In my day job as a lobbyist I encourage my clients to cultivate positive and productive relationships with their own legislators and the Governor’s office in the hopes that when they call and ask their Rep or Senator to get a bill dislodged from Ways and Means or call a Governor to appoint a certain consumer advocate to the Department of Public Utilities, they will pay attention.
How do they cultivate positive and productive relationships? By supporting their candidacy for office with cash contributions and participation in GOTV election day activities, and/or just being a good advocate — presenting good information about current issues.
All of this activity, some call it civic engagement, some call it politics, helps a lot. So does being related and growing up in the same neighborhood, graduating from the same high school and going to the same temple. It all matters, but in the end they listen to anybody. They see it as their job.
Rep Will Brownsberger from Belmont and Rep Marty Walsh from Dorchester are two very different human beings who don’t look alike, but boy, do they think alike about one “duty” of an elected legislator. First Rep. Walsh…
In the Dorchester Reporter,
Walsh said…………that lawmakers frequently write letters of recommendation for individuals. “My job is to try to help people,” Walsh said, adding that his office frequently gets calls from people looking for help with housing and jobs.
“I would not write a letter or make a phone call if a person wasn’t qualified,” he said. “There clearly were abuses in that office,” Walsh said of the Probation Department, adding that some in the state House of Representatives took advantage of the situation.
In a guest commentary in Wicked Local Rep Will Brownsberger of Belmont asks the essential question – “.. how we set appropriate boundaries for legislative contacts with agencies”. And he comes up with a specific suggestion.
The report offers strongly suggestive evidence that, in some instances, legislators solicited campaign contributions from probation officers in return for help. These instances deserve further attention from prosecutors. But, in some instances, legislators may have simply attempted to serve constituents.
That's the deep problem — it is, in fact, an important role of legislators to help their constituents fight through state and private bureaucracy to obtain fair treatment — sidewalk repairs, storm drain clean up, health care benefits, housing, employment. Sometimes there is a very thin line between fair treatment and unwarranted privilege. In the case of the probation department, it is clear that line was crossed routinely.
While, the systematic fraud that occurred in probation is probably unusual, inappropriate patronage is undoubtedly more widespread. The question of how we set appropriate boundaries for legislative contacts with agencies deserves sustained attention. I would support, for example, a house rule that all legislative contacts with agencies regarding employment be in writing and filed with the house or senate clerk.
Cross posted (as soon as I figure it out) at ONE Massachusetts.
That is, when a letter is written or call is made on behalf of a constituent seeking a government job, a log must be kept, and that log forwarded to a place (Ethic’s Commission?) where it can be publicly reviewed.
<
p>To quote your own book, Judy:
<
p>
which means, at least to me, if such appropriate actions on behalf of constituents were also required to be publicly recorded and available, maybe more such actions would be taken, and fewer boundaries crossed, and the whole process would become more transparent.
<
p>But then, of course, I would prefer open meetings laws, fair procurement laws, and record request laws to apply to Beacon Hill. As of today, they do not.
for anyone who also contributed (directly or indirectly) to a campaign.
that if you voted for a legislator, you can’t get a recommendation from him or her, since that would obviously be a conflict of interest.
<
p>I kid, I kid. But I do wonder where the line is, and what the effect of the rule you propose would be.
that is between a newly elected public official and her appointments of supporters to her transition team or to a job in the office.
<
p>The line is called cronyism I think.
<
p>Since you served as a co chair in Governor Elect’s transition team 4 years ago, I’d be interested in your opinion David.
I think the Charley Murphy/Terry Murray response, that “it’s just part of our job,” is not acceptable. I think Marty Walsh’s comment, that he only recommends qualified people, is inadequate, not because I think it’s untrue in his case (I have no idea), but because I think that every legislator will say the same thing, and in some cases it will be untrue. I think Will Brownsberger’s idea of making written disclosures of recommendations is a pretty good place to start thinking about how to change the system for the better, though I doubt that idea alone goes far enough. Extending the public records law to the legislative and judicial branches seem to me a near necessity at this point; that, too, will not go far enough, as people do still have telephones.
<
p>On the other hand, I think JohnD’s idea of a ban on recommendations for campaign contributors goes too far. I suggest he consult Justice Scalia for an explanation as to why.
<
p>As for my own appointment to the 2006 transition team, I don’t think that’s especially relevant, since it was an unpaid position whose only function was to present recommendations to someone who wasn’t even sworn into office at the time my appointment expired.
I believe it is now the law that nobody can be nominated for judge who in the most recent election cycle has contributed to the campaigns of the Governor, Lt. Governor, or any Governor’s Councilor.
<
p>How does the federal government handle all the civil service hirings? It seems we never hear of patronage in DC beyond those apppointments at the top that are designated political appointments.
What is your basis for saying that? First I’ve heard of it.
My recollection is that once someone is nominated for judge or magistrate that person can not donate to the campaign of someone running for Governor, LG or Governor’s Council. I’m not sure of the exact language, but I believe it a applies to any position that is confirmed by the Governor’s Council, including positions like Clerk Magistrate. My recollection is that this is an executive order of the Governor that makes this prohibtion.
It’s up to the Governor to decide who he nominates for judgeships, and if he wants to make it his policy that once he makes a nomination all campaign donations have to stop, he’s free to do so. Frankly, I think actual legislation along those lines could be vulnerable to both separation of powers and First Amendment challenges.
I’m racking my brain trying to remember exactly what Councilor Devaney said. It sounds vaguely familiar that she was pushing for such a law, but ultimately got her way via executive order. It’s not immediately obvious to me how such a law could violate separation of powers or the first amendment, however.
The state Constitution vests the power to name judges solely in the Governor (see Art. IX in the linked section). If the legislature tries to limit the Governor’s power to name anyone he wants (subject only to the Council’s approval), say by passing a law saying that the Gov can’t nominate someone who donated to his last campaign, it is encroaching on a function that is delegated by the Constitution solely to the executive. Hence a separation of powers violation. That’s the argument.
<
p>The First Amendment argument would be along the lines of essentially penalizing protected political activity, namely, donating to the candidate of one’s choice.
Executive Order 500 bars anyone who has applied for appointment to judicial office from making any political contribution to any candidate in the Executive branch (i.e. Gov, LG or Councillors). JNC Commissioners themselves are barred from making or soliciting any political contributions if they wish to remain on the Commission. The purpose of these changes was partly appearances, partly for public trust and confidence, and partly to avoid undue influences. These changes were first proposed by Romney and then continued by Patrick.
…who in campaign remarks has refered to legislation she proposed that would do this. I thought she had indicated that this proposal had become law.
Of course, if Devaney’s proposal doesn’t become law, she could always just throw a curling iron at the offending nominees. HAHAHA!! Oh, I slay myself.
Executive Order 500, first drafted by Romney and then improved upon by Patrick, includes a Code of Conduct for judicial applicants as well as members of the Judicial Nominating Commission that could be instructive in reforming personnel practices in state government. Applicants are forbidden from lobbying for their positions, the initial review of qualifications is blind (without regard to the person’s name or recommendations) and all recommendations must be in writing only and kept on file. Every vote by a Commissioner is made on a ballot form that provides “By signing this ballot, I hereby swear under the penalties of perjury that I have complied with the Code of Conduct for Commissioners described in Section 1.5 of the Executive Order. I further certify that the foregoing votes represent my own recommendations as a matter of conscience and judgment to the best of my ability.” Just as we did with building and vendor contracts post-Ward Commission, I believe we need statewide HR reform to treat personnel hiring as a procurement to assure merit-based hires and to diminish the likelihood of inappropriate and unaccountable legislative meddling in the internal HR processes of other branches.
And feel stupid and/or naive for making. But maybe all of life is a learning experience. Good legislators make appointments with you and listen whether or not you make contributions – and I no longer contribute more than $50.00 to anyone.
<
p>
If any of us were in need of some guidance and called our Rep/Senator and they advised us on how to do things, maybe made a call to someone who could help us out… that would seem legal and completely part of their responsibilities. But the nepotism, cronyism and quid-pro-quo deals which “seem” to permeate the government is totally wrong and has to stop.
<
p>I’ll repeat what has been a mantra from me for years now, we need to restore the public’s faith in government (both bureaucrats and politician) and that means in all aspects of their work life… no more inside deals, no more fraud/kickbacks, no more nationwide searches for College Presidents only to find an ex-politician, no more needing to “know someone” to get a job at the Mass Pike… no more paying for jobs like Court Officer. All these things are well known and yet we live with them. But we live with them at the cost of believing less in the organizations.
<
p>We know you need a political connection to get a job at the Mass Pike. We know the place in full of ex pols, hacks and family members of hacks. We know the organization has the overriding objective of keeping the Mass Pike the way it us… AND we have very little faith in the Mass Pike. Who amongst us would not favor blowing up the organization and starting over?