I’m with Jay: I really can’t get too worked up about the Globe’s breathless front-page story about Governor Patrick’s schedule. “Oh my God! There were a bunch of days when the Governor didn’t have any official events scheduled! And sometimes he didn’t even go into the State House!”
Jay’s hilarious comment on the latter point pretty much says it all:
Would you want to hang out in the same building all day, every day with the likes of our lawmakers? I’d rather telecommute from Darfur.
As for the former point, look, the stuff that shows up on the schedule tends to be of this general variety (this is from today’s schedule):
6:30 p.m.: Governor Patrick offers remarks at the Boston Ten Point Coalition “Bostonians for Youth” Celebration.
279 Tremont Street
Boston
Now, that stuff is great. It’s part of the Governor’s job, and I’m sure he does it well. But the other stuff — the talking with his staff, the studying up on policy, all the stuff that doesn’t show up on the schedule — that’s an essential part of the job too. Maybe it’s the most essential part, I don’t know. But what I do know is that a mechanical totting up of the days on which the Governor didn’t have official events, and the days on which he didn’t go into the State House, tells us next to nothing about how hard the Governor is working. Usually, press secretary responses to stories in the paper aren’t worth a lot, but this time it seems to me that Kyle Sullivan hits the nail on the head:
“To draw conclusions solely from these schedules – without taking into account countless hours meeting with staff, talking to reporters, at his desk sending e-mails, reviewing legislation, crafting policy and remarks, and working on the phone at all hours of the day – paints an incomplete and misleading picture,” Kyle Sullivan, his press secretary said in a prepared statement.
Another thing about the Globe story: there are some curious references to the Gov’s spending a lot of time in western Mass., as if that were a bad thing.
Patrick’s principal home is in Milton, but one result of his spending so much time at his Richmond retreat is that Western Massachusetts sees a lot more of Patrick than it did previous governors…. For example, in Patrick’s first 27 months as governor, he made as many official appearances (10) in Pittsfield as he did in Fall River and New Bedford, has been to Amherst as many times (six) as Waltham, and attended nearly as many events in Springfield (20) as Cambridge (22). Even tiny, western towns like Colrain, Goshen, and New Salem have had gubernatorial visits.
But isn’t that a good thing? It seems to me that much of Massachusetts’ governance is overly Boston-centric, and that having the Gov out west for some significant stretches of time is an excellent way to counteract that. So, again, what’s your point?
So I don’t agree with JimC, who sees the story as “not looking good.” And I certainly don’t agree with Outraged Liberal’s assessment of this weak story as “politically devastating.” To the contrary, I think it’s a political snooze — a badly-researched attempted hatchet job that will have no legs beyond today’s paper.
There’s more to the state than Boston? Noooooo!
<
p>The Globe needs to get out and about more.
that it very well could happen… in a roundabout sort of way.
When I worked for the state as a summer intern — 1985 — we were almost embarrassed by the coverage the governor would get in the western papers. It would seriously be all of pages one, two, and three in the broadsheets like the Springfield Union (or whatever they call it now).
<
p>I stand by the not looking good, David. We’re talking about the governor. He’s supposed to be accessible — not to us, all the time, but to DeLeo, Murray, et al.
<
p>It would be one thing if he had a long-established, um, virtual access style, for lack of a better phrase. Some managers travel constantly and that’s fine, but I don’t recall ever hearing that Deval ran the show that way.
<
p>I’m open to seeing this another way, but it still doesn’t look good.
<
p>
Sorry, multitasking … I thought the Western Mass. references were a positive part of the story. It’s as though they were saying, “Well, at least they see him out there.”
They have these marvelous things now … long-distance talker machines … what are they called again? Tele-speakers? No … I’m sure it’s tele-something, though.
<
p>Look, DeLeo and Murray didn’t elect him. We did. I’d frankly rather he be “accessible” to us than to them. After all, he works for us.
Murray is Senate president. DeLeo is speaker of the House.
<
p>We did elect them, indirectly.
And most of those people also voted for Deval Patrick. So should their votes count? I’m not sure….
but every couple years, when election time comes, I write in someone else’s name in the hope that someday somebody might muster the will to run. I sure as heck don’t feel like I had anything to do with “electing DeLeo”…except perhaps by “sin of omission”.
You said they didn’t elect him.
<
p>But that’s not really relevant, since they are Constitutional officers of the state.
Just to nitpick a bit the Speaker and Senate President are generally not refered to as Constitutional officers. The Constitution provides that they be chosen by their respective chambers and makes other references to them, but they are only officers of their chambers. The term “Constitutional officer” as used in MA generally refers to the six executive officers elected statewide: Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Attorney General, Treasurer and Receiver General, and Auditor. These officers are in the line of succession to a vacant governorship.
I was using the term generically (and therefore incorrectly) in the sense of “they have a Constitutional role” (and of course are sworn to uphold it, as is the governor).
I can count the number of times that Mitt Romney came to Western MA on one hand. People on this side of the state were very attuned to that fact. It is a positive thing that Deval Patrick comes to this side of the state because he is the “boss” of the state and its administration. If the state administration doesn’t completely recognize over 50% of the land in the state as being relevant due to it having less than 20% of the population, then it’s apparent to me that the administration will dismiss the concerns of 20% of the population.
Land isn’t important in a Democracy, people are. In that light, Western Mass warrants less attention because fewer people live there.
<
p>I’m not arguing that each town/county/region should get exactly x% of resources (money, governor’s attention, whatever) because they’ve got exactly x% of the population, but good grief. Of course Beacon Hill is Boston-metro-centric. That’s where most Massholes live. We saw the same angst with the gas tax — Western Massholes complained that it disproportionately impacted them because they have to drive farther, but never bothered to mention that, per capita, road expenditures in Western Mass are far higher than the rest of the state.
<
p>
<
p>I’m glad Governor Patrick is making it out to Western Mass more often than Romney did, but not because of the 50% of the land… because it’s got about one-eighth of the people.
about the Governor not being available? Did they forget to pay their cell phone bills?
<
p>Certainly Patrick’s available to them; whether he’s “accessible” probably has as much to do with DeLeo and Murray as it does the Governor — and, on all of their parts, I doubt it’s for lack of time spent dealing with state issues.
<
p>
<
p>Dude, it’s 2009. Governor Patrick can get more done on his blackberry than at his desk in the corner office.
Well were I in his shoes, and had a $1.3 million dollar book deal for release in 2010, I’d be writing like hell just about now, and governing less.
You’re telling me that if you had a job that paid $140K and a book deal that paid $1.3 million you wouldn’t be tempted to spend less time with the $140K and more with the $1.3M?
Delegation is an important skill.
Reminds me of Charles Barkley complaining that he had been misquoted in his own autobiography.
but look, if he’s already got the $1.3 M book deal, that’s money in the bank. He’s got a re-election to think about, which would come with $560K more in salary (plus pension, etc) over another four year period.
<
p>Of course, he could make far more in the private sector, so somehow I doubt that the money is a substantial motivator here…
We don’t know the terms of the deal. Is it $1.3M advance against royalties with a guaranteed minimum. No data. Obviously, he’d like the book to be good.
<
p>The motivation is there financially as well as for ego and prestige to spend time writing. Timing is there that the book should be underway for a 2010 release.
<
p>Bona fide, if crass, speculative explanation for the blank calendar.
…which is one of the easiest ways to get downrated by me. As for my own priorities, it might depend on the job, but I’d like to think that if that job were elected public office that would automatically take precedence over all other opportunities.
<
p>Well, if you have an ambitious agenda, shallow roots in the state, and a Legislature accustomed to shrugging off the governor’s wishes, the answer is a definite YES. If you want DeLeo to keep treating you like his punching bag because you’re too busy visiting mansion #2 to actually lobby these people, then I guess not.
<
p>Replace Richmond with Crawford, Patrick with Bush — or “swing state” and Romney, and it’s the same old story.
This is not the change we voted for. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but this looks bad.
If your #1 agenda item is getting through reform packages and the leg is calling you out (rightly or wrongly) for governing by press release, then not being in the building to foster relationships is harmful.
<
p>If Patrick could get the job done in spite of DeLeo or Murray, I’d tend to agree this is a non-issue, but those relationships are weak. A story like this raises the question, if Patrick spent more time in Beacon Hill would votes like the sales tax or pension reform have gone his way. If the answer could be yes, then this is an issue.
Too many times the Governor has made it seem like all he has to do is announce a program, snap his fingers, and then it will get done. Nope. Governing effectively is hard work, and it takes face time with legislators to get it done (not mere tele-conferencing, David).
<
p>I would add that it’s convenient to blame the legislature when things don’t get done, but it’s a two-way street. I’m not sure if Patrick ever fully recovered from his weak performance with the legislature in the first few months of his administration.
Well, compared with what? Romney? Cellucci? Dukakis? Maybe he’s telling them things they don’t want to hear, and they’re acting like they don’t need to listen to him. And maybe they’re right, considering how things are set up structurally.
<
p>I don’t know … I think the Governor did really well with DiMasi and Murray both last year. (Yeah, his casino proposal died because a.) it was for casinos, which Sal didn’t like, but b.) it was itself a lame casino proposal, as casino proposals go.)
<
p>I mean … what else should he do? You can lead a lege to water, but … etc.
I was referring to the first few months of his administration — I do think he improved a bit over time, and was able to get some of his priorities through. This was particularly true once he realized that having a staff composed of people with no experience in the legislature whatsoever wouldn’t work and he shook up his administration.
<
p>Nevertheless, those first few months of Patrick reminded me a lot of the Carter Administration — completely tone-deaf when it came to dealing with what might have been a supportive legislature. It put him in a hole that he may have emerged from since, though I’m not sure. I’m not convinced the Patrick governorship to this point has been either a success or a failure. Maybe just somewhere in the mediocre middle.
but I find it neither here nor there in terms of his going to Richmond.
<
p>His flaws in terms of governing have little to do with time spent on the job. Tactical gaffes and too many distractions? Sure. But his Richmond family mansion? Nah.
With those words, the weekly Prime Minister’s Questions Time opens in the British House of Commons. Question #1 is always a generic request to the PM to state his engagements for the day, after which the questioner can follow up with any other question. The response is usually just as generic: “This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others; in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.” Occasionally he’ll mention that an audience with Her Majesty is part of his agenda.
<
p>Anyway, that’s what this thread reminds me of. It is broadcast live on CSPAN2 Wednesdays at 7:00 AM and rerun the following Sunday at 9:00 PM on CSPAN during the weeks that Parliament is in session. It can actually be quite entertaining and the similarity to our own policy debates is uncanny.
David wrote:
<
p>Here here!
<
p>This story strikes me as a sop to the tightie-righties who frequent the boston.com/Globe comments page.
We know Mayor Menino has met nearly every citizen of Boston several times over. Do you think Gov. Patrick has met every Legislator several times over? Phoning it in is weak!
<
p>Although, come to think of it, would you rather hang out with Rep. Jim Cantwell (D-Marshfield) or make big bucks writing a book? I think we have our answer…
<
p>Yes.
<
p>You may want to reframe your critique. Getting enough face time with legislators =! meeting them “several” times. More like frequent meetings with individual reps on specific issues in which both parties can agree, as well as occasional meetings with reps in areas the Gov would like legislators to support him on, vice versa. That probably hasn’t happened enough — but a snarky response that oozes hyperbole (I hope!) just isn’t all that helpful.
The story of Governor Patrick’s extended time away from the State House is hurtful because it provides his Democratic and Republcian opponents with additonal fodder to undercut his effort to pass reform legislation and help extricate the Commonwealth from its its economic malaise. The story also re-inforces the image of the Governor as aloof, arrogant, and disdainful of the hard, interpersonal bargaining of politics.
<
p>I recall that Governor Weld’s work habits resembled that of a typical teenager in high school–sporadic, misdirected, and downright lazy. Weld caught some flak in the media for these habits and twice-a-week squash game.
<
p>The consequential difference is that the state’s economic condition during Gov Weld’s tenure was considerably better than it is today. Consequently, Gov. Weld was able to engage in silly photo-ops like diving into the Charles River without adverse political reprecussions and continue his squash games uninterrupted, while the unfortunate Gov. Patrick will likely catch hell for a dubious story about his State House presence that, in a brighter economic environment, would have been perceived, as David writes, a “political snooze.”
I’m sure one of our experts on Mass. political history such as EBIII or Cos can answer this: what did Weld do to get a veto-sustaining caucus in the Legislature, and can Deval replicate it?
The veto-sustaining Republican caucus in the Massachusetts legislature from 1990-94 came about because the Republican State Party under the leadership of Ray Shamie and then Joe Malone made a substantial effort to identify, persuade, train, and finance the candidacies of first-time Republican candidates to support the Republican and ultimately Gov. Weld’s political agenda after he was elected in 1990.
<
p>These newly elected Republicans in the legislature also benefited from a substantial political backlash against outgoing Governor Dukakis and the Democratic establishment in Massachusetts. The Democratic Governor and Legislature were unable to manage and bring under control successive annual budget hemmorhages and address falling revenues, despite massive government borrowing in the late 1980s. The issue political corruption and waste in state government was also a key Republican issue in the 1990 campaign.
<
p>Governor Weld was so aloof and unconcerned with state party building that he made no political effort to retain his veto-proof minority and the Senate, and proceeded to lose it four years later, despite a historic re-election trouncing of Democrat Mark Roosevelt in 1994. Governor Weld never enjoyed a veto-sustaining minority in the House, and left the State House in 1997 to pursue his Don Quixote quest to become Ambassador to Mexico.
<
p>Gov. Deval Patrick and his political aides would have to hijack the Democratic State Party apparatus in the next year to recruit and help finance primary challenges that, targeted, at least, a dozen and a half Democratic legislators opposed to his political agenda. The likelihood of such an event occurring approaches zero.
First off, thank you for your answer. It’s pretty much what I suspected. I’m not expecting that Deval would assault the party hierarchy in the way that Weld could. However, I would expect that if Deval were serious about getting voices into the Lege in harmony with him, he would take this approach on open seats, special elections, retirements, and targeted Republican districts.
<
p>I haven’t seen any evidence that is happening, so as always I come back to the thought that Deval isn’t serious about working with the Legislature — we doesn’t work that hard to get them on board. Nor is he serious about changing the Legislature — he isn’t do anything to alter the tenor of its membership.
<
p>At the same time, Weld is apparently the last Republican who was serious about changing the Legislature to Republican advantage. Romney in 2004 gets partial credit, but his technique of dropping in people rather than boosting grassroots candidates was disastrous (remember the candidate he recruited against Terry Murray whose summer home was in the district?).
<
p>Heck, if I were a legislator I’d take this lesson: in living memory we’ve run roughshod over governors, and over the last 17 or so years, there’s only been 1 1/2 attempts to change that. Ergo, governors like being run over.
I certainly don’t see this story as heavyweight reporting — as I tried to point out in comparing it to Romney’s decision to quit early.
<
p>But a public with a weak opinion of Deval Patrick isn’t going to change its mind with stories like this that only add to the Caddy, drapes and book contract stories. What’s devastating is that he once again appears to be stepping on an effort to forge a stronger image.
Maybe it would be clearer with a second read, but it wasn’t completely clear to me what exactly was not included in the blank diary entries. Better reporting would also show some actual damage by Patrick’s alleged truancy, not stop at innuendo. Is the Governor truly unavailable? How about some off the record quotes from legislators that say he’s not accessible?
<
p>My guess is that Patrick doesn’t put in the time he should; however, this article hasn’t convinced me that is the case.
<
p>If I were Patrick’s handler, I would want him producing something the news could report at least a couple of times a week. Instead, we get a stupid summary of what the Governor did this week. He should be driving the news, not letting the news drive him. The optics are’t good, however. There’s more than enough for populist ire, deserved or not.
<
p>Mark
<
p>I’ve lived in three area codes in Massachusetts and glad to see a Governor and a Lt. Governor in office that take great strides to know the whole state. There are at least three distinct economies in the Commonwealth and at least three socio-geographic regions (Boston, central and western MA).
<
p>Brian Mooney (bmooney@globe.com) did a hack job with a blunt club. Try some precision reporting, dude. What a waste of time and money.