflok Middlesex Senate seat.

      <

      p>
      Rizzo is the real deal as an at large councilor in Revere – progressive, hard working, smart, a respected consensus builder and an independent leader. Petrucelli is an 8 year rep but he’s a real follower – 100% with the leadership and Menino even when he’s filing anti labor legislation to shrink the Boston school’s barganing unit.

      • Rizzo is not the real deal.  Look deeper as to why he is really running. He has stated on several occasions that he wants to have a resort casino built in Revere at Suffolk Downs.    Check the Revere sites/blogs like Revere.com, Myrevere.net, or the editorials in the Revere Journal. The Revere guys are all backing him to get “one of their own” in.  They have attempeted to politically ruin anyone who is not supporting him.  A Revere bar owned by police chief’s kids and brother last month admitted to the ABC that they had illegal poker machines operated by the staff.  Several DPW and Water Department employees were in the past few weeks cited by the State Ethics Comm. and have refered the case to the AG. Several City Councilors are being investigated for abusing City expense accounts as reported on FOX25. As a sitting City Councilor he should be screaming for an investigation and resignations. Yet Dan has been mum on all these issues.   The boys from Revere want a casino and see Dan as the way.  You may like what he says about the “big” picture.  But is he just paying lip service as a progressive to then trade off his vote with the Govenor to get his casino? I live in the district and want a Senator who cares and works for those of us who live in it, unlike him.

    • As I said above, Cambridge city councillor Anthony Galluccio ran for the seat in 2002, and was starting to run for the seat in 2006 when Barrios was running for Middlesex DA.  I’m not backing anyone at the moment, but to be reality based you have to assume that he’s running again.

    • Purely monetary? Altruism? I guess that’s out the window with 500K+ coming in a year. Bored? I would hope not.

      <

      p>
      You stated that progressives have a right to watch out for their own creature comforts. When and where do you cross the line? How much is too much?

      <

      p>
      When people continuously deride “big business” and self interest etc. and weeks before deny vehemently that one is going in league with those who are prominently the focal point of their derision, it leaves me wondering, was this the end game.

  9. …before, or after, the ConCon?  If he resigns before, it might make a difference in the vote on the same-sex marriage amendment.

    • He sent an email.  He anticipates leaving in July sometime, after the ConCon and the budget have been dealt with.

  10. I kinda liked Jarrett Barrios.  I really liked his voting record.  He stood for a lot of good things (equal rights, understanding what education truly is), took the right side on many issues, and brilliantly represented the vocal liberalism that — though it isn’t always my flavor — needs its champions in Massachusetts.

    <

    p>
    Barrios was also a camera hustler of the first order, and a man who could detect media presence like I can detect free food.  There was a leavening of self-promotion in so much of what he did, and an air of focusing on the next job to the detriment of the current one.

    <

    p>
    And this is how he goes out?  Another well-paid lobbyist in the back halls of the State House working his old Rolodex.  It’s good money for his family, but I can’t help but feel like it’s a flameout, a dream not reached.  If he’d known this is how it would end — or at least detour — what further good could he have done, chasing what’s right instead of the cameras.

    • Barrios had an opportunity to grow or regress after his loss in the DA’s race in ’06.

      <

      p>
      Let us hope this move represents his choice to grow. Time will tell.

  11. Barrios was typical for a Cambridge pol, lived here for less than 5 years before he ran, came out of Harvard thinking he knew the city and had a vision, happened to be gay and knew the Cambridge liberals would flock to that and that he didn’t need to reside in his district, have been born or even lived more than a a few years in his district, or have any previous political experience. And he was always running for the next job, as State Rep gearing to run for State Sen, State Sen DA only then after leaving the bubble of Cambridge did he realize his complete lack of qualifications prevented him from being DA. I was expecting an LG run in 2010 but I guess he decided to cash in his chips while their still worth something.

    <

    p>
    And another bites the dust and becomes an HMO lobbyist. Funny how HMOs keep needing politicians to run them, might be the whole I don’t know mandated healthcare policy we passed and need to enforce? And another bites the dust as the wheels of power are greased with money.

    • And another (politician) bites the dust and becomes an HMO lobbyist.

      <

      p>
      …I was shocked to learn in the early 1980s that former General Alexander Haig (remember him?  The “I’m in charge here” guy after Reagan had been shot–he wasn’t, the Vice President was), after leaving government “service,” was hired by defense contractor United Technologies as vice president at a base salary of over US$500,000/yr.  What did he know about either running a company or engineering or producing a product?  Then I realized that they weren’t hiring him for any of that.  They were hiring him for his connections to the Pentagon.

      <

      p>
      It happens everywhere.

      • along the lines of when rep billy tauzin left congress to head up Pharma to help the Pharma industry kill off Dem-led efforts to help Americans obtain fairer prices for medications.

        <

        p>
        Unless Barrios moves in to BCBS and really shakes up its board composition and makes clear progress to sever the foundation role as an extension of BCBS corporate, I will have to agree with the many less-than-esteemed motivations expressed here for Barrios’ lucrative move out of public service.

        <

        p>
        Learn more and get involved with ongoing work for healthcare justice for all at the Alliance to Defend Healthcare.  This work needs you!!

        • is an attorney. He/they will defend and advocate most vociferously for those who will pay the most. I guess that’s the way it is.

          <

          p>
          Fortunately those who work in healthcare treat everyone (I am well aware there are exceptions) with an even hand.

          <

          p>
          It will be interesting to see which side of the fence he comes down on.

        • it’s that a state legislator is immediately going to work for the arm of a corporation who, because of the wide and rapid changes in healthcare law now and forthcoming, have millions of dollars of additional profit at stake pending decisions by . . . . the legislature.

          • he’s working for the foundation arm that bestows grants to expand health care coverage. I don’t know how much intermingling there is between the company and the foundation, but it does seem like this is different than if he’d signed up to lead the BC/BS lobbying effort.

            • i’m just not aware of any blue cross-blue shield grants ‘to expand heath care coverage’ being awarded to anyone who seriously challenges whether delivering quality healthcare to all could be better achieved by downsizing the role of insurance companies like . . . blue cross-blue shield.

  12. is what happens to Barrios’ half a million dollar war chest? Does he give it to charity or save it for when something big opens up?

    • …..gay thing go for Christ’s sake.  What have most of the MA legislators done but be straight????

      <

      p>
      You are ridiculous.

      • a few have managed to be both straight and narrow minded.  I mean, you go a problem with giving credit where credit is due?

Archives