So I was looking into his organization leading cities further and one of the things that stuck out to me was that the board of directors of the organization is only made up of white people and most are developers. This isn’t really that much of a surprise but it goes against his message that he is running for Chairman on which is that he will bring in more diverse voices into the party. I honestly think this makes him a bit of a hypocrite and it undermines his credibility in my eyes. I definitely support replacing Gus Bickford but I think I would much rather Massie be the one to replace him given this discovery. https://leadingcities.org/about
Please share widely!
Christopher says
Do you think he is responsible for the demographics of his colleagues? I take him at his word on this point.
SomervilleTom says
Definitely yes. He is certainly responsible for the demographics of his board.
Mr. Lake has been CEO and President of LeadingCities since it spun off from Northeastern in 2013 (it started at NorthEastern in 2009). The CEO and President chooses, or at least has veto power over, every member of the board of most non-profits.
The board of LeadingCities (https://leadingcities.org/about, scroll to bottom) is exclusively white, five men and three women.
Christopher says
I did not at first understand him to be CEO thus making it “his” board. The way the post was worded I thought he was just a member. If the people he’s looking for are developers I’m not surprised they are white. I’m sure you realize after all these years that I’m not going to pounce on a lack of demographic diversity without more context. The Democratic Party is much more diverse, though “diverse voices” can certainly mean more than just demographic.
SomervilleTom says
Understood.
Now that you know that he has been CEO and President of the organization since it spun off of Northeastern, are you at least willing to admit that the lack of diversity of his board is, in fact, his responsibility?
The question is relevant because Mr. Lake is running to lead the state Democratic Party. I hope that most Massachusetts Democrats share my belief that the Democratic Party of Massachusetts MUST be more diverse than Mr. Lake’s own board.
“Diverse voices” requires the actual presence of actual minority men and women. White privilege is more than a “demographic”.
Christopher says
The only part of the party over which the Chair has direct control over in terms of membership is the subcommittees of the state committee, which as a whole is demographically diverse per the charter and bylaws. Diversity can also mean ideological. I’m more interested in people’s viewpoints and experiences and do not presume that demographic diversity is per se a goal, or at least it’s a means to an end rather than an end unto itself.
SomervilleTom says
I’m sorry, but it sounds as though you’re primarily interested in hearing white people’s “viewpoints and experiences”. Whether or not you admit, that’s what happens when only white people are welcome in a board or any other organization.
The distinction you seem to be drawing between “demographic diversity” and “diversity” is akin to those who claim a distinction between “forcible rape” and “rape”.
“Diversity”, in this context, means having a Democratic Party organization that ACTUALLY reflects the demographics of MA.
The US Census Burea says (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/MA) that in 2019 there were about 620,325 Black, about 482,475 Asian, and 854,670 Hispanic/Latino people in MA.
That’s about 1.9 MILLION (of 6.9M) people whose viewpoints and experiences you’ve decided are best represented by the lily-white choices of Mr. Lake.
There should have been at least one Black, one Hispanic/Latino, and four women on Mr. Lake’s board. That’s what “diversity” means.
The eagerness of you and the state organization to ignore those 1.9M minority residents of MA has a great deal to do with why so many residents of MA conclude that the organization is irrelevant.
I grew up in a state where officials routinely socialized in all-white country clubs. Your rationalization is very familiar.
Diversity — ACTUAL diversity — should be a starting point of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
Mr. Lake’s board is no more acceptable to me than if he had been a member of a whites-only country club or sent his children to a private whites-only school.
Diversity will not happen in the Massachusetts Democratic Party so long as party activists give it no more than a wink and a nod.
Christopher says
But are those examples whites only by rules or by happenstance? I object to the former in the strongest possible terms, but could not care less about the latter. I also object in the strongest terms to the assumption you seem to make that representation is about identity. No racial or ethnic group is a monolith who all think the same way. I’m happy to hear a variety of voices but as I have no connection to Mike’s organization that particular example doesn’t really matter to me one way or the other. Your assertion that there should be at least one black, Latino, and four women just for the sake of statistical reflection is exactly the kind of bean counting I strenuously object to. Maybe there should be more than that if those are the ones who have the KSAs he’s looking for. I’m very confused by what you seem to imply is the state party’s deficit in this regard. After all, we provide for add-on seats in both the DSC and conventions precisely to make both reflective of the state’s demography.
SomervilleTom says
We’ve gone over this ground before.
These rationalizations hurt, rather than help, the case you are trying to make.
The board of “Leading Cities” is all white and composed mostly of developers. That board was assembled by Mr. Lake and has been in place since the organization spun off from Northeastern with Mr. Lake at the helm.
The membership of the board of LeadingCities is not “happenstance”.
I think women can speak more effectively than men about issues that primarily impact women. I think minorities can speak more effectively than whites about issues that primarily impact minorities. I think non-developers can speak more effectively than developers about issues like housing affordability. I think that women and minorities are better able to speak for themselves about every issue than yet another white male mansplaining and whitesplaining on their behalf.
I’m glad that the state party takes explicit steps to reflect state demographics in its DSC and conventions. The very fact that such explicit steps are necessary reinforces the need for the party to take similarly proactive steps to make its leadership reflect state demographics.
That’s why Bob Massie sounds like a MUCH better choice than Mike Lake.
Christopher says
What do you think the state party needs to do that it is not already doing in this regard?
As for Mike’s board I’m happy to stipulate he may have handpicked the individuals, but I doubt very strongly the thought “I only want white people.” ever crossed his mind.
SomervilleTom says
Christopher, what he thought doesn’t matter. Somebody who discriminates without a second thought is NOT preferable to someone who does not discriminate at all.
His board has only white people. That can only mean that neither he nor his board feels that it is important to have ANY minority members of his board.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party is a political organization. Its very reason for existence is to influence how people in Massachusetts vote. Would you feel the same if his board were all male?
The Massachusetts Democratic Party organization has to decide if it actually CARES about diversity in MA.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but may I remind you of the name of this organization? What message does it send to the minorities who live in our cities about this organization when it has ZERO minority representation?
I think it needs to choose somebody like Mr. Massie whose track record (including the boards of the organizations he’s led) shows that he truly values diversity.
I think the MA Democratic Party shows its commitment to minorities in Massachusetts by requiring its leadership to show that commitment in whatever history they bring to the organization.
Christopher says
If there’s no thought it’s not discrimination, just happenstance. There are only 8 members of this body so I really don’t care about its makeup – all men, all women, all black, white, brown or any combination thereof – it’s all the same to me. I really wish you would stop conflating de facto and de jure discrepancies in the numbers. The only way this is relevant to the party is I for one would prefer he not remain in this other position and treat the chairmanship as a full time job.
SomervilleTom says
We have a choice between one candidate who fills his organization and diverse members (Mr. Massie) and another who “just happens” to pick all whites.
I think choosing the former sends a much stronger message about diversity to voters than the latter.
Christopher says
I think we should consider a lot more than cosmetics and I am reluctant to judge without more context. I’ve looked at the LC Board and given the job titles it appears Mike is looking for high rollers with connections. I’m even less surprised now that they are all white. The Advisory Board appears more diverse at least judging by names since there are no photos on the website. Here’s the thing – both Lake and Massie are stalwarts of the party and would make fine chairs. That said I’m sticking with Gus Bickford. This particular item is distraction IMO. I’m not looking to send a message; I’m looking for someone who can manage a state party.
SomervilleTom says
That IS the message, especially to unenrolled voters and even more loudly to minority voters.
What would you say to a parish in decline whose vestry said (during a search for a new rector) “I’m not looking to bring in newcomers, I’m looking for someone who can manage a parish”?
The Massachusetts State Democratic Party is viewed by most voters as even more irrelevant than the party itself.
The MA Secretary of State registration data (https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleenr/enridx.htm) shows that “Unenrolled” voters have outnumbered registered Democrats in MA for THIRTY YEARS. In October of 2016, “Unenrolled” voters outnumbered registered Democrats and Republicans COMBINED.
Since 2016, the number of registered voters has grown by 131,325 — about 2.9%.
In that same period, the number of registered Democrats has declined by 49,930 — about 3.2%. The number of registered Republicans has declined by 24,595 — about 5.1%. Meanwhile, the number of “Unenrolled” voters has grown by 197,431 (8.1%).
So during Donald Trump administration, when we’ve repeatedly said that we need to motivate new voters, we’ve increased the number of registered voters in MA by less than 3%.
Even more striking, not only have ALL of those new voters gone to the “Unenrolled” column, but the increase in Unenrolled voters EXCEEDS the number of new voters.
That means that both registered Democrats and registered Republicans are leaving their respective parties (by 3.2% and 5.1% respectively) and re-registering as unenrolled.
The data suggests that the Massachusetts Democratic Party is dying. It attracts an ever-decreasing share of the electorate. It has essentially NO influence over the candidates or elected officials.
Like a church, a political party surely depends on its membership for its survival. That means that attracting new members (“evangelizing”) is arguably its most important function.
I would think that sheer self-preservation, if nothing else, would motivate the party to be MUCH more eager to find some way to reverse the trend of the last 30 years.
Mr. Bickford has been chair of the party since 2016. The numbers do not appear to support your enthusiasm for his leadership.
The MA State Democratic Party is surely supposed to be more than a social club. There surely must be some metrics that measure its performance — something like a “Vision”, one or more missions that make that materialize that vision, some goals that allow progress along a mission to be measured.
If reversing the decline in the share of registered voters isn’t already a priority, then surely it should be. It seems to me that influence over candidates, policy, and legislation is fairly central to relevance.
I think that ALL of those factors require a clear message of outreach to minority voters in order to succeed. What the Party is doing at the moment isn’t working.
This lifelong registered Democrat suggests that it’s time for a change.
Christopher says
I’m all for attracting new voters, even better new registrants. That falls squarely under being able to manage a state party. As I’ve explained the party is required to be diverse by its governing documents, so I fail to see how the diversity of an organization with no connection to it is relevant. Gus has done much better at communication and we have flipped seats on his watch.
jconway says
This is the silliest series of threads I’ve seen on here in a long time. Particularly people that think two time statewide losers can somehow right the ship the pancake prince has allegedly run aground. Neal won because he won more votes than his opponent and Morse was a bad fit for the district. He couldn’t even carry Holyoke. A guy who can’t carry his home town and can get doxed by UMass kids probably has no business being in Congress.
The “failing party” as Tom describes it controls a supermajority in the statehouse that does nothing, the entire federal delegation, and every statewide office except the corner one which will always go to a moderate Republican like Baker since that’s how the system is designed to work. This story hasn’t changed in my 32 years other than the occasional Blute or Brown or Deval. All of whom are one and dones. This is the unchanging balance in the Massachusetts politicos universe.
SomervilleTom says
Heh … welcome back, you were quiet for a bit.
Controls? Says who?
Christopher knows as much or more than anybody here about what the organization we’re talking about can and cannot do, and for as long as I can remember he says that Massachusetts State Party has essentially NO ability to select candidates, influence legislation, or pretty much anything else.
So far as I can tell, ALL of the things you enumerate are the result of choices made by the UNENROLLED voters, who hold a majority of the MA electorate (57%) and who outnumber the registered Democrats and Republicans COMBINED.
Given its share of registered voters and its acknowledged impotence, how can you say that the Massachusetts Democratic Party “controls” ANY of the things you enumerate?
I think it’s more accurate to say that those elected officials in MA have chosen a BRAND and nothing more. At least the national brand actually means something — a reality that our state officials exploit.
Deval Patrick served two terms, from 2007 to 2015. Also within your window is Michael Dukakis, who served from 1974 to 1979 and again from 1983 to 1991. I think that the fact that Deval Patrick accomplished very little supports my point. I don’t remember very much about the Dukakis administration, my personal life was very — uh — dynamic during that time.
I challenge your assumption that what we’ve seen for the past decade or two is “how the system is designed to work”.
I think the Massachusetts Democratic Party benefits enormously from a combination of a strong national brand and state regulations that make it impossible for any other political party to displace it.
I think it may well be time to eliminate the legal status of ALL political parties in the state, at least as far their involvement in primary elections. For example, I think the trademark status that the state organization holds on the word “Democrat” should be removed.
As far as I can tell, there is no functional role for either of the two major state party organizations in the day-to-day governance of the state.
Christopher says
It’s not quite a trademark, but if you eliminate the monopoly the party has on its own name you are asking for a lot of shenanigans, particularly of the ratscrewing variety.
Christopher says
I know people, myself included, are often frustrated by such an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature not acting like it, or at least not acting progressive, but would you really rather the shoe be on the other foot?
jconway says
I am saying the reality is Democrat does not equate liberal or progressive. Even in this state. A majority of registered Democrats voted for Charlie Baker as well in 2018 and will do so again in 2022. I think most voters actually like the way the system works. The state is cautiously socially progressive and fiscally moderate. Taxes are right in the middle for the country, way lower than CA or NY, but high enough to fund good schools and avoid cuts during rainy days. Our fiscal situation is going to be in real shambles in the next few years and it’s going to be hard to beat the austerity argument without significant federal aid coming our way. So avoiding cuts is a win in this environment.
Joe Biden won our primary as did Hillary Clinton twice, both against more progressive opponents. Ranked choice voting failed, but it failed narrowly. Probably because most voters like the status quo and thinks it works for them.
Most voters in this state are closer to centralmassdad than anyone of us. They dislike the religious right and woke left in equal measure, they like a nice balance between taxing and spending, and they like local control over their schools. I think we by and large get the legislature we want. Reps who fall out of step with more progressive constituencies have been successfully defeated in primaries. The reality is folks like my friend Joe Gravellese can’t win in places like Saugus and Revere-yet. We gotta do the legwork and it requires a bottom up approach to organizing. One no state chair can fix or promote without the help of many dedicated volunteers. It’s a lot easier to draw volunteers to a single candidate or issue campaign than to a party. Believe me.
jconway says
Also in my experience state politics is the bastard step child of voters priorities. They care about national issues or hyper local issues. It’s hard to get folks in Holyoke to care about compressors in Weymouth or folks in well funded school districts to care about cash strapped ones. It’s hard to get people to envision state based solutions to health care reform, climate change, and fairer taxation. Hard is not the same as impossible, but we should be reality based that there is not this hidden progressive majority unjustly denied legislative power. There are presently not enough progressive voters to create that change, and this is what we should work to change.
SomervilleTom says
This is all well and good, and the bottom line from yesterday, as far as I can tell, is that our political system remains badly broken.
The result of the “No” on Q2 and the prevailing wisdom of this exchange is that we continue to have no functioning political parties at all combined with a legislature that is unable to meet the challenges of the moment.
Our transportation system continues to crumble. Our education system continues to crumble. Our health care system continues to decline. Our young people become more and more unable to reasonably expect even a modest middle-class lifestyle.
I’d say that life-long Democrats like me are already being ratscrewed, and have been for at least as long as Deval Patrick stepped down.
Amen to that.
The root problem with today’s American political system is today’s Americans.