No, in that situation, the members of our state’s highest
court would likely sigh with relief and begin the task of erasing you from
their memories. In the hallowed halls of
the Adams Courthouse, the least said about a bust-out judge the better.
One may thus infer that the soon-to-be-retired chief justice
of the Massachusetts Housing Court, the honorable Steven D. Pierce of Westfield,
is the genuine article. Else, why would
we have the July 7, 2015, SJC press release with Paula M. Carey averring that
Pierce “was an early proponent of management reforms that have increased
accountability and transparency across the court system” and that “his
leadership of the Trial Court’s Fiscal Task Force was key to our efforts to
avoid layoffs through the fiscal crisis”?
Carey’s the chief justice of the Massachusetts Trial Court.
And why would we have Harry Spence noting in that same
release that the Housing Court, under Pierce, is now “more widely recognized
for the importance of its expertise and resources, such as housing court
specialists who mediate cases, saving time and expense of litigation”?
Spence, currently serving as administrator of the Trial
Court, has been handed the task of repairing a damaged and/or disgraced entity
of state and local government on several difficult occasions. Think Chelsea, post-bankruptcy. Being on the hard-nosed end of the political
spectrum, he’s not one for easy or shallow compliments.
I thought it perhaps significant that the release on
Pierce’s retirement was issued almost three full months prior his official
retirement date of September 30, as if it were purposely setting the stage for a long,
slow victory lap by the outgoing chief justice.
Pierce, who will turn 66 right after he retires, owns the
distinction of having served in all three branches of state government, first the
legislature, then in two gubernatorial administrations, and finally in the
court system. He also was once a serious
candidate for the Republican nomination for governor and once came very close
to winning a Congressional seat.
A Republican and a graduate of Duke University School of
Law, Pierce was first elected to the Massachusetts House in 1978. Within five years, he was the House Minority
Whip, and, four years after that, in 1987, was elected Minority Leader.
In 1990, Pierce was a strong early entrant in the Republican
primary election for governor, but couldn’t sustain his initial burst and wound
up losing decisively to Bill Weld, who went on to defeat Boston University
President John Silber in the November final and win re-election four years
later against Democratic representative Mark Roosevelt.
Weld appointed Pierce to his first cabinet as Secretary of
Communities and Development. This proved
to be only a way stop: Silvio Conte, the
long-time Republican incumbent in the old 1st Massachusetts District,
died in 1991 and Pierce resigned to pursue the congressional prize.
Pierce won his party’s primary and faced off against Amherst
State Senator John W. Olver in the final.
It was a heck of a fight. Olver
emerged victorious by a margin of only 1,934 votes. Had Pierce managed to flip just 968 of those voters,
he’d have gone to Washington and likely stayed there for years, as had Conte and as did Olver.
Pierce was back in state government by 1993 as a senior advisor
to Governor Weld. One year later, Weld
appointed him executive director of the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency,
where he remained until 2001, when Acting Governor Jane Swift, a fellow denizen
of Western Massachusetts, appointed him her chief legal counsel.
Before leaving office at the end of 2002, Swift appointed
Pierce as a justice of the Housing Court.
Governor Mitt Romney named Pierce the court’s chief justice in 2006; Governor
Deval Patrick appointed him to a second five-year term in 2011. The Housing Court Department is comprised of
five divisions and has 10 authorized judicial positions across the state.
The (Springfield) Republican observed, correctly, in 2010
that “Few people have seen all sides of state government and worked in so many
key positions as Pierce.”
I happened to have the chance yesterday to ask someone who
served in the House at the same time Pierce did if he thought Pierce was really
good or really lucky. Without a moment’s
hesitation, this gentleman said, “Good! Steve
had a good way about him. He was good
with people, good on the issues. I don’t
know how else to say it: he just had a really good way about him. It showed in everything he did. People genuinely liked him.”
I guess you can file the Steve Pierce story, then, under “Good
guys finish first.”
No comments:
Post a Comment