It was announced today that Boston has extracted $2 million from Turner Broadcasting.  From the Globe:

Turner Broadcasting and Interference Inc. also issued a statement accepting responsibility and acknowledging that authorities responded appropriately to the publicity campaign gone awry.

Coakley and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said the settlement and statement show that police did not overreact.

“So I just have to say the folks who second-guessed us because we did go out there and do our work, shame on them, because it’s important that we did it,” Menino said.

The mayor and the attorney general need a logic lesson.  The only thing this shows is that you can get a company to say anything in a press release if it gets them out of a jam.

I understand the reaction of the first responders.  The incident points out some fallibilities within their operating procedures, but I can sympathize with why they are set up the way they are.

But Mayor Menino, Governor Patrick, Attorney General Coakley: please get a grip. You can bluster and blame, but it doesn’t change the fact that you overreacted.  Really, we’d think better of you if you admitted it.  We’ve all made mistakes.  But the way you’re clinging to this is just sad.

Shame on me, for second guessing?  Shame on you, Mayor Menino, for being unwilling to acknowledge that you made a mistake.

I was distressed by today’s Globe article about Governor Patrick offering legislative leadership pay raises in exchange for power over existing quasi-governmental agencies. It’s a bad idea. I question whether or not he understands the effects of what he’s doing, and not necessarily for the obvious reasons.

According to the article, Patrick is offering raises for certain legislative leadership positions in exchange for advancing his agenda with the legislature. The first reaction is one of distaste: “He’s bribing them to do what he wants!” I suspect that most people read it that way.

The second reaction is not as widely held, but still common. If you support Patrick, you probably said to yourself: “Well, if that’s what it takes, it’s worth it. ” When you said those things, you used one or more of the following reasons:

1. It’s only $80,000 in raises.
2. It’s unfortunate that Patrick takes a publicity hit, but it’s better to do that early in your term than during election season.
3. If that’s what the legislature wants, if that’s the price of progress, it’s totally worth it. Let Patrick lead!

I’m thinking about something different. In 2003, Finneran tried to do something very similar. He tried to pass raises for his leadership. It was vetoed by Romney, and the veto was not overriden. Opponents to the measure included Common Cause and the Globe.

The problem with these raises is the narrow group of people that are rewarded. These raises are a tool of power. Oppose the speaker or senate president? Lose your leadership position, and lose your big raise. Do what you’re told? Maybe you, too, can get the raise. These are the same tools that Finneran used to maintain his power.

Does Patrick understand that he’s further entrenching the leaders of the General Court? I don’t care if you trust in DiMasi and Traviglini, because neither is there forever. In a different state, leaders change because of party and policy. In the Massachussets legislature, there is only one party. Leaders don’t get chosen because their policy choices are rejected. Leaders change because they are indicted, have a health issue, or run for governor.

I’m not thrilled with Patrick trying to buy legislative support. Legislators may be underpaid, but let that argument stand on it’s own merits.

If Patrick is trying to buy legislative support, I want him to buy all legislators. Don’t provide one more tool to an already-powerful set of legislative leaders. We have enough one-party problems already.

A caveat: I carefully note that the Globe didn’t run any actual quotes. Five different times the Globe attributes statements to “sources” or “one source.” If it turns out that this is all a distortion, I’ll take it all back. And I’ll feel better about the state’s leadership.

Massachusetts is a one-party state. The effects of that are hard to catalog and harder to prove. But this week’s Globe story about the cascading effect of Kerry’s decision to stay in the Senate adds an interesting item to the list.

Read the quotes from the story.

Philip W. Johnston , chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party: “If John had left the Senate, it certainly would have set off a game of musical chairs. Now that he’s not running, I think most people will stay where they are and wait.”

Scott Harshbarger , a former Massachusetts attorney general: “. . . you are losing the opportunity to have new people, new faces become involved at all levels of state and federal offices — as well as what it does to enliven and energize the party and the activists.”

When you have more than one party in action, seats are won and lost on a more frequent basis. Seats change hands because of conflict, ideas, and coattails. The power of incumbency is strong, but some seats change in the general election.

When you have only one party, seats are only lost in the primary. Because a primary is an election among “friends,” the stakes are high. Anyone who runs a primary challenge and loses is forever branded. In a state with only one party the loser is ostracized, never to return. People don’t mount primary challenges because, perversely, the stakes are higher than mounting a challenge in a general election.

One more quote: “‘Upward mobility is a lot more difficult in a state where one party is so dominant,’ Johnston said.” Taking it further: not only do we lose the opportunity to see new faces, but the old faces are mostly just standing in line. There is no disruption, no “rolling boil” that brings good, new faces to the top. There’s just the current office holders, grimly clinging to what they have and waiting for someone above them to move along.

Looking at the current landscape, only one of Massachusetts’s 10 representatives has retired in the last 10 years, and the senators are at 22 and 44 years in office. Are these really the best people for their offices? Or did they just get there first? With no real second party in the general election, and the huge risk/reward ratio in the primary, the status quo continues. Looking at the future, there isn’t really a prospect for change until 2012. That’s the year that Massachusetts will lose a congressional seat to population shifts and Kennedy’s eighth term ends.

Six more years of Kerry isn’t just six more years of Kerry. It’s six more years of everybody else, too.

The Globe has another story about the woman who’s never seen a deadline that she can’t miss. Senator Dianne Wilkerson’s legislative agenda is on hold because she failed to file her proposed bills with the clerk on time. If I was one of her constituents, I’d be ticked – but that would be old news. Reviewing a few high points:

• November 2006: The Office of Campaign Finance (OCPF) referred her 2003 and 2004 campaign finance filings to the state attorney general for prosecution. This happened on November 1, before election day, but was only reported on November 15th, after she had been re-elected.
• June 2006: She fails to appear in court to respond to a suit filed by her condo association for failing to pay her bills. The court rules against her – but the case is kept in the judge’s office for three months, not released until September, after she survives a write-in campaign (see May 2006).
• May 2006: She misses the deadline to file her signature petition to get herself on the ballot for re-election. She decides to run a write-in campaign to retain her seat.
• 2005: The Office of Campaign Finance (OCPF) referred her 2000 and 2001 campaign finance filings to the state attorney general for prosecution.
• 2001: Fails to disclose $20,000 in income from consulting.
• 1998: As part of a deal with the OCPF regarding questionable expenditures, agrees to pay an $11,500 fine.
• 1998: serves 6 months of house arrest as part of a guilty plea to tax charges for the years 1991-94.

I can only imagine that her constituents see something in her that I’m unable to perceive. It is easy for me to understand making a mistake and learning from it. But if I had been investigated by the OCPF, I would bend over backwards to make sure there wasn’t a whiff of a controversy going forward. I can’t imagine putting myself in a position where I got investigated for 5 different years. To me, that demonstrates that she is simply unable to meet the basic requirements of her job – like filing bills on time.

At least she’s not a felon, I guess.

Tom Finneran lost his job yesterday. He lost his job because of things that he did, things that he said, and his pride. I wish it had happened sooner, and the punishment more meaningful.

Finneran was a very powerful man in 2001. With a Republican governor in a state controlled by Democrats, he had no rival. His style of ruling did not tolerate dissent. He wasn’t someone who agreed to disagree. He wasn’t someone who respected opinions that differed with his. In his house you had to vote with him, on every issue, or there were severe repercussions. Committee memberships, fundraising, earmarking, and office space were all tools of his power. He was smart and skilled and was able to bend the state house to his will. He kept on winning his battles, year after year. He didn’t think he could lose.

In 2001, several voters’ rights groups fought the redistricting plan approved by Finneran’s house. They claimed the redistricting hurt minority groups. I don’t think that the minority groups were Finneran’s target. Minorities were just collateral damage as Finneran re-wrote districts to eliminate his foes and reward friends. Look at the original plan in October of 2001 – there were clear winners and losers, and the losers were reps who opposed Finneran.

Finneran thought that the lawsuit couldn’t harm him. His redistricting might be overturned, but that would be the worst of it. That is where Finneran finally made a mistake that could hurt him. He failed to realize that he was in an arena where he didn’t write the rules. In the state house, he could always make it so that his way was the right way. The federal courthouse was in his state, but it wasn’t in his jurisdiction.

He took the stand in 2003. He lied. He lied repeatedly. He brazenly said that he didn’t approve the redistricting plan. He said that he didn’t give input for it. He said that he had never seen the plan. He claimed not to even remember the name of the district that he represented. He took an oath to tell the truth, and he lied.

It finally caught up with him, and he pleads guilty. Now he’s a felon. He paid a $25,000 fine. He lost his job.

But his severance package is four times as large as his fine, and he already has a new job at WRKO. I guess it’s a punishment, but not much of one.

As the week’s events unfolded, I found myself wondering if he’d changed. Did he learn from any of this? Is he humbled? Did he learn the error of his ways? I looked to his statement on the courthouse steps:

At a very young age, my mother, who is now 86, taught me to admit my mistakes clearly and without hesitation, and I have passed that lesson on to my own two daughters. Today I acknowledge, clearly and without any hesitation, my errors in judgment concerning my conduct in court on that day.

Actions in 2001, perjury in 2003, admission of guilt in 2007. That qualifies as “without any hesitation”? Those aren’t the words of someone who has learned his lesson. Those are the words of someone who still thinks that he can make something false become true, just by saying it is so.

This past week has been incredibly busy with work, but I had a few minutes to read the paper and couldn’t help but read the story about Traviglini’s comments on Patrick. My first reaction was an angry one. I want Patrick to succeed. I’m still skeptical that he can succeed, but I want him to. Key quotes from the story:

Travaglini said: “I told the governor-elect, if you’re willing to share and you care and you prepare and are ready to deliver, then everything will work out. If not, I have senators across the state who share my vision and my approach and if forced to choose, I’m comfortable with whom they’ll choose.”

and

Legislators have also been concerned that Patrick may move to cut earmarks, money that is directed by legislators to local projects. “They are not pork,” DiMasi said earlier this week. “They are legislators’ priorities.”

My second reaction was delight (I’m not proud of that reaction, but it is there). I have long thought that the state legislature was part of the problem in Massachussets. It’s nice to see the arrogance so clearly displayed. If Patrick is the foil that makes the legislature’s (and legislators’) failings visible, I think that’s great. Maybe that is the way that Patrick mangages to change the culture on Beacon Hill.

Neither the second nor first reaction went away. One didn’t overwhelm the other. I’m still of two minds about the whole thing. And, as I mulled reaction one and two, reaction number three popped up: Is this being totally blown out of proportion? Is this just the Globe making a conflict out of nothing because it makes a good story? What about story quote:

The audience members who described Travaglini’s remarks said they appeared to be designed to dispel the idea that because Democrats will control the House, the Senate, and the governor’s office next year, the state will return to lavish spending.

It’s not juicy controversy, so it’s not the lead. But if you frame the other quotes in this context, Travaglini’s comments are almost innocuous. He might be saying, “don’t worry, if Patrick tries to go off the budgetary rails, we won’t let him.” While that isn’t Travaglini’s usual role, it’s a role that someone has to play these days. In that context, this is a giant non-story.

Regardless, Traviglini recognized that the story was making him look like an ass. He had a press conference with Patrick and apologized to Patrick, saying that he misspoke. Patrick accepted the apology.

The press conference doesn’t change my thoughts about the first story. Travaglini’s somewhat ambiguous apology successfully numbs the sting of the original controversy. Whether he was right or wrong, he was taking a beating, and the sort-of apology mitigated it. Patrick could theoretically have played hardball, but it seems silly to alienate the Senate president on such a thin issue. It’s a no-brainer for him to stay on the high road, do a small favor for Travaglini, and work with Travaglini as far as he can. You can’t learn anything from their actions because the press conference was pretty much a foregone conclusion, given the original story.

Where’s my conclusion from all this? I don’t have one. We’ll just have to see how the next two years turn out.

One Wednesday, the Globe wrote a top-of-front-page story about Romney’s appointment of his communications director Eric Fehrnstrom to the Brookline housing authority. The story detailed how this appointment would entitle Fehrnstrom to a state pension: “While the Brookline position is part-time and pays only $5,000, the pension Fehrnstrom receives will be calculated based on his top three earning years in government.” Fehrnstrom earns $160,000 in his current position.

Break it down: by working part-time for $5000 a year for two years, Fehrnstrom vests a pension that is based on his $160,000 salary, not his appointment.

There was a burst of outrage in the news and on the web, and from certain members of the left, a distressing display of glee.

What is totally absent in this discussion is whether Fehrnstrom is a good choice for the position. Review the 800 words in the article – not a single one of them refers to his qualifications. They only talk about the benefits that he would reap. Shouldn’t qualification be the first test? Why is the reward so important and the qualification so irrelevant?

This dust-up points out the real problem. The Massachusetts pension system needs to be reformed. The rules should be changed so that career paths like moderator-to-legislator, aide-to-committee, and clerk-to-teacher career transitions are rewarded fairly. The system shouldn’t be so open to abuse. The system should’t turn a $5000 appointment into a $500,000 political football.

This is one of the areas where we’ll see just how effective Deval Patrick is. The unions love this system and will be loathe to change it. Many in the legistlature benefit from the current system, and certainly know people who benefit from it. Can Patrick bring about reform? Or will be be absorbed by the system?

A few unconnected thoughts from the day:

• The most surprising results for me were the congressional races in New Hampshire.  Two scandal-free, relatively popular incumbents were kicked out.  Iraq? Uncontrolled federal spending? Civil liberty issues? Some fraction of each of these, I’m sure.  There were a number of “first time in a century” events in New Hampshire yesterday.  It’s a different state than the one I grew up in.
• The Democrats in Massachussets tightened their grip on the General Court.  35-5 in the Senate (88%), 137-19 (88%) in the House.  It seems like this is a real governance problem.  The legislature is effectively being chosen in primaries a tiny fraction of the electorate.  I’ll be writing about this one more in the future. (I know that the House count isn’t quite right.  If you have a link to final results, please let me know – I’ve been searching all over)
• I think that Webb’s lead in Virginia is safe. The recount will not change the outcome. First, look at last year’s recount for Attorney General – it barely budged.  Second, just do the math.  The lead is about 7000 votes, depending on which website you use.  Webb, Parker, and write-ins have perhaps 1.2 million votes combined.  That means that Allen has to find an error in his favor on one out of every 171 votes cast, while finding no errors that work against him.  I would be shocked if the error rate was that high, and it always broke in his direction.  Allen has to hope that someone finds a ballot box or a broken calculator.  We won’t know for weeks, but I’m betting on a Democratic-controlled Senate in January.
• Why is it that the results in Virginia were available hours after the polls closed, but races like Washington’s Eighth are still only half counted?  I’m sure there’s a reason here, but I don’t know it.
• Eleven races are still too close to call. We won’t know the margin of this mid-term defeat for quite a while.
• I’m encouraged to note how many third-party candidates received more votes than the margin of victory (there are more, but those are a representative few).  I hope that it leads the main-stream press to give them more coverage in future elections.  I’m not holding my breath.