To kick off the last full calendar week before Fourth of July, when many people start going on summer vacations and tune out from politics a bit, I thought now would be a good time to re-visit some notable moments from Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s last eleven months that paint quite a picture of the longtime incumbent. It’s lengthy, but I hope you find it worth reading through to the end (and sharing with primary voters).
August 1, 2017
Even though the role of Secretary of State in Massachusetts is, in some ways, the Commonwealth’s Chief Information Officer, and even though Twitter launched as an information dissemination tool way back in 2006, Bill Galvin only finally, at long last, got the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office on Twitter last August. Secretary of the Commonwealth is a role that needs to be cutting edge in information dissemination to the citizenry. That it took Galvin this long just seems behind the times and very out of touch.
December 17, 2017
In a jaw-dropping and offensive moment, Bill Galvin used an anti-Semitic dog whistle against his Democratic primary opponent for Secretary of State, Boston City Councilor Josh Zakim. In an interview with the Boston Herald, reported on the next day, Galvin referred to Zakim as “sneaky.” To readers who may not be Jewish or may not be aware of the attached history, terms like “sneaky” and “scheming” have long been employed as pejorative, loaded terms targeting Jewish people, akin to the racist dog whistle of calling a black woman “angry.” It’s loaded with bigotry.
It defies belief that Galvin, who has been an elected official in a major metropolitan area for more than forty years (he was first sworn in as a State Representative from Allston-Brighton in January of 1975), would not be aware of the term’s loaded meaning. And, “sneaky” is such a common dog whistle used against Jewish people in positions of power that less than one month after Galvin used the term when speaking to the Boston Herald, none other than Donald Trump used the very same word in a tweet attacking California’s senior U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein. Both Zakim and Feinstein are Jewish.
March 5, 2018
Spotlighting a particularly unhinged and entitled moment from Bill Galvin, news broke that Galvin had called Lawrence Mayor Dan Rivera to yell at and attack Mayor Rivera over the phone for having endorsed Councilor Zakim in the Democratic primary for Secretary of State. Mayor Rivera recounted that Galvin yelled “I made you Mayor!” That is a particularly bizarre thing for Galvin to have yelled, in addition to being unhinged and entitled, given that Galvin had no role in Mayor Rivera’s campaign, other than overseeing a fair election, which was his job. One noteworthy and under-examined detail from the story:
Rivera told the News Service that when Galvin called his cellphone a 617 area code showed up on his caller ID, but the rest of the number was blocked. Calls placed from state government buildings often appear that way on receiving cellphones.
Particularly given that we would soon learn more about how Galvin abused his taxpayer-funded government office for campaign purposes, I for one would very much like to know if Galvin placed this campaign phone rant from his taxpayer-funded government office phone, causing the “617” caller ID notification (and, if so, if he made a habit of making campaign phone calls from his government office, in violation of ethics policies). As far as I know, he has thus far refused to comment on it.
April 25, 2018
It came out in late April from the State House News Service that Galvin has been cowardly ducking debate opportunities against Councilor Zakim, his Democratic primary challenger.
ZAKIM: GALVIN SILENCE ON DEBATES “ARROGANT AND UNACCEPTABLE”
Boston City Councilor Josh Zakim is getting irritated at Secretary of State William Galvin’s apparent reluctance to debate him. WBZ radio host Dan Rea more than a month ago offered to moderate a discussion between the two Democrats seeking the statewide post and Zakim six weeks ago challenged Galvin, who is seeking a seventh term, to participate in six debates before the Sept. 4 primary election. Zakim’s camp says it’s heard nothing back from Galvin on his debate request. “I will debate Bill Galvin anytime, anywhere,” Zakim said in a statement. “I want to share with the public where I stand on the many issues overseen by the Secretary of State’s office. He instead is opting to willfully keep voters in the dark. It is arrogant and unacceptable to do that.” Galvin’s campaign for weeks has not responded to a request for comment from the News Service. Zakim says Galvin has dodged debate requests throughout his career. “It is unfair to voters to ignore them and not tell them where you stand,” Zakim said. “Refusing to debate is his cynical attempt to lay low and protect the status quo. That won’t work. The people of Massachusetts expect, demand and deserve better.” Galvin and Zakim are on course for at least one joint appearance, at the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s nominating convention June 2 in Worcester.
As has been noted above, the Secretary of State position has a lot of Chief Information Officer-type duties. The Secretary of the Commonwealth has to keep citizens informed. But Galvin won’t even debate and inform voters on his record and why he thinks he deserves (is entitled to?) another four years in office. It is pretty disgraceful that Galvin won’t stand behind a podium a handful of times and defend his record face-to-face against his primary opponent. Public accountability should be a virtue, not an obstacle.
May 9, 2018
The Boston Globe broke the news that Bill Galvin’s taxpayer-funded government office – the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth – has effectively been operating as Galvin’s campaign office:
Secretary of State William F. Galvin, the state’s chief elections officer for more than two decades, is leaning heavily on employees within his office to help with his first serious primary fight in years, and in some cases, potentially running afoul of ethics rules.
At least 13 taxpayer-funded employees who work for the secretary of state’s office have filed election paperwork on his campaign’s behalf during weekdays or normal business hours, the Globe found after reviewing documents from dozens of local clerk’s offices.
In several instances, they did so while drawing a regular day of public pay, time sheets provided by Galvin’s office show, signaling potential ethics violations. State employees are not specifically barred from doing political work, but they’re not allowed to perform such tasks while on the public clock.
The entire episode reeked of entitlement and entrenchment, of a public servant that has grown so comfortable in his fiefdom that he no longer thinks he’s accountable to ethical standards or to the voters. A terrible – and rampantly unethical – look.
May 19, 2018
The Boston Globe breaks more news in the Team Galvin Breach of Ethics story, adding on to their previous findings:
Hock’s political work for Galvin is one of several newly discovered instances of the Galvin campaign closely intertwining with his public office, including in ways that could violate state ethics law. […]
The Globe has found six more employees in Galvin’s office who have filed signatures on his campaign’s behalf at local clerks offices on weekdays or during normal business hours, pushing the total number to 19. […]
State employees are not specifically barred from doing political work, but they’re not allowed to perform such tasks while on the public clock. Elected officials also are not allowed to “use public resources for election-related political purposes,” according to the State Ethics Commission. […]
Galvin’s office did not make the secretary of state available for an interview.
In addition to it being unethical that Team Galvin appeared to be using the taxpayer-funded Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office as a campaign base of operations, it is also fairly gross that Galvin wouldn’t even comment on the record for the Globe. Coupled with his ducking debates, Galvin clearly dreads any measure of accountability.
June 2, 2018
In a major upset given the nearly-septuagenarian Galvin’s more than forty years in elected office and nearly quarter-century in his current office – and in a major rebuke to Galvin given the aforementioned episodes above – the Massachusetts Democratic Party, at its annual convention, endorsed Councilor Josh Zakim for Secretary of the Commonwealth over Galvin, by a rather large margin of about 55% to 45%. It was the first time in 36 years that an incumbent statewide officeholder seeking re-election failed to secure the Party’s endorsement, a substantial embarrassment for Galvin.
June 19, 2018
Echoing the first entry above, seeing Galvin only getting the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office on Twitter just last August, Galvin only just kicked off a campaign/personal Twitter account less than a week ago. Again, for an office that should be at the forefront of info-tech innovation, built on a progressive foundation of openness and transparency, this just screams how behind the times Galvin is and how much the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office is hurting for fresh ideas and new energy. For example, one of Galvin’s small handful of tweets from this account shows that he did such a job planning and promoting a forum in Amherst on voting rights that, based on the photos and video, it looks like not more than fifteen residents attended. Given the noteworthy political activity underway in Amherst, this seems extremely underwhelming. And for those folks thinking, “Hey, maybe Galvin is more of a Facebook guy than a Twitter guy,” I’ll point out that, prior to May 3 of this year, Galvin’s Facebook page’s last Facebook post was July 2, 2015! Three years ago! That’s how regularly our Chief Information Officer feels the need to keep up informed.
June 22, 2018
The Boston Globe began looking into Galvin’s campaign spending, or lack thereof, and found some particular red flags:
Galvin has shelled out just $28,535 this year, according to campaign finance records, a pittance compared to the hundreds of thousands — even millions — other statewide campaigns have spent. Through mid-June, he’s reported spending nothing on office space or staff. More than half of what’s he’s doled out — $15,000 — was paid in January to a single vendor named Opinion Services LLC, a New Jersey firm that specializes in, among other things, political and public policy polling.
He’s had no paid staff, so who handled his convention logistics, coordinated what few campaign events he has held, updated his website, and put up his new Twitter account? Because I doubt he was doing those things personally. Given how many “campaign volunteers” have been government-paid staff on government-paid time, Galvin ought to answer these questions to a person regarding who did what. And, with no office space, where did they plan all of these campaign activities out? Sure, he could be having all of these “campaign volunteers” over to his home; but, given how many “campaign volunteers” have been his government office staff, is it a stretch to question if any campaign planning took place in his government offices in the State House and at One Ashburton Place? It’s certainly fair to ask the question in light of what has already been revealed.
All of these episodes add up to form the image of an entrenched elected official who, having been in elected office for more than four decades, has grown far too comfortable, entitled, out of touch, behind the times, unethical, unaccountable, and willing to stoop to dirty and shady politics to cling to his accumulated power. All of that screams out for the need for positive and progressive change.
For those who are interested in an energetic and forward-thinking alternative to the longtime incumbent Bill Galvin, his progressive challenger, endorsed by the Massachusetts Democratic Party, is Boston City Councilor Josh Zakim.
Learn about him and support his candidacy on his website: https://www.joshzakim.com/
Like him on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JoshZakim/
Follow him on Twitter: https://twitter.com/joshzakim
(In case anyone is wondering, I have no formal connection to the Zakim campaign. Not a staffer or consultant, not a volunteer* (*yet), not a delegate to the convention, just a two-time small-dollar donor: $36 on 12/18/17 after Galvin’s “sneaky” anti-Semitic dog whistle, and another $36 on 6/2/18 after Zakim bested Galvin for the Democratic Party endorsement.)
I’d cut Galvin some slack on a couple of those. Not everyone’s comfortable on the latest social media, including yours truly. I’m not convinced that is an appropriate way to disseminate official information, and it’s certainly not the only way. FWIW I didn’t know that only Jewish people could be “sneaky” either.
Is that all you’ve got? Honestly.
This is offensive.
Is this your idea of effective advocacy for your guy?
It isn’t.
LOL, the first thing you list is it took his Office a long time to get a twitter account?!?!?! And BTW, Galvin in NOT “in some ways, the Commonwealth’s Chief Information Officer” that would be headed up by a cabinet level Secretary.
I was leaning toward voting for Zakim at the convention, but his speech convinced me otherwise. It was the worst speech I ever heard. Not only did it include simple factual errors, but he made a grand argument based upon these errors, which even if true are not worth the import and gravitas he gave them. I was very disappointed in his performance. It was juvenile and vapid.
Is Bill Galvin getting old? Yes. Should he retire soon and make room for new blood and new ideas? Sure. That will happen no matter what. Did Josh Zakim offer a compelling vision, a sense of what the democratic party could be? No. Does he seem to have a grasp of the facts? No. Did he establish himself as a statesman of the future? No. He wasted his opportunity. He is young and can grow, but there is no way he should be elected to a statewide office. Maybe he can get a job with Galvin and learn the ropes and then become better prepared and run as Galvin’s replacement when the time comes. Galvin has a lot that he could teach Zach, because Galvin did have the presence of a statesman, the gravitas, a grasp of the facts and a vision.
I realize, of course, that a juvenile and vapid campaign can work. I’m sure it is all the rage in Political Science classes, and it can even work in presidential elections. Progress, however, is not dependent upon victory, but upon good ideas and growing a consensus around those ideas. It was ridiculous that Josh won the nomination. He should really drop out of the race and stay in Boston where, ironically, he has a lot more power to do good things, but sadly doesn’t quite have the vision to grasp those reins either.
The article is right that Galvin doesn’t have much of a campaign infrastructure. Josh, in contrast, is going full tilt, and that may help him prevail. As we can see in The White House, the ability to sell has eclipsed the ability to think. Hopefully the Democratic Party will not follow the GOP down this treacherous path.
Calling Josh a progressive makes me want to know how the author defines the word. Nothing he said could be construed as progressive. He didn’t support ranked choice voting, he didn’t suggest eliminating the need to collect signatures to get on the ballot, he didn’t suggest a way to get all candidates equal time without cost, he didn’t suggest better voting mechanisms or procedures. His whole argument turned on the idea that people too dumb to register in advance of election day are somehow the most qualified to vote for candidates of whom they know nothing about for issues that they know even less about. Anarchus said that democracy is a system where the wise speak and the fools decide. Let’s not prove Anarchus right again. Josh wants debates so he can continue his politics of badgering. I’ve had more that my fill of that style of campaigning with Trump. Unfortunately, a lot of progressives think this style of campaigning is good strategy. News Flash: Urinating in your drinking water is not progressive. While is it better than defecating in your drinking water (like the GOP), it isn’t by much. I would strongly encourage a vote for Galvin. My .02
I think the debates are worth having, but I also feel better about Galvin, particularly his experience, after the convention than I have in some time.
Why? What is your response to the abuses of his office and his demeanor toward other statewide officials?
Not a fan of those particular points, but what I mentioned was his experience.
Experience abusing the office and doing little to move it forward to the 21st century. It’s time for him to go.
My position now is head with Galvin, heart with Zakim. I entered convention leaning Zakim but ultimately abstained after hearing the speeches and having a chance to reconsider Galvin. Like I say, I want the debates.
Galvin is the only one stopping them from happening.
That may be true, but given that he lost the convention endorsement if I were advising Galvin I would say he should want them. His attitude should be, “OK, Councilor – you think you can do this job better than I can? Let’s talk about that!”
I voted Galvin at the convention. I’ll vote Zakim at the ballot box. The official excuse for voting for Galvin is that we need his experience in conducting the census. Frankly, this seems like bullshit. He’s been behind the 8 ball on every advance in voting issues. Time for leadership, and time for him to worry.
If your goal, Steve, was to match the unpleasant tone of this post with an equally unpleasant comment, congratulations.
So maybe we should start at the beginning. Is there anyone willing to defend the record of the least transparent state in the union?
Bob, do you mean defend Galvin?
I think he’s been transparent where it counts most (so, two cheers for him there).
And he stood fast while the rest of the country was going head over heals for the oxymoronic ballotless voting craze that now, suddenly everyone rejects.
Consequently Massachusetts has a voting system that is in many ways a model for the nation.
That’s a core function of the office so it weighs heavily for me.
I think you know that I’m against Galvin just from the fact that that I mention transparency. Massachusetts is the least transparent state–50 out of 50. For a considerable period Galvin simply refused to refer violations of the state’s FOIA to the AG’s office, in effect giving carte blanche to any state bureaucrat who wanted to hide information from the public.
What else do you need to know?
Here is something to know. Galvin tried to make lobbyist accountable with more transparency and the courts didn’t let him. Same is true about much of the Zakim criticism…it is the Legislature that is sitting on their hands.
I’d like to know more about your beef with Galvin. Can you post some links or provide a fuller account?
Hi bob-gardner, I don’t mind constructive criticism, but I would need a lot more detail as to what you found to be an ‘unpleasant tone’ both in the original post and my comments. I don’t disagree with you on the ever present need for more transparency. Maybe you could start by making your comments more transparent?
Don’t you think the Office of Political Finance (or whatever its called) provides some transparency? Accusing people of guilt by innuendo is one of the cheapest thought processes in the book. Sure, lots of reform needed, but not sure how Josh can help in that regard when he starts off the way he did.
My apologies to Mathelman for suggesting an equivalence between his post and the comment from the unpleasant Steve Consilvio. Nothing in Mathelman’s post sinks to Steve’s suggestion that challenging an incumbent to debate is like . . . well let’s just quote Steve.. “News Flash: Urinating in your drinking water is not progressive. While is it better than defecating in your drinking water (like the GOP), it isn’t by much. ”
Not only is the Steve’s underlying idea stupid and undemocratic, but the way he expressed it is unpleasant. And not only unpleasant, but so gratuitously unpleasant, and so inapt as an analogy that I jumped to the conclusion that ugliness was Steve’s purpose.
bob-gardner, ok, I can see how you can see spoiling the drinking water is an “unpleasant” analogy, but, unfortunately, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. The more we make our politics “unpleasant” for incumbents or opposing parties by resorting to cheap shots, guilt by accusation and innuendo, etc., the faster we race to the bottom. I guess I have listened to too many grassroots training that advocate negative tactics.
For the record, I think I might be misunderstood on the debates. I like debates, but the theater isn’t likely to change anything when the mass of the electorate is apathetic. Because we are in Massachusetts, this is really a game of insider politics at this point. In all probability the democrat will prevail in the general election.
People will be attracted to the youthful energy that Josh offers. Young people (ie poly sci majors) who want to be part of a successful campaign want someone that reflects their bias and looks like them. I get that. Unfortunately, victory is not the equivalent of progress. If it were, things wouldn’t be such a mess.
Campaigns too often resemble Orwellian Hate Hours, where the speeches are not much more that long rambles of hate and platitudes without any coherent policy or explanation of what went wrong. For example, why will the $15 minimum wage work better when all the previous minimum wage increases failed? Is the solution really on the scale of the issue, or are we just repeating “too little, too late?” It’s not really a democracy if you can only choose from multiple bad choices and repeat beating dead horses. Changing the hand that yields the whip doesn’t change anything. So, no, my purpose wasn’t to be ugly, but it was to point out that letting ugly win and letting ugly rule us can only perpetuate ugly results.
I still fail to see how Josh is progressive. He is only claiming that there is a problem so he can claim to solve it. It reminds me of Nixon and Reagan stirring up the fear of Communists so they can claim to protect us, except in this case it is fear of Bill Galvin. Oh the horror! 😉 And he doesn’t have a Twitter account! And isn’t spending his money and campaigning hard. What was it that Dale Carnegie taught: Never expect gratitude. Oh what fools these mortals be.
To put it in a more positive way: a virtuous society requires virtuous people. Wise laws require wise lawmakers. Statesmanship is not blind ambition, but is fair-minded, truthful, accurate, graceful and thinks long-term. While it is fine to discuss me, if you want, the real issue here is the difference between Josh and Bill. Bill should get everyone’s vote, unless you can do a much better job of explaining ‘the least transparent state in the union.’ That is guilt by accusation and is so vague as to be meaningless.
The FOIA should not be used for petty partisan or trite purposes. I realize that “importance is in the eye of the accuser.” I was once having dinner at a restaurant where another patron (loudly) explained how she wasn’t going to vote for Dukakis because he wouldn’t get involved in her daughter’s divorce case. He replied that it was a matter for the courts and beyond his prevue. She was unhappy with an adult answer when she wanted a childish one, and was churlish as a result. No explanation on why the couple couldn’t work out their own problems, of course. Anarchus was an optimist, assuming that the wise get a chance to speak. Reality is more often the blind following the blind, and as the Supreme Court is proving, checks and balances is no match for that problem.
To the contrary, Bob. Steve made an analogy that was needlessly gross.
Mathelman made a specific accusation of antisemitism. That’s a smear, period. A much greater offense.
Let’s stick to actual issues please. On that score, I await your reply upthread.
Many Jewish Democrats and the MA ADL critiqued Galvin.
Trickle up, Unfortunately the link provided in the article to the Herald article is behind a paywall. The ADL like any organization, can suffer from hypocrisy. I have seen some anti-muslim rants by ADL spokesman (in New York, not Boston) that should make people’s blood curdle. The problem of being what we hate remains a longstanding problem. I realize that this article is just someone’s opinion, and not the words of the candidate himself, so we shouldn’t smear Josh with his defenders, but it is hard to compare what Galvin said in the article to what he actually said, and headlines are often completely the opposite of what the story says.. “Don’t believe everything you read about what others have said they read.” I doubt Galvin is anti-semitic, and such a claim needs a lot more evidence. We agree on that point.
My apologies for being ‘needlessly’ gross. 😉
What link?
see article above: “December 17, 2017
In a jaw-dropping and offensive moment, Bill Galvin used an anti-Semitic dog whistle against his Democratic primary opponent for Secretary of State, Boston City Councilor Josh Zakim.” it includes a link to an article in the Herald.
The funny thing about dogwhistles is that they only work on people who know them. Accusing somebody of not having a Twitter account, etc., is equally an ageism prejudice. Of course, everyone is blind to their own biases.
Depends on what you consider “transparent”. I like the fact the Galvin intercepted new state laws on lobbyist disclosures in a very aggressive way, only to be struck down by the SJC. That tells me he’s leaning forward and trying to be tough with lobbyist, instead of being push over.