Adam Reilly stopped by the big Flaherty/Yoon announcement and reports some … well, less-than-impressive impressions.
1. The turnout seemed low–about 70-80 people, I’d guess, with almost as many media members as campaign supporters/operatives.
Wow. They’re going to need to do a lot better than that.
2. When Flaherty was asked about his pledge to serve only two terms, his reply went something like this: “The people of Boston have my word–the same way they had the current mayor’s word that he would only serve two terms.” Yoon, for his part, observed that “There are no guarantees in life,” or words to that effect. Michael and Sam: you might want to work on this part of the sales pitch.
That is much, much more worrisome. Here’s what Sam Yoon’s email about this “ticket” said:
This will include enacting term limits for Mayor – putting an end to the ‘Mayor for Life’ culture in Boston that has held us back.
Now, whether you like term limits or hate them, if you’re going to talk about “enacting” them, you’re talking about a legal rule that says that a Mayor cannot serve more than x terms. But if all we’re really talking about is a Meehan-esque promise to the effect that, “hey, I’m only serving x terms — trust me,” then that particular plank in the Flaherty/Yoon platform is nothing more than a splinter.
3. Flaherty did considerably better when asked about Menino aide Nick Martin’s contention that the Flaherty/Yoon ticket is illegal. “The mayor,” Flaherty said, “is the last person to be dispensing legal advice right now”–a pointed and (to my mind) effective jibe at Email-gate.
The jibe is fine, as campaign tit-for-tattery goes. But the issue is, to my mind, a serious one. If Flaherty and Yoon are going to campaign as a “ticket,” what does that mean? Are they going to print up signs saying “Flaherty/Yoon,” even though of course only Flaherty’s name will be on the ballot? More importantly, are the voters of Boston going to be led to believe that, even if Mike and Sam don’t get along after the first six months, Sam can’t be fired? Because, of course, he can be fired. The arrangement seems to be that Flaherty says he’ll create a new job, called “Deputy Mayor,” and that he will hire Yoon to fill it. But since Yoon hasn’t actually been elected to anything, he can be fired by the Mayor, like any other city employee.
Look for the campaign finance crowd to get involved in this pronto.
and came to much different conclusions.
<
p>We discussed the event on today’s episode of LeftAhead at LeftAhead.com.
And I will say, that is a good line by Flaherty.
<
p>But presumably revision of the city charter is the minimal requirement here? I have no idea what it takes to do that.
before the election, obviously. And although they could change the charter after the election to create an elected “Deputy Mayor,” that can’t be made to apply retroactively to Yoon.
<
p>So if Flaherty/Yoon wins, and Yoon is made “Deputy Mayor,” it will be because Flaherty appoints Yoon to a senior position, just as with any other senior position in his administration. And Yoon will serve at Flaherty’s pleasure, just like anyone else in the administration.
Last night I said the same thing. Michael Flaherty said it today when he said, “Mayor Menino will have Michael Kineavy and as Mayor, I will have Sam Yoon”. An intellectual vs. the so-called enforcer.
<
p>Michael Flaherty doesn’t need a charter change, he only needs to call Sam Yoon a Deputy Mayor, and give him the responsibilities of one, whatever they think that is. Which leads me to what is important about all of this. By doing what he did today, Michael is saying that he is a leader. He is clearly stating that he doesn’t need all the attention. Michael is also saying he doesn’t have a monopoly on all the good ideas. That he will reach out across the table or aisle to do what is best for Boston. This is defining him as a leader and that is what should be taken from this. This is in direct contract to Mayor Menino who by many press and personal accounts, is a petty, egotistical, control freak who tries to silence his critics and adversaries.
<
p>
This is a fairly interesting stratgem that injects a little interest in what would otherwise be a boring race. It might have some value in creating some symbolic structure for thier own supporters and those who wish to vote against the incumbent…a sort of rally around the opposition candidates. An keeping Sam Yoon, a fresh face, on the campaign trail might be of some marginal value.
<
p>Substantively, though, it means nothing and runs the risk (as noted by others) of being unable to maintain discipline over the message. Two strong egos are not always going to be on he same track all of the time. In a governance sense it is less than nothing. The sitting Chief Executive has a fair amount of flexibility in terms of how he or she wants to organize the administration. The current Cabinet form of governmenance has, in essence, Deputy Mayors, but simply with different job titles.
<
p>Come November, though, it will be seen as not having a great impact on the election.
Why? What? How? Where?
<
p>When do you see large crowds at Boston mayoral candidate events in September? In what way does the size of a crowd at this kind of event translate to anything election-related? I don’t understand why this is bad.
I find a lot of this criticism carping. As Choles1 notes, it’s about marketing, not legal substance, and as such it is good stuff. The signal that it sends — new ideas, and new ways of approaching the business of running the city — are just what is needed in Boston.
This was a press conference called the night before at 11pm or so, not a rally. Not sure why the crowd plays into this at all.
<
p>David,
<
p>I went to http://www.michaelflaherty.com and found this:
<
p>Looks good and they even call it Floon!
everybody else will — you can either wince and fight it, or embrace it and try to steer it.
it was pretty cool of the campaign to embrace it, in a public (somewhat) way. Also, watch the video below. They seem to play off each other really well. Very dynamic and a huge contrast to our leaders at city hall today.
If you didn’t see Michael and Sam on Broadside with Jim Braude tonight, please take a look. Michael and Sam are very clear about term limits and how they plan to lead the city.
<
p><embed pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer" src="http://www.necn.com/avp31.swf?
o@!tC1)csk;HQ,nrXN)i#Z-yV[<,cmZK7hz&FG83}mdz 4V?*f<vxi>|/ 36[Mz~#ZC}k@7N2*0_c:Iz,MYwIuNazV@xn5S5x:ulnc_H-.&CxZ!xwE>f;7^Eygj?V/wY^r3/B@s.D h<XEE=Ly8.)snunPkhGypRN1gZ@Wa|VNJ9==R9Q)t-m/c0o> {naR)7_ <k/po@rf.uIg#JAJ;w|=6L9h).L.A{#;s.@,DO.I=IVnTx S4p>j2S. f?no#p*fbJOsdw7o{~y*l IA” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowfullscreen=”true” wmode=”transparent” allowscriptaccess=”always” width=”320″ height=”240″><
p>Natasha Perez
Communications Director
Flaherty for Mayor Committee
<
p>I’d actually like a stronger commitment than that. If Flaherty is going to run on term limits, he needs to be running on a change to the city charter that makes an incumbent mayor ineligible after two (or whatever the limit is) terms. Is that what we’re talking about? Or is it something else?
My understanding of the City Charter is that it requires both the Mayor and the City Council to support a change to the charter, which then becomes a “request” for the change that is sent to the state house. The state has to vote on the request for a change before the city charter can be changed.
<
p>This is what happened 2 years ago when the city was frantic to kill any voter interest by eliminating the preliminary election, and it actually became part of the tit-for-tat process that lead to the Dianne Wilkerson case.
<
p>It would be great if the state would actually just do the right thing if term limits are “requested” in the city charter, but I am also curious to see what back room deals will be needed get this through.
<
p>That being said, Flaherty (as Mayor) and the City Council can support this, and it still may not happen. But with the horrible status quo we have now, it will never happen.
How about Sam can fire Flaherty: he can walk anytime.
<
p>This is a city that is at least 50% people of color. Flaherty was in the single digits in Roxbury and Mattapan. Flaherty needs Yoon to stay legit and to win re-election. He may need him even more once in power than he needs him now.
<
p>Let’s be realistic about this. Sam is not in position to win the mayor’s job, probably ever. But now his gambit which so many thought was crazy just a couple of day/weeks/months ago has given him the very real opportunity to change Boston government in a very real way.
<
p>This election is now 50-50, and Sam has gone from being almost a city council afterthought to being on the precipice of a major overhaul of how Boston is run. Anyone see that coming?
No doubt this helps Flaherty a lot, but I don’t think it gets them to 50%. First, not all Yoon voters are going to vote for this ticket . Second, the people who sat out the preliminary election and who will vote in the final election won’t necessary follow the exact same ratio of preferences that we saw in the prelim. I would guess that there will be slightly more “status quo” voters in that population who will end up voting for Menino.
I am not sure how you back up your logic. In my opinion November voters are typically younger, less politically engaged, more progressive and more likely to vote for change.
<
p>It is exactly why many pundits where wondering what would happen if Yoon came in second place in the prelim. Sam Yoon fits the mold, more so, than Michael Flaherty as a candidate who could catch fire and ignite a higher turnout in a November election. The change turnout that was somewhere around 160,000k in November of 2006 for Deval Patrick and over 250,000k for Barak Obama last year. Higher turnout, change candidates win. I believe their is a correlation.
<
p>I am not saying their will not be an increase in status quo voters, Menino has more votes left on the vine, no question. But the real question is, what is that number and where does turnout have to go? When turnout passes a certain point the majority of the voters then coming out are those younger, less engaged change voters that brings change candidates over the finish line. What is that point in this election?
<
p>If the city sees turnout that approaches the 160,000k of 2006 you can bet they are coming out for change and not the status quo. Higher turnout favors Flaherty/Yoon.
That’s the problem.
<
p>Both Flaherty and Yoon have embraced change as a theme because they need to provide a better motivation for voters than the assertion that they will do a better job. I think that in Yoon’s case, there is a genuine desire for change, but in Flaherty’s case I believe it is largely a campaign device. Because the drive for change is originating primarily from the candidates and not the voters, I don’t think they are going to be able to drive the turnout all that high.
<
p>In both Patrick and Obama’s cases there was a huge desire to see a Republican replaced with a Democrat. I don’t think that same hunger exists for replacing Menino.
<
p>Furthermore, the things that Flaherty and Yoon propose to change don’t have a lot of resonance. Most people don’t know what the BRA is, much less have an opinion as to whether it should be fixed or eliminated. The only people who care about term limits are those who have already decided that Menino should go, so presumably Flaherty already has their votes. I just don’t see an issue there that is going to drive that many people to the polls.
<
p>Speaking for myself, I like Yoon and voted for him, but not out of a huge desire to replace Menino or introduce massive changes in Boston government. I don’t like Flaherty all that much, so even with this Yoon alliance, I think I will still most probably vote for Menino again and hope for better options in four years.
In my opinion.
You would know what the BRA is and it’s failings. I see your point, but we shall see whether or not this city wants change. That will be settled on November 3rd. I love this city and I do believe that it has gotten better over the past 16 years. I believe for the last 4-6 we have been stuck with a mayor who is too busy taking credit for things and not enough responsibility for the rest. He does not embrace technology and innovation in the way I would like to see him do so, and he clearly thinks of himself as the king of the city. He has lied to voters about how long he will serve (first it was two terms, then two terms per century) and he has constantly put the needs of developers over the neighborhoods he says he is in and working for.
<
p>Also, not liking Flaherty is one thing, trusting Menino is another. Their is more to come from email gate (Sec State, AG Coakley, what say you?) and if their is one seed of doubt as to whether you can trust this mayor or his administration, the mayor will lose some of his base and be stunted in any growth he was looking for.
I have no particular problem with Flaherty, though I think the deputy mayor concept is a gimmick at best.
<
p>But — I don’t think I’m alone in believing Tom Menino is a decent, honest guy who’s trying to do the right thing. I said early on that change is needed, and I still feel that way, but I really think you (and others) overreach when you say he’s untrustworthy or corrupt.
this is such a wild idea and the concept is spreading like a California wildfire. I’ve heard Steve Pagliuca is offering Coakley and Capuano positions as his Deputy Senators….
…could we call it the “Tom Foolery” ticket?
<
p>At least Hillary Clinton got a real job.