So, I think we and just about everyone else paying attention is on record as not being enthused about the prospect of Jim Aloisi as Sec. of Transportation. Then again, I wasn't hearing much enthusiasm about the Bernard Cohen era either. After all, cleaning and clearing up the bewildering Mass. Morass of transport agencies was indeed a pretty clear mandate from the '06 election; and it doesn't seem any closer now than a couple years ago.
So considering Aloisi's, uh, uninspiring history, I'd like to know where this thought comes from:
Lawmakers, who have no say in the appointment, and State House observers said they believe the Patrick administration decided criticism of the Aloisi appointment would be worth it if he proved able to steer the politically treacherous transportation agenda, which is likely to include higher tolls and gas taxes, layoffs, agency consolidation, and, potentially, controversial privatization measures.
So that's a lot to pull off. So, what is it about Aloisi that makes the Patrick administration — or anyone — think he's the cat to do it, that he's the guy they need? What makes a macher? Or is this like the ballclub that really wanted the aging slugger for reasons no one else could quite fathom, overpaid for him, and then suffered the consequences?
And, like, can he be trusted?
And if Aloisi falls though, and you want someone that's actually pulled off a successful, far-reaching construction project or two … what's Fred Salvucci doing these days?
Again, if in a couple of years we're looking at a smoothly-run, transparent, unified transportation bureaucracy with strong top-down lines of accountability (yes, this is important in government) … then we'll all just have to tip our caps, won't we? But right now, our confidence is not inspired. Let's hope Patrick — and Aloisi — know something we don't.
“Lawmakers, who have no say in the appointment…”
<
p>Is there no equivalent of advice and consent on cabinet posts, or does this fall to the Governor’s Council, who I guess technically are not lawmakers?
<
p>While we’re on the subject, am I the only one who thinks that any toll increases should be approved by the ELECTED legislature, or at very least they should have the ability to enact a law overturning increases? I smell taxation without representation!
The Governor’s Council used to have a statutory advice-and-consent sort of role in a lot of appointments, but almost all of those requirements were repealed in 1964 after a big scandal in which, IIRC, at least one Councillor went to prison. Now the Council is pretty much reduced to exercising its constitutional authority, which include approving spending warrants and confirming judges. So now the Gov makes cabinet appointments on his own.