Mariano's Acceptance Speech a Good Map of Where He Wants to Take House

Yesterday, December 30, Ronald Mariano of Quincy, a former public schoolteacher who has served as Majority Leader of the House of Representatives for nine of the 11-plus years of the speakership of Robert DeLeo, was elected to succeed DeLeo, who is leaving the House for a job at Northeastern University.  As is the custom in the legislature, Mariano delivered an acceptance speech on the occasion.  Reading the excellent transcript of that speech on the State House News Service, I was struck by how specific Mariano was on so many policy points, although I was not surprised, given his long experience on Beacon Hill and his reputation for skillfully negotiating the final shape of bills whenever he served on House-Senate conference committees -- and he served on many of  the major-law/major-issue conference committees of the last three decades.  As a look into the mind and heart of Speaker Mariano, now one of the most powerful and influential figures in the Commonwealth, I broke his speech into blocks and introduced each one, as follows, with a brief explanation or comment (in boldface).

First, he recognized by name all of the House members who, mainly through retirement, will not be returning to the legislature in January.  Because of the pandemic, departing members will not be able to give traditional farewell speeches during the final House sessions of  2020.

"...I am very grateful for the opportunity to mark this occasion with you all, whether you are in the chamber or watching from home.  But I am also mindful that we will not be able to celebrate several distinguished careers with farewell addresses.  Those members include: Reps. Crocker, Cullinane, Hay, Hecht, Kafka, R. Hunt, Nangle, Naughton, Petrolati, Poirier, Provost, Speliotis, Tosado, Vega and Vincent.*  And I want to pay special attention to the dean of the House (Scaccia), who is retiring after 23 terms."

He was gracious toward the dean of the House, Rep. Angelo Scaccia of Hyde Park, who was a thorn in the side of Speaker DeLeo and his leadership team.  As the current longest-serving member of the House, Scaccia served as presiding officer during the voting for new Speaker.

"I want to thank Angelo Scaccia, forever the gentleman, for joining us today.  As many of you know, this man is a Marine and a decorated veteran of Vietnam, who came home and decided to continue to serve his community by seeking elected office.  For decades he has been a steadfast champion of social services and of the many programs that are a quiet lifeline.  We've served together for a long time and during that time, we have been on the same side of many issues.  We haven't been in agreement on every issue.  I was lucky enough to prevail through debating techniques.  But I've always, and will always, hold a deep respect for his service to our country."

He artfully tied his personal history to the history of his hometown and the Commonwealth, using one of the five "Milestones on the Road to Freedom" murals in the House chamber to make his point: John Adams drafting the Massachusetts Constitution at his kitchen table in Quincy in 1779.

"It's a true honor to be elected Speaker of the House and to have earned the trust and confidence of my esteemed colleagues.  And it's not lost on me that I accept this great honor in an historic chamber that is nearly empty.  But even with our members scattered throughout the Commonwealth, these walls still inspire a sense of awe and reverence.  As I stand at this rostrum as your next Speaker, I'm reminded of my very first day in this chamber.  I was born and raised by the shipyards of Quincy, where my father earned his living, after his father left Italy with his sights set on the American dream.  When I first took the oath of office, I did so on their shoulders, and under the watchful reminders of our founding moments, depicted in the scenes above me.  One of them is in Quincy.  These scenes reflect an undeniable truth that should both humble and inspire us: America follows Massachusetts's lead."

He placed his service in the House within the context of the Commonwealth's history of innovation and of developing new solutions to public policy questions.

"From the founding years of this country to the social and scientific advances of modern times, Massachusetts has always been the spearhead of progress.  As the state representative for Quincy, Weymouth and Holbrook, and as Majority Leader, I have had the privilege of serving my constituents in this House and playing a part in that Massachusetts mantle of leadership.  It was not too long ago that access to high-quality, affordable health care was out of reach for hundreds of thousands of uninsured people in our Commonwealth.  But our Health Care Reform Law of 2006 changed that, and it went on to serve as a template for the Affordable Care Act nationally.  I was chairman of Financial Services at that time and served on the conference committee that got that law to the governor's desk.  Massachusetts is the greatest incubator for innovative thinking, in our world-class universities and research institutions, and right here in the House of Representatives.  Whether it's health care policy, the groundbreaking victory of same-sex marriage, or implementing the toughest gun laws in the country, other states turn to Massachusetts for leadership in matters of public policy."

He spotlighted the impact of his predecessor's "steadfast fiscal leadership."

"In recent years, the House has much to be proud of.  And, for that, every member of this body and all of the residents of the Commonwealth, owe a debt of gratitude to Speaker Bob DeLeo.  During the nearly 12 years of his leadership, Speaker DeLeo brought to this chamber an unprecedented level of stability, respectful debate, and consensus-building.  The result of that has been an impressive list of accomplishments.  After years of disciplined investment in our Rainy Day Fund, his steadfast fiscal leadership made possible a strong Fiscal Year 2021 budget in an otherwise struggling economy.  The rainy day has come, and those funds have been used to avoid major cuts to vital programs."

He went on to praise DeLeo's accomplishments in a number of areas. 

"He (DeLeo) also helped establish Massachusetts as a model for gun control laws, raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and guaranteed paid sick leave for workers.  He worked to protect the rights of transgender people and then helped beat back a referendum seeking to repeal that law.  He put us on the path toward racial justice with comprehensive criminal justice reform and guided us through the adoption of modern standards for training and accountability in law enforcement.  Public school teachers, like my wife Eve and I, know more than anyone the dire need to increase state support for our schools.  The Student Opportunity Act makes a long-overdue update to the current funding formula, along with increased support of other vital education aid programs.  And we must renew this commitment to our students during our economic recovery."

He identified "job number one" as "meeting the needs of each resident" during the pandemic.

"But, while we may be proud of our history of leadership and the gains we've made, there is no question that we find ourselves in a moment of reckoning.  No family, no community, no one has been left untouched by this pandemic.  Ten months in, we remain in a state of uncertainty and, in far too many cases, dealing with grief or job loss.  All of us have faced challenges, whether it be with at-home learning, providing for the oldest and youngest in our care, or with maintaining our own mental health.  Certainly, no one has sacrificed more than our frontline health care workers, public safety personnel, and even our grocery store clerks.  The climb back to where we were just one year ago will be a long one, but this is job number one: meeting the needs of each resident through this time of crisis.  This has been the focus of our work over these past 10 months."

He committed to striving for "lasting, positive change" on racial injustice and economic inequality.

"The members of our COVID-19 Working Group have guided us through the daunting logistical challenges of gathering virtually.  Their work allowed us to pass crucial legislation in response to the ongoing pandemic.  We provided tax relief to small businesses.  We increased unemployment benefits and implemented the strongest eviction and foreclosure moratorium in the country.  We've made telehealth a permanent fixture in our health care system and expanded the options available for voters to cast their ballots.  But, make no mistake. Getting back to where we were a year ago is not enough.  There is another crisis this pandemic has revealed: the great divide between rich and poor, Black and White, rural and urban, has been made all too obvious.  The disproportionate suffering of communities of color, in particular, has exposed the frailty of our safety net and the inequality that has been hiding in plain sight.  We must turn this crisis into an opportunity to make lasting, positive change."

He asked Joe Biden to "look to Massachusetts" for inspiration as the new president "builds back better."

"President-elect Joe Biden has said that his presidency will be focused on 'building back better.'  Well, I say, 'Look to Massachusetts, Mr. President!'  It's a Massachusetts company that has given the world one of the vaccines that promises a return to normalcy.  And it was this legislature that made the billion-dollar investment so that the biopharmaceutical industry could take root right here.  We should be proud to say this recovery will be 'Made in Massachusetts.' "

He categorized broadband access and high-speed internet among infrastructure improvements Massachusetts needs.

"The recovery begins by getting people back to work and investing in our community colleges, placing them at the center of the retooling of Massachusetts workers.  And when young people do go back to work, there's no reason that anyone's commute should be longer than one hour.  That means strengthening our infrastructure.  Not just the rails, roads and bridges that carry workers to their offices and job sites, but also the broadband and high-speed internet that will allow more people to work from home.  We've invested millions in laying cable to reach the rural and oftentimes overlooked areas of our state.  But we have failed to appreciate the depth of the digital divide in our most populated cities."

He emphasized "meaningful zoning reform" at the local level to address "our housing infrastructure," which he declared is "at a breaking point."

"We are also at a breaking point in terms of our housing infrastructure.  People want to live and work in Massachusetts, but we don't have the housing stock to welcome them.  Meaningful zoning reform can change that.  The one-hour-or-less commute also means we can't create all the jobs in one small corner of the Commonwealth."

He saw the development of our "green economy" as the main way to create "new opportunities" in every part of the state.

"We need to create opportunities in each county, from Berkshire to Barnstable, and everywhere in between.  The path to that reality is making Massachusetts a leader in the green economy.  We are on the cusp of an offshore wind energy revolution, and it will begin off our shores."

He put teaching hospitals on notice that he's sticking to his position in favor of greater state funding for community hospitals.

"It also means strengthening our community hospitals, which not only form an important part of our health care landscape but are also critical economic engines in the Gateway Cities where they're located."

He put drug companies on notice that he's determined to address the "skyrocketing cost of pharmaceuticals."

"I'm also committed to addressing the biggest health care dilemma facing this country: the skyrocketing cost of pharmaceuticals.  The challenge we face is curbing the cost of the generic drugs millions need to live, while also encouraging the scientific breakthroughs that are giving new hope to people suffering from serious diseases.  This is a tall order, but I know how the work gets done: by listening first and understanding where people are coming from.  Only then can we build consensus around legislation that can make the lives of people better -- and that can be passed and signed by the governor.  This is often frustrating work.  But it does work."

He let dissenters know that he bears no grudges.

"The House benefits from a wide range of passionate voices.  After years of frustrating results from Washington, a new generation of advocates have focused their energies on state government.  We have, and we must continue, to rise to the occasion.  Although we may approach issues differently, it is our partnership that gets things done.  I welcome those new voices, hungry for change, who are not afraid to press for more, and who expected us to be bold.  But it's also my job to know that just agreeing in principal to calls for bold change is not enough."

He invited every rep to join him in the conversations "where all important change begins." 

"In the reality of governing, we must live in the world of the possible and not make perfection the enemy of progress.  While this may be an introduction for most people outside this chamber, for my colleagues this isn't the first time you've heard me talk about these issues.  The truth is, one of the most rewarding parts of my job has been building relationships with each of you.  I've kept my door open  -- not always happy about that -- and whether you've been here for decades or only a few weeks, you've walked in to pay me a visit.  And we start where all important change begins: with a conversation.  I pledge to all of you that my door will continue to be open.  I look forward to our continued collaboration and exchange of ideas.  We have a lot of work to do together.  Thank you."

*Full names, cities/towns, and parties of departing representatives: William L. Crocker, R-Barnstable; Daniel Cullinane, D-Boston; Stephen L. Hay, D-Fitchburg; Jonathan Hecht, D-Watertown; Randy Hunt, R-Sandwich; Louis L. Kafka, D-Stoughton; David M. Nangle, D-Lowell; Harold P. Naughton, Jr., D-Clinton; Thomas M. Petrolati, D-Ludlow; Elizabeth A. Poirier, R-North Attleboro; Denise Provost, D-Somerville; Angelo M. Scaccia, D-Readville; Theodore C. Speliotis, D-Danvers; Jose F. Tosado, D-Springfield; Aaron Vega, D-Holyoke; RoseLee Vincent, D-Revere.

New Research Report Makes Strong Financial Case for Housing the Homeless

In Boston, we see them early in the morning, asleep in doorways, swathed head to toe in grimy  blankets and plastic bags.

We see them on the sidewalks at all hours, shaking cups, asking for spare change.

When night comes on, we see them in small groups in alleyways and on stairs to the subway.  They smoke cigarettes or joints, they argue vehemently about what seems nonsensical.

The Homeless.  

We see them everywhere; seldom do we really look at them or think of them.  

At such misery and desperation, it's hard to look squarely, and even  harder to look at with an open heart and mind.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as of January 2019, Massachusetts had an estimated 18,471 persons who were experiencing homelessness on any given day.  (The number is almost certainly higher now due to the economic damage wrought by the pandemic.)

Of that total, HUD said, 3,766 were families, that is, households without a house; 917 were military veterans, 480 were unaccompanied young adults ranging from 18 to 24 years of age, and 2,370 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.

For our homeless fellow Americans, living under constant stress and uncertainty, in unsanitary conditions, exposed to severe weather, is a recipe for bad health, premature aging, and early death.

The homeless are more likely to have HIV/AIDS, lung diseases, malnutrition, infected wounds, skin diseases, mental illness and addictions to alcohol and drugs. 

According to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco, homeless persons in their 50s have more geriatric conditions than those who are decades older.

"Because of prolonged exposure to stress, those living in poverty often experience premature aging, also known as weathering," writes Liz Seegert in an article published by the Association of Health Care Journalists.  "Weathering can dramatically impact those without stable housing, causing individuals to prematurely age by 10 to 20 years beyond their chronological age."

Although they may exist as outcasts in our midst, in a realm beyond the everyday thoughts and concerns of we who are securely housed, all of us have a practical stake in the heath and well-being of the homeless.

Public resources, principally in the form of Medicaid, cover the tab when homeless citizens end up in hospital emergency rooms, which too often function -- never efficiently -- as their primary care providers.  

How we are dealing with the homeless, or not, has to be a policy priority.-- which is why we all should appreciate what the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation has done in its latest research report on the topic of supportive housing programs for the chronically homeless, released Dec. 22.

The study examined the effect upon Medicaid expenditures of two statewide programs, Home and Healthy for Good, and Social Innovation Financing Pay for Success, which have served, respectively, more than 1,100 and more than 800 formerly chronically homeless individuals since 2005 and 2015. 

The study found that:

-Individuals enrolled in permanent supportive housing programs had significantly lower per-person, per-year health care costs on average, compared to a cohort of homeless that did not receive such services.

-Individuals in these programs received significantly more mental health services; however, the cost of those services was more than offset by lower utilization of hospital inpatient and emergency department services.

-Supportive housing models may produce health care costs savings and also positive health effects through more consistent access to mental health services.  

Said Audrey Shelto, president of the foundation, This "...adds to a growing body of research that demonstrates investments in social determinants of health -- in this case supportive housing for the chronically homeless -- not only lead to better health, but also provide a significant return in the form of lower Medicaid costs...the data are in: People (in supportive housing) are getting more of the services that they need and at net lower cost."

Getting people off the street is the right thing to do, morally and financially.

For more info, go to bluecrossmafoundation.org

SHOUT-OUT TO EASTERN BANK: As reported today by The Boston Globe's Jon Chesto, the Eastern Bank Charitable Foundation has just awarded $3 million to various non-profits, "primarily with the goal of addressing homelessness and other housing concerns."  Among the largest recipients of that money, Chesto wrote, is the Pine Street Inn, "which is struggling to keep up with the demand for homeless beds in Boston."

MA GOP Leader Embraces a Losing Trump, Ignores a Successful Baker

The Massachusetts Republican Party has been going through a rough patch for quite some time. 

Nothing that happened to the party on Nov. 3rd made things smoother.

Republicans lost one Senate seat and one House seat, meaning they will have only three senators out of 40, and 29 representatives out of 160 when the new legislature convenes in January.  Their membership in the upper branch will be at its lowest level since at least 1970, according to the State House News Service.

WBUR radio's Anthony Brooks pointed out in a Nov. 19 report: "The state GOP will enter the new year with a shrinking minority on Beacon Hill, no members in Congress and internal divisions that are forcing a reckoning."

"Internal divisions" was primarily a reference to the upcoming fight for Republican Party chairman, a position now held by former Andover rep Jim Lyons, whose heart beats fast at the mention of Donald Trump's name.  

Lyons's devotion to Trump puts him sideways with the most popular, most successful Republican in Massachusetts, Governor Charlie Baker, whose calm, cerebral, non-partisan approach to governing is the opposite of the president's. 

Trump has long made our guv uncomfortable.  Baker announced before the latest election he would not be voting for his party's national leader.

Shawn Dooley, a Republican rep from Norfolk, will run for chairman against Lyons at the next state GOP convention.  "Dooley faults the party," as Brooks put it, "for being too focused on Donald Trump instead of core Republican values like lower taxes, personal freedom and supporting the police amidst calls for reform."

There are also divisions within the current Republican party apparatus.  Tom Mountain, vice chairman of the party, moans that the GOP "got completely clobbered" on Nov. 3, while a paradoxically upbeat Lyons claims Trump "has energized a core of Republican voters who will help the party win elections in the future," according to the story filed by Brooks.    

Question: Why would Trump-generated energy help future Republican candidates in Massachusetts when it failed to do so on Nov. 3, as Trump collected 1,167,202 votes here (32.3%) ?  [Joe Biden won the support of 2,382,202 (65.9%) Massachusetts voters.]

Go to the homepage of the Republican party website, massgop.com, and you find a big picture of Trump, not Baker, the only thing standing between the party and oblivion in the Commonwealth. 

In the website's "About Us" section, it says, "We believe that free enterprise, low taxes, and fewer regulations are the best ways to grow our economy in order to create good, high-paying jobs across Massachusetts."

If Shawn Dooley displaces Jim Lyons, I'd urge him to come up with something different.  He should consider a party credo more in line with the popular, time-tested Baker model of governing and more appealing to independent voters, something along these lines:

"We believe in spending every tax dollar carefully, creating the smartest, most innovative state government possible, and serving as a much-needed counterweight to the Democratic Party."

 

Clark Rises Ever Higher in U.S. House and Easily Deflects 'Assassin' Talk

Katherine Clark, a daughter of New Haven, Connecticut, a Cornell-educated lawyer, and the married mother of three sons, moved in 2001 with her family to the city where I have lived now for 42 years, Melrose, Massachusetts.

Within a year, Clark was elected to the Melrose School Committee, which made the locals sit up and take notice.  I didn't meet her until after she had taken office.  When I did -- at a community event at Memorial Hall, a stately granite building dedicated to the soldiers and sailors from Melrose who died in the Civil War -- I could see why she did well in her first try for political office.

She was tall and striking in the interesting but not perfect way that some models are.  She had an energy, a poise, a confidence about her that made her almost glow.  I talked with her for a minute or two and found it impossible not to like her.  It wasn't just her charisma.  It was her sincerity and obvious intelligence, and the gift she had for being fully present in the moment and at ease with herself.  I could see she was a born socializer, the kind of person most persons want to be friends with -- and to do things for.

In 2004, Clark, a Democrat, ran against, and lost to, Richard Tisei of Wakefield, the longtime incumbent Republican state senator for the district Melrose is in.  I have a good friend who was a big volunteer in her senate campaign from early on.  He invited and encouraged me to get onboard the campaign, as many, Melrosians were doing.  I politely declined because by then I had known and voted for Richard Tisei for two decades. I never had a beef with the way he conducted himself in the community and in the legislature.  Moreover, Richard and his staff were a big help to me and my former employer during the years (1984-98) I was in charge of public and community relations at the Melrose-Wakefield Hospital.  I would have been an ingrate to back Katherine over Richard.

Post-defeat, the irrepressible Clark brought her talents to statewide politics for the Democratic Party, and, in 2006, was appointed co-chair of Victory 2006, the party's campaign and fundraising unit that year.  When the Democratic nominee, Deval Patrick, won, Clark justifiably received part of the credit.  

A year later, Patrick appointed Mike Festa, then Melrose's state representative, Secretary of Elder Affairs.  Clark jumped into the race to succeed Festa through a required special election.  She defeated two Democrat opponents in the primary and prevailed over the Republican nominee in the final by 46 percentage points.  Two years later, she won a race for an open Senate seat in the legislature after Richard Tisei resigned to run for lieutenant governor. 

Clark had captured two open seats in a row in convincing fashion and soon she would make it three, dramatically upping her game in the process.

After Malden's Ed Markey won, in 2013, a special election to the U.S. Senate, taking the position John Kerry vacated upon becoming Barack Obama's Secretary of State, Clark became a candidate for Markey's Fifth District U.S. House seat.  In any state, winning an election for the U.S. House is infinitely more challenging than winning a race for the state legislature.  Clark proved herself more than worthy for the challenge.

Positioning herself as an equal rights champion who could best oppose Republicans at the Capitol in their "war against women," Clark beat six candidates in the Democratic primary, including two of her state senate colleagues, William Brownsberger of Belmont and Karen Spilka of Ashland, now president of the Massachusetts Senate; a state rep, Carl Sciortino of Somerville, and a former rep, Peter Koutoujian, the Sheriff of Middlesex County.  Beating Koutoujian was especially notable because his base of power in greater Waltham was larger than Clark's in Melrose/Wakefield, and he had run a successful race before in the state's largest county and was well-known to a much larger swath of the electorate than Clark was.  In the final, Clark easily defeated the Republican nominee, Frank Addivinola.

Let's jump ahead in the Clark chronology -- skipping over some promotions she has had -- to Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2020, when she was elected assistant speaker of the U.S. House in an internal Democratic election that pitted her against Rhode Island congressman David Cicilline, a Brown and a Georgetown Law grad, and a former two-term mayor of Providence.  Clark outpolled Cicciline by 43 votes, 135 to 92.

When she officially becomes assistant House speaker to Nancy Pelosi in early January, Clark will make history as the second-highest Democratic woman ever in the U.S. House.  If Dems retain control of the House in 2023-24, Clark has the potential to be a strong candidate in the contest to succeed Pelosi, who is expected to retire after this term.

Think about that.  

In less than 20 years, Katherine Clark will have gone from being a rookie school committee member in a little-known Massachusetts city to one of the most powerful positions in the federal House of Representatives, earning, in the process, a place in the history books. She'll practically be rubbing elbows with the ghosts of Jeannette Rankin, the first woman ever elected to the U.S. House (1916), and Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman elected to Congress (1968).  

The Boston Globe published a story on Clark's ascent on Thursday, Nov. 18, ("Clark elected to leadership role in the House/ Becomes most powerful Mass. congresswoman ever").  Here's an excerpt:

"Clark, 57, may not be the delegation's biggest star, but over three full terms she has recruited new members, become a prolific fund-raiser, and developed powerful alliances in the House, drawing on a low-key leadership style that has reportedly earned her the nickname 'the silent assassin.'  Her win on Wednesday puts her on track to rise further in the future, whenever the octogenarians currently holding the top three House leadership spots -- to which they were all re-elected Wednesday -- retire."

This past Wednesday, Nov. 24, I happened to catch the TV interview Jim Braude conducted with Clark on WGBH's Greater Boston.  I found it fascinating on at least two counts.  One, Clark was extremely adept at taking Braude's sharpest questions and launching pleasantly into short speeches overflowing with the points she wished to make.  (You could use a recording of the show to illustrate an entire class on political communications and media relations.)  Two, she answered Braude on why she's been tagged (by unnamed commenters) a "silent assassin" in the best way it could be answered, that is, by never repeating the words silent or assassin, and by musing calmly on how her "low-key style" may sometimes "catch people by surprise," or something like that.

A male congressman in the same situation might have been uncomfortable but probably would have betrayed at least a glimmer of satisfaction or amusement at being portrayed as a dangerous adversary, a tough guy behind the scenes.  By contrast, Clark's words and demeanor suggested it was an inconsequential, if not concocted, matter, and that she is not bothered enough to explain it, deny it, or show even the slightest irritation over it.  

Is Clark capable of moving a political opponent out of her way. Of course.  That's the business of politics.  But until there's specific information on one of these "assassinations," I'm chalking it up to intramural jealousy or gossip's natural exaggeration. 

P.S.  They never talked that way about her in Melrose.

 

Presidential Election Could Energize Popular Vote Compact Favored by MA

Our nation is not fated to endure forever the kind of presidential election we are once again slogging through, a contest fought mainly in several swing states while the majority of states, including some of the most populous, are ignored by the candidates.  Nor must the U.S. forever be susceptible to the likes of a divisive incumbent who, knowing he cannot win a majority of all votes in the nation, conducts from the start a cynical, base-stoking campaign aimed at exploiting the quirks of our archaic electoral college system under which the candidate who gets the most votes in a state is awarded all of that state's electoral votes.

NO.

If enough states did what Massachusetts has already done, we could prevent the Electoral College from periodically producing a president who does not earn the most votes nationwide, as happened in 2000 with George W. Bush and in 2016 with Donald Trump, and as happened three times before that. We could accomplish through a series of identical state laws what otherwise could only be done in a much more challenging way, amending the Constitution, which requires the approval of three-quarters (38) of the states.  

The number of electoral votes a state possesses is determined by how many representatives and senators that state has in the Congress.  (With nine reps and two senators, Massachusetts has 11 electoral votes.)  Because every state has two senators, regardless of the size of its population, less populous, predominately rural states like Wyoming exercise disproportionate influence in the Electoral College.  These states will never vote for an amendment doing away with their advantages in the system, a reality that puts the three-quarters bar out of reach.

This post is about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and the National Popular Vote bill that is the heart of the Compact.

Massachusetts, 14 other states and the District of Columbia have enacted this legislation, which requires all of the electors in those jurisdictions to cast their ballots for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.  Collectively, they have 196 electoral votes.  

Once enough states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes) have enacted the National Popular Vote Bill, the Compact will take effect and the winner-take-all method of awarding states' electoral votes will be rendered inoperative in subsequent presidential elections.  (Note: The winner-take-all methodology is founded in state law, not the Constitution.)

Success for the Compact is potentially close.  If the legislatures and governors of just four particular states adopted popular vote bills, the Compact would accrue 84 more electoral votes and move comfortably past the 270-electoral-vote finish line.  Those states, listed with their respective number of electoral votes, are: Georgia, 16; Pennsylvania, 20; Texas, 38; Wisconsin, 10.

The Compact is an "end-around" the immovable Electoral College.  It would work because Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives states exclusive control over how they apportion electoral votes.

Most of us do not recall that then Governor Deval Patrick signed the Massachusetts version of the National Popular Vote bill (House 4156) into law more than 10 years ago -- on August 4, 2010 to be exact.  Both branches of the Massachusetts legislature had passed the bill by wide margins: 113 votes to 35 in the House, and 28 votes to 9 in the Senate.  A 2010 survey cited by the National Popular Vote project indicated that 72% of Massachusetts registered voters supported "the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states."  

Here's another mostly forgotten fact: 

Although our state's junior senator at the time, John Kerry, lost the popular vote to George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election by 3,012,166 votes, Kerry came close to victory.  If 59,393 Ohioan votes had gone to Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have won the state and its 20 electoral votes.  Those would have put him over the 270 electoral vote mark and given him the presidency. (The electoral vote totals were Bush, 286; Kerry, 251.)

Michael Dukakis is the first high office holder that I remember speaking forcefully for the abolition of the Electoral College.  That was many years ago.  He had a chapter-and-verse argument against it that was as cogent as it was eloquent.  It boiled down to how inimical the College is to the workings of democracy because it results in voters in some states having more power and influence than those in other states and is thus a grievous affront to the concept of equality of all before the law. 

I could get my mind but not my heart around that argument -- until this year, the fourth of the Trump presidency.  I was sentimentally attached to the Electoral College for historic reasons.  The College was given to us by the founding fathers, our nation's wisest generation, and if we abandoned it, I thought, there might be unintended consequences we'd come to regret.  On top of that, I had the feeling there was a kind of a rough justice at work in having the presidency decided by farmers, factory workers, tradespeople, and old folks on Social Security in swing states like Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Trump was elected with 46 percent of the vote and his popularity, unlike that of most presidents, has never exceeded 50 percent in any reputable poll.  He has never shown an interest in expanding his mandate, in appealing to a swath of the electorate beyond the red-hatted MAGA legions.  If he has diverged this year from a narrow strategy of keeping the world's most powerful office by playing the bounces off the weirdly configured walls of the Electoral College ballpark, I haven't seen it.

In 2016, Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 2,864,903.  He could conceivably lose to Joe Biden by twice that amount next Tuesday and get re-elected.  I can't imagine anything that would spur more states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact than a Trump victory of that nature.  If so, 2024 could be the first time  a presidential election was decided by popular vote -- too late, perhaps, to rejuvenate a democracy long malnourished and twisted around by an Electoral College darling.

Our AG's Other Role: Attorney for the Defense of the Planet

Last week, I saw on the State House News Service that Attorney General Maura Healey was releasing a report on her efforts to stop the Trump administration from weakening and/or eliminating multiple environmental protections.  I followed the link and read the report.  It's titled, "Fighting for a Healthy Massachusetts: Stopping Illegal Federal Environmental Attacks and Rollbacks."  You should read it, too, if you haven't already.

A short time later, perusing the New York Times website, I saw this headline: "The Trump Administration Is Reversing Nearly 100 Environmental Rules.  Here's the Full List."  I clicked on it and slowly went through the list.  Here's a particularly nasty sample: early in his term, Trump revoked a rule that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into streams.  

My mind flashed to this statement by Trump during his first debate with Joe Biden, a line he repeated near the end of the second presidential debate last week: "I want crystal clean water and air.  I want beautiful, clean air."  

Yes.  

And Vladimir Putin wanted nothing more in 2016 than Hillary to win the presidency.  

Since January of 2017, Trump's first month in office, the Massachusetts AG's office, acting in concert with attorneys general from other states, has initiated more than 200 separate challenges to what Healey describes as "the Trump Administration's attempts to gut environmental protections."

Healey, et al., have gotten results. For example:

In 2017, a lawsuit she was a party to stopped Trump from rolling back restrictions on the use of hydrofluorocarbons, one of the most harmful greenhouse gases.

In 2017-18, Healey (and others) successfully opposed the federal Department of  Energy in court over the department's plan to abandon energy efficiency standards for appliances and industrial equipment.  This action, she estimates, will save U.S. consumers and businesses $12 billion over time.

In "Fighting for a Healthy Massachusetts...," Healey writes: 

"The Trump administration is engaged in a concerted effort to delay, weaken and repeal critical environmental policies.  Unless stopped, that effort will jeopardize decades of progress in cleaning up the environment and protecting human health...

"The Administration is also taking aim at important procedures and safeguards that guide the federal government's decision-making about issues that affect our environment -- for instance, by seeking to undermine the role of scientific research and to eliminate consideration of climate change and health harms.

"On top of that, EPA and other federal agencies have drastically cut back their efforts to enforce the rules still on the books, giving a free pass to violators and creating more work for states."

No doubt the report was timed to hurt Trump's re-election campaign at a point when the presidential race is at its hottest.  Whether it will have an impact is impossible to say.  Unquestionably, it serves as a reminder of how health is on the ballot November 3: ours and our planet's both.

Even if Biden wins, we won't be in the clear environmentally because of how Trump, with Mitch McConnell's help, has installed scores of true conservatives to federal judgeships, including two -- and soon three -- to the Supreme Court.  

There are slowly moving but well funded efforts underway to shatter the basis of federal regulation-making on the ground that the Congress has delegated too much of its lawmaking authority to un-elected bureaucrats.

During the hearings on her nomination to the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett was asked for her views on climate disruption caused by global warming.  "You know," she said, "I'm certainly not a scientist.  I would not say I have firm views on it."  

To another question on the same topic, Barrett replied, "I will not express a view on a matter of public policy, especially one that is politically controversial."

Not just cynical dogs who blog are finding that an ominous dodge by a lawyer advertised as a brilliant intellect.

Advice to Auchincloss: Success Isn't Maneuvering for National Import

Jake Auchincloss, age 32, won the seven-person Democratic congressional primary election to succeed Joe Kennedy in the Fourth Massachusetts District and is heavily favored to beat the Republican nominee in the November 3 final, Julie Hall.  Based on the way he has campaigned -- promising to oppose President Trump's agenda at every turn -- we can expect Auchincloss to spend a lot of time in Washington on big national controversies.  If I had his ear, I'd counsel otherwise.  And I'd hold up the example of South Boston's Joe Moakley (1927-2001) on how better to become a serious legislator, a force to be reckoned with, an endearing figure, in the U.S. House.

Before his 28-year run in the Congress (1973-2001) in the old Ninth District, Moakley served as a state representative (1953-1960), a state senator (1965-1970) and a Boston city councilor (1971-72).  At the State House, Boston City Hall, and the Capitol in D.C., he was known for his geniality, sense of humor, common touch, dedication to constituent services, and ability to establish trust with members of the opposing party and, generally, anybody who held  an opposing viewpoint.  With the help of his friend and fellow congressman, Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, Speaker of the House from 1977 to 1987, Moakley moved unobtrusively up the ladder until he was appointed, in 1989, as chair of the powerful House Rules Committee, which has critical, discretionary power to set the terms for debating and voting on bills.  He leveraged that power to deliver federal funding for such major projects as the clean-up of Boston Harbor and other big infrastructure works in Massachusetts.     

Jim McGovern, the congressman for the Worcester-centered Second Massachusetts District since 1997, got his start in politics as an aide to Joe Moakley and became an indispensable part of Moakley's operation during his time on the staff (1981-96).  Four days after Moakley's June 2, 2001, funeral at St. Brigid's Church in South Boston, McGovern sponsored a House resolution registering the "profound sorrow" of members upon Moakley's passing and recording the adjournment of the House that day "as a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased."  Here, in part, is what McGovern said on that occasion:

"Mr. Speaker, I had a front-row seat to watch a real master in action. Joe was guided by the simple but powerful principle that no one is unimportant.  From the streets of South Boston to the jungles of El Salvador, Joe Moakley stood for and fought for fairness, and fought for justice.  He made sure that Mrs. O'Leary got her lost Social Security check.  He fought to make sure that our veterans got the health care services that they were entitled to receive.  He cared deeply about the environment, and he had a passion for civil rights and equal rights and human rights.

"And yes, Mr. Speaker, he was a Democrat and very, very proud of it.  He believed in the Democratic Party and he fought hard for the principles and values that he believed in.  But, as I am sure that my Republican colleagues will acknowledge, Joe respected and admired those who had different views and even a different party affiliation.  Joe Moakley was a people person and his influence and his power in this institution was based not merely on his seniority or his status on the Committee on Rules but instead it was based on personal relationships and friendships with men and women of both parties.   

"His advice to me after I first got elected to Congress was not to give the most fiery or partisan speeches or even to hire the most experienced or expensive press secretary, but to get to know everyone on a first-name basis.  Building coalitions and building friendships, he would say, was the surest way to be effective."

Close to a thousand persons attended Moakley's funeral Mass, including the nation's top Republican at the time, President George W. Bush, and the man then third-in-line to the presidency, the Republican Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois. Many thousands more watched the rites on television.  

Anne E. Kornblut, who covered the funeral for The Boston Globe, noted that Bush had met Moakley only twice, and only after becoming President, five months before Moakley's death.  Bush's advisors told Kornblut that the president's attendance "was motivated purely by personal respect" for Moakley.  She quoted Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary, as saying,  "He (Bush), on his visits with the congressman, instantly came to the same conclusions that everybody else has, about what a wonderful man Congressman Moakley was, his human touch.  The good-natured spirit that Congressman Moakley brought to the job moved the president."

A little more than five months ago, on April 21, a retired professor by the name of Richard F. Fenno, Jr., a native of Winchester, Massachusetts, who held a Ph.D. in history from Harvard, passed away at age 93 at his home in Rye, New York.  Fenno taught at the University of Rochester for five decades and wrote 19 books, most focusing on the U.S. House and Senate.  One of his final books, "Congressional Travels: Places, Connections, and Authenticity," was inspired, according to a New York Times obituary on Fenno, "by the national attention and bipartisan affection accorded to a relatively anonymous House member, John Joseph Moakley."

Intrigued, I purchased a copy of  "Congressional Travels..." online.  Here are three key excerpts from Chapter 1, which is titled, "A Story About Place: Joe Moakley's Funeral":

"...a House member's designation, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution, is not Congressman, it is Representative.  And whereas 'congressman' or 'congresswoman' tends to call our attention to a House member's Capitol Hill activities and to his or her relationship with colleagues, 'representative' points us toward a House member's activities in his or her home district and to relationships with constituents."

"I believe that while the examination of Joe Moakley's activities and relationships in Washington provides, at best, a weak explanation of the ceremony after his death, an examination of his activities and relationships in his home constituency provides a strong explanation.  We could know all there was to know about Moakley's life in Washington and not explain the attendance at his funeral.  I will argue that he was not a memorable congressman but he was a memorable representative.  The story of his funeral should not be read as a national story at all.  It was primarily a local story."

"Joe Moakley can be known best as someone with recognizable connections to a place and to a constituency, for it is these connections -- and the strength of these connections -- that made him a remarkable politician.  Therefore, answers to the question 'What is he like?' cannot be found in Washington.  They can only be found at home.  Answers to the question 'Why did so many people come to memorialize him?' can only be found at home.  Joe Moakley was indeed, 'a heavyweight' -- not in Washington, but at home."

Professor Fenno saw Moakley as a "local hero," if you will, and not a figure of national import.  I think Moakley might have objected to that assessment; I certainly object. 

Toward the end of his career, Moakley said that he considered his efforts to cut U.S. military assistance to El Salvador and to force legal action against those responsible for the 1989 murder at the University of Central America in San Salvador, the capital, of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and the housekeeper's daughter to be his "greatest achievement."

All his life, no matter what position, situation or contest he happened to be in, Moakley stuck to his fundamental principles and instincts.  He followed his principles and instincts wherever they led them, and to the end point of wherever they led.  That made him a great representative of his district, a great champion of our nation's ideals, and a figure of historical importance.

I'm sure that young Jake Auchincloss would like to achieve great things, to perform deeds worthy of history books.  Assuming he'll get the opportunity to serve on Capitol Hill, I'd encourage him to resist the urge to be give fiery and/or partisan speeches every time a microphone or TV camera is available. I'd tell him to keep in mind instead the example of Joe Moakley, who never forgot where he came from (and lived his whole life), South Boston's Ward 7 peninsula, and who remained faithful all his days to the humble tenets of his upbringing and neighborhood.  

Bad Form to Hit a Guy When He's Down, but Somebody's Got to Do It

A great deal has been spoken and written about Kennedy's loss to Markey in the Democratic primary election for U.S. Senator this past Monday.  

The best, most succinct post-mortem I've read was in Politico, "Why Joe Kennedy's Senate campaign flopped": 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/joe-kennedy-senate-campaign-failed-408033

I could not improve upon that.  But there are three brief comments I'd like to add:

One, Kennedy was not bold enough out of the gate. He seemed a bit sheepish, almost apologetic, about challenging the 44-year incumbent.  Result: The chance to make a strong and/or dramatic introduction of his candidacy was squandered.

Two, Kennedy's campaign photography never exploited his intrinsic physical/theatrical advantages, i.e., his youthful good looks and young person's energy/vitality.  Where were the billboards with the gigantic, side-by-side pictures of in-his-prime Joe next to ready-for-Medicare Eddie?  Scott Brown, who helped earn his way through college as a model, would not have made such a mistake.

Three, Kennedy missed badly when he fired at Markey in the second half of August for supposedly questioning his family legacy and "weaponizing" his family name in the video ad that went viral, "The Green New Dealmaker."   The ad was not the cheap shot Kennedy claimed it was.  Voters get that politics is a rough business.  They're stingy with sympathy when a politician gets banged up, especially when that politician has benefited from inherited wealth and privilege.

On the upside, I don't think all the talk about Joe being the first Kennedy to lose an election in Massachusetts has to mean anything in the end.  Plenty of successful high elective office-holders have come back from painful defeats to win the next election.  Think Charlie Baker, long the nation's most popular governor, who got spanked by Deval Patrick in 2010.

Defeat can be the best teacher if faced head-on, dispassionately. 

Joe Kennedy is a smart, selfless, experienced public servant, a person of impeccable character and integrity.  Idealism burns incandescently within him.  I hope it will not be long before his name appears again on a statewide ballot.

Footnote, re: Hometown Knockdown:   Alex Morse, now serving his fourth consecutive term as mayor of Holyoke, came up short Sept. 1 in his own backyard.  Holyoke voters favored incumbent Richie Neal in the Dem primary for U.S. representative in the First Massachusetts District by a 426-vote margin: Neal received 4,366 votes in Holyoke to Morse's 3,940.

  

  

Trump Would Never 'Get' Our Bump. Sad.

Three months ago, in the first week of June, State Auditor Suzanne Bump, then the president of the National Association of State Auditors, hosted a virtual conference of the association from her office at the Massachusetts State House. 

On the afternoon of the second full day of the conference, Wednesday, June 3, Bump could see, from her office window, a steady stream of protesters walking past the State House on Bowdoin Street, heading down the hill to Cambridge Street.  These were people outraged by the May 25 killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis.  

The sight of the marchers moved her so much that she incorporated her reaction to it into her prepared, closing remarks to the conferees the next day.  Describing the scene on Bowdoin Street, Bump, who served in the legislature as a rep from Braintree for eight years and has been state auditor since 2011, said: 

"For nearly 30 minutes, they streamed by my office window.  The peaceful protesters, many white, mostly young, signs aloft, loudly chanting, many with arms upraised, marching for a righteous cause, filled my eyes with tears, and my heart with a jumble of sorrow, hope, guilt, concern, gratitude and resolve.  The knee that indifferently snuffed out the life of George Floyd also unleashed a nation's collective disgust at, and, I hope, determination to directly confront the stain that we have sought to ignore since the founding of our nation. Our persistent, institutionalized racism can no longer be glossed over."

Bump continued, "So many individuals through the years have made their contributions to the righting of society's and government's wrongs.  I have liked to think, and had even managed to convince myself, that I have been on the right side of the moral equation, with my work in my community, with my votes as a legislator, with my actions as the state's auditor, pointing out inconsistencies in the criminal justice system and in access to services, and more recently deficiencies in police training.

"Whatever good intentions have motivated me, whatever good I actually have done, I now recognize, simply has not been enough to fulfill my obligations to my sisters and brothers of color or my country."  [bold face added]

She emphasized that "I have it within my power as a human being to be a stronger voice, to lend a firmer hand.  I have it within my power as an employer to set still higher standards, to instill greater awareness, and to provide a better example.  I have it within my power as an elected official to contribute to a better understanding of the ways that our government institutions fail to recognize and repair the damage inflicted by centuries of injustice.  All those things and more, I can, must and will do." [bold face added]

I became aware of these comments through a blast email from Bump's office on Friday, June 5.  They made a favorable impression and I made a mental note to maybe include them in a future blog post. Then I pretty much forgot about them until they came to mind, unbidden, while watching Donald Trump accept the Republican re-nomination for the presidency this past Thursday night.   

In that norm-shattering campaign speech from the grounds of the White House, Trump had not one gentle word, not one respectful or conciliatory gesture, for the millions of Americans hurt and angered by the killings of Black men by police.  I didn't expect Trump to take the soul-searching approach of a Suzanne Bump to the problem, but I was hoping he might acknowledge,  at least in  passing, the anguish, the frustration, that so many of his fellow citizens are experiencing.

Instead, it was clear that Trump will do everything possible over the next several weeks to make Joe Biden and the Democrats, not racial injustice and inequality, the issue.  

"If you give power to Joe Biden," he said, "the radical left will defund police departments all across America.  They will pass federal legislation to reduce law enforcement nationwide.  They will make every city look like Democrat-run Portland, Oregon.  No one will be safe in Biden's America.  My administration will always stand with the men and women of law enforcement."

For their audacity and creativity, we have to give Trump and the Republican Party credit.  Their virtual convention was a masterpiece of positioning and communicating -- up there with the best TV infomercials of all time. I cannot explain that better than a letter-writer to The New York Times, Ramesh Harihara. In a piece published two days after the GOP convention, Harihara wrote:

"The Republican production effort was stellar -- from the quality of videos, to the locations, to the attempt to show President Trump as someone who welcomes immigrants and is not a racist, to painting Covid as something in the past, and the awesome fireworks and opera at the end.  As a marketer I admire professionals who can take a deeply troubled product, puff up your chest and make people forget the failures." 

Every day from now until Nov. 3, Trump is going to say and do something bold to make voters forget his failures and to focus instead on how awful life will be in "Biden's America." Tomorrow, for example, Trump's going to Kenosha, Wisconsin.  When there, do you think he'll be soothing, or stoking, the passions unleashed by the shooting, and paralyzing, by police of  Jacob Blake on Aug. 23?

When both the Democratic governor and lieutenant governor of Wisconsin made public appeals to Trump over the weekend, asking him not to come to Kenosha  -- "The city was on fire and we need healing, not a barrel of gasoline rolling in," said Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes -- I knew there was no way Trump would not go.  Gasoline is practically his middle name.

To stop Trump's forward progress coming out of the convention and to beat him on Nov. 3, Biden will have to show some stuff, he will have make some moves, like we've never seen from him before.  Worried Dems are right.

Words Matter. Therein May Lie an Insight into Pelosi Boosting JPK III.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi served side-by-side in the House with Edward J. Markey, our state's junior U.S. Senator, for 26 years, from 1987 to 2013. That did not inhibit her last week from endorsing Markey's challenger in the Sept. 1 Democratic primary for U.S. Senator, U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy, III.

The speaker said she was motivated by appreciation of Kennedy's critical work in raising funds and campaigning for Democratic candidates for the House in 2018, which contributed to the party's regaining the House majority and to Pelosi's ability to secure the speakership for the second time in her history-making career.

Politico reported that an aide to the speaker said. "...Pelosi was also concerned after the Markey campaign started ramping up its attacks on the Kennedy name, 'going after Joe, his family, his supporters and the Kennedy family policy legacy.' "

Her support of the Kennedys goes back to her beginnings in Baltimore.  Her father, Thomas D'Alessandro, Jr., a former Baltimore mayor (1947-59), was a prominent organizer and campaigner for John F. Kennedy in his bid for the presidency.  That was 60 years ago.

The speaker had good reasons for injecting herself into the fierce contest between Senator Markey and Rep. Kennedy.  

She also had reasons enough to give the race a good leaving-alone:

One, Pelosi had made it a policy point in her new speakership not to get involved in Democratic congressional primaries.  As soon as she broke her own rule, progressives in her party, such as Andrea Ocasio Cortez, known nationwide by her initials, AOC, wasted no time in calling her a hypocrite.

Two, young Joe Kennedy -- let's call him JPK III -- never asked Pelosi for her endorsement.  (Do you go where you're not invited?)

Three, endorsements are almost always a mixed bag in politics.  For every analyst who thinks they matter there's another who asserts they're insignificant.  

Indeed, there was evidence that Pelosi's thumb on the scales gave an immediate boost to Markey's fundraising.  

The Boston Globe reported this past Saturday, Aug. 22, that: (a) "the Kennedy campaign said it raised more than $100,000, mostly in small donations, on the heels of the high-profile endorsement," and (b) "the Markey campaign said...it raised more than $300,000, via roughly 9,000 individual donations, since Pelosi announced her endorsement of Kennedy."

The timing of the endorsement perhaps offers deeper insight into the speaker's decision.  But before I go into that, I want to state that Markey deserves to be returned to the Senate and that I have already voted early for him.

Pelosi endorsed JPK III shortly after a video advertisement for Markey went viral.  You may have seen or heard of this product, titled "The Green New Dealmaker."  It offered a new twist on President Kennedy's immortal statement at his inaugural: "Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country."

Highlighting how hard the pandemic has been on the nation's essential workers, the majority of whom earn low wages, Markey concludes the video by saying, "We asked what we can do for our country.  We went out, we did it.  With all due respect, it's time to start asking what your country can do for you." 

Given the state of our nation today, that formulation was not inappropriate, nor was it disrespectful of the Kennedys.  I don't get how it could have riled up the speaker to the point she'd violate her own policy and feed dissension in her House.

There was one thing about "The Green New Dealmaker," however, that I could see ticking Pelosi off to the point that she just had to speak out publicly on Markey v. Kennedy.

At a pivot point in the ad, an ultra-serious Markey comes into view, facing the camera head-on, and declares, "Well, they call me the dealmaker!"  

Shortly, he announces, "I put the deal on the table but the people make it impossible to refuse. With 500 laws on the books, do you think I'm gonna stop now?  [dramatic pause] They wish!"

Could it be this simple?  Ed Markey had an 11-year jump on Nancy Pelosi in the U.S. House and she got to be speaker.  Who's the dealmaker here?

 

It Was Probably Not a Great Idea, Anyway, for Morse to Take on Neal

There's an aphorism often attributed (erroneously) to Sun Tzu, a Chinese general in the 5th Century B.C. who wrote a still popular book called "The Art of War." It goes like this, "If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by."

I think Springfield's Richie Neal, chairman of Ways & Means in the U.S. House of Representatives, just had a body-of-his-enemy-floating-by moment.

Neal's opponent in the western Massachusetts congressional district Democratic primary on September 1, Holyoke Mayor Alex B. Morse, was accused in a recent letter from the College Democrats of Massachusetts of using his position as a part-time, visiting UMass faculty member "for romantic or sexual gain."

The letter, and an article on the letter, were published this past Friday, August 7, in the Massachusetts Daily Collegian, a student-run publication.  The allegedly inappropriate behavior by Morse centered on three issues, the article stated:

"The first issue alleges that Morse regularly matched with students on dating apps, including Tinder and Grindr, who were as young as 18 years old.  These students included members of the College Democrats of Massachusetts, UMass Amherst Democrats and other groups in the state.

"The second issue, 'Using Democrats' events to meet college students and add them on Instagram, adding them to his 'Close Friends' story and DMing them, both of which have made young college students uncomfortable.' 

"The third issue, 'Having sexual contact with college students, including at UMass Amherst, where he teaches, and the greater Five College Consortium.' " (Consortium members are UMass, Amherst, Hampshire, Mt. Holyoke and Smith Colleges.)

Morse, in a statement to the Daily Collegian, reportedly admitted to having "consensual adult relationships, including some with college students" and "apologized to anyone I have made feel uncomfortable..."

This past Monday, a campaign spokesperson for Neal denied that Neal's campaign was involved in the publication of the allegations against Morse.

Morse said in a later radio interview that he believes Neal's campaign was involved.  "I think this is what happens when you go against power," he told the interviewer on public radio station WAMC.

If Neal or anyone affiliated with his re-election effort were involved, that fact will almost certainly come to light, sooner or later.  There are too many persons in the College Democrats of Massachusetts for them all to keep that secret for long.  That's why I don't believe that Neal, et al., were involved: it would be too risky, it could blow up in his face, he could end up looking scared or like a bully.  

Neal is obviously the favorite in the primary, despite all of the energy and money progressive Democrats have poured into the Morse campaign, as they did into the (successful) congressional campaigns of Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley.  

(I respect progressives as much as the next guy from Massachusetts. But, even if these accusations against Morse had never been hurled, I can't see how his candidacy gets over the fact that a Morse victory would take Neal out of D.C. when, after 31 years in Congress, he is at the height of his powers and most able to deliver the goods to his district and state.)

Neal has been a student of political warfare long enough to know that, as in most human endeavors, the most grievous wounds in politics are self-inflicted, and that patience and restraint tend to be rewarded.  It would surprise me not if Neal long ago committed to memory these words: 

"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by."  

 

Blogster's Miscellany: Thoughts on Markey v. Kennedy, Plush Pensions & More

MEANINGLESS MEASUREMENTS DEPT.  The Boston Globe recently devoted just under 100 inches of type, plus a color photo and caption that spanned four columns and went four inches deep, to the campaign tempest over how much time U.S. Senator Ed Markey spends in Massachusetts versus Washington, D.C.  Headline: "Markey was least likely legislator to be in Mass." 

After reviewing travel records for all members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, the Globe revealed that Markey stayed in Massachusetts on 38% of the nights between June 1, 2018, and May 31, 2020, whereas his opponent in the September 1 Democratic primary, U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy, III, spent 70% of those nights here. "Senator Markey isn't here enough.  He isn't in Massachusetts enough," Kennedy complains.  The article pointed out that, for every local official in the state who says Markey is never around, there is another who "says he is an engaged and present politician."  Where a member of congress bunks is a bogus metric -- and never more than in the era of the coronavirus and video meetings via electronics, i.e., Zoom, WebEx, et al.  And what about the carbon emissions resulting from all those congresspersons flying back and forth to Washington at the drop of a hat?  Enviros, why rush you not to Eddie's defense?

MORE MEANINGFUL MEASUREMENTS DEPT.  I miss President Obama as much as the next guy from Massachusetts.  That does not mean I agreed with everything he said and did -- or did not do.  I still shake my head over the time he was at the Gridiron Club event and dismissed the idea of socializing with the Senate Republican majority leader.  That day, in the middle of a very effective comedic routine, Obama told the audience of media bigshots, and friends of bigshots: "Some folks still don't think I spend enough time with Congress. 'Why don't you get a drink with Mitch McConnell?' they ask. 'Really? Why don't YOU get a drink with Mitch McConnell?"  How could someone as smart as Obama not see having a drink with the majority leader as a priority rather than a pointless chore?  This sets up a soapbox moment for me on the aforementioned Globe story...I believe a better measurement of congressional job performance than the number of nights spent at homes in their districts is how many times they have dinner in Washington with a member of the other party.

STATE PENSION WHIPPING BOY.  The Boston Herald published an article August 3 stating there are 1,540 retired state employees who "are set to earn six-figure payouts (of their pensions this year) as the state struggles mightily during the coronavirus pandemic, ["Massachusetts pensions keep bulging with state paying out $5.44B.  Herald analysis of state pension report shows slew of of six-figure earners."]   Here's the first paragraph of that article: "UMass retirees top the state's $5.44 billion pension system, with the university's former President William 'Billy' Bulger set to pocket nearly $272,000 this year, records show."  Bulger, who served as president of the Massachusetts Senate for 17 years before becoming president of UMass, is collecting the size pension allowed him under law.  Anyone else in his position would do the same.  That does not mean it is a good idea the state fails to put a cap on maximum earnings by state pensioners.  Something in the range of $5,000 to $6,000 a month ($60K-$72K per year) seems reasonable -- as well as prudent for a Commonwealth with so many unmet needs.  Perhaps the pandemic-related depression we're experiencing will create the social and political circumstances that will end, at some indistinct point in the future, six-figure pensions for future state retirees.   

FLEXIBILITY EQUALS LONGEVITY.  During a virtual U.S. senatorial campaign event on August 4 hosted by Suffolk University, the WGBH Forum Network and the Justice Reform Coalition, both Ed Markey and challenger Joe Kennedy supported: (a) ending prison sentences of life without parole, (b) decriminalizing sex work, and (c) giving incarcerated felons the right to vote.  When Markey was first elected to office 48 years ago, as a state rep from Malden, I strongly doubt he could have won if he'd espoused even one of those positions, never mind all three.  Today, I would bet, that Markey cannot win the September 1 Democratic primary if he does not to embrace all three...There's a huge difference between a race for rep in one or two communities and a statewide election for what is a national office.  The comparison is interesting but not apt.  So let's take the first time Markey was elected to the U.S. House from the old Seventh Massachusetts District, in 1976.  He won a very crowded, 12-person Democratic primary and then coasted to victory in the final. I covered that race as a newspaper reporter.  If Markey had made the mistake on the campaign trail then of even musing aloud on parole for lifers, lawful sex for hire, and inmate voting rights, the resulting controversy would have sunk his congressional candidacy; his 40-plus-year career in D.C. never would have happened.

ONE MAN'S BASE IS ANOTHER'S MAN'S MOB.  Talk about red meat!  Not long after the virtual U.S. senatorial campaign event hosted by Suffolk U., et al., the Massachusetts Republican Party issued a press release ripping Markey and Kennedy for their positions.  The headline on the release gives the complete flavor of the product: "Markey, Kennedy competing to see who can best placate the far-left mob."  Party chairman Jim Lyons, formerly a state rep from Andover, was quoted in the release as follows: "These dangerous proposals are where the Democrats are headed, and they're absolutely insane.  Both Sen. Markey and Rep. Kennedy will do anything and promise anything to pander to the far left mob that appears to be dictating the Democrat Party's policy platform."

IN A DESPERATE TIME, A NEEDED REMINDER.  Yesterday, Action for Boston Community Development issued a statement reminding us all how bad things are in our country at this moment -- and how much worse things may become if a new coronavirus relief law does not quickly emerge from the Congress and the office of the President.  ABCD points out that, when the emergency $600-per-week federal payment to every unemployed person expired seven days ago, on July 31, more than 950,000 Massachusetts were impacted, meaning that many families are now unable to meet their basic needs, and that, abruptly, there was a lot less money being spent in Massachusetts.  "...continuing delay in passage of a second virus relief bill leaves 30 million high and dry, running out of food and essential goods and fearing homelessness after the federal eviction moratorium ended July 25,"  ABCD noted. 

No One Wants to Think 'Bacteria' on a Beach Day. But You Better.

We've obviously had a lot of great beach weather lately.  But one should be aware that, when it comes to swimming in Massachusetts, not all beaches are created equal.  

I'm not talking about the texture of the sand, the amount of seaweed, the number of parking spaces, or amenities like snack bars and rest rooms.  No, I'm talking about yucky stuff: bacteria in the water!

There are beaches in the Bay State where the chances are higher than average the water can make you sick, according to a recent report by the Boston-based Environment Massachusetts Research & Policy Center, known more commonly by its shorter name, Environment Massachusetts.  

"Along many areas of our coast, the water is cleaner than it used to be  -- but pollution remains a serious problem," says the organization's state director. Ben Hellerstein.  "All too often, our beaches aren't safe for swimming.  We can and must do a better job of keeping waste out of our water." 

Every summer, Environment Massachusetts issues a report, titled Safe for Swimming?, on the results of water tests conducted the previous year at hundreds of public beaches in the Commonwealth.

That report, available online at environmentmassachusetts.org, showed that, in 2019, there were "potentially unsafe levels of pollution on at least one day at 257 beaches in Massachusetts."  The key measurement of beach safety used in this analysis is the level of fecal bacteria.  

Contact with contaminated water may lead to gastrointestinal illnesses, respiratory diseases, ear and eye infections, skin rashes and more.

Tenean Beach in the Dorchester section of Boston "had the highest number of potentially unsafe swimming days in 2019, with tests revealing elevated levels of fecal bacteria on 44 out of 90 days tested," Environment Massachusetts reported.

The next highest number of potentially unsafe days were found at King's Beach, in Lynn and Swamscott, where there were 43; Malibu Beach, Dorchester, 20; Wollaston Beach at Channing Street, Quincy, 20; and Constitution Beach, East Boston, 19.

The state frequently tests the water at public beaches in the summer.  When elevated levels of bacteria are detected, signs are posted. It's important to look for these messages.

It has long been known that combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are the major cause of beach pollution.  CSOs occur during heavy rainstorms in communities where pipes carry both storm water and sewage and send the overflows into the ocean or rivers via "outfalls."   

Steep financial and logistical challenges confront any municipality that needs to address this problem, which is why it tends to persist for decades.

Advocates for change argue that, if cities, towns and other entities cannot correct CSOs through costly infrastructure upgrades, the least they can do is get the word out quickly to the public when CSOs occur.  This is especially critical in cases like that of the Merrimack River, where up-river outfalls automatically threaten down-river communities that draw water from the river for household uses, including drinking.

Concerns like this form the basis of a bill now before the Ways & Means Committee of the House of Representatives, House 3976, An Act Promoting Awareness of Sewage Pollution in Public Waters. If enacted into law, H.3976 would require any person or entity holding a permit allowing the discharge of sewage at outfalls to issue a public advisory within two hours of the discharge, and to upgrade that advisory "every eight hours for an ongoing discharge and within two hours (of) when a discharge ceases or is projected to cease..." Here's a link to the complete text of the bill:

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H3976

We are now one day away from what, in a normal election year, would be the final day of formal sessions of the legislature, July 31, meaning H.3976 would almost certainly have failed to pass in a normal year.  Time would have run out on its chance to do some good.

Nothing is normal in the time of the coronavirus.  

The legislature is going to keep meeting formally, perhaps even until the end of this calendar year.  For this and many other good bills, there's still hope.

            

Brace Yourself for This Stunning $109-Million-Dollar Moment in Corruption

I have to thank a good, solid Trump appointee, Andrew Lelling, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, and Lelling's colleagues in the federal government, for getting to the bottom of a mystery that had long gnawed on my mind.

For me, the story began when I, like most Americans passing the 65th anniversary of their births, signed up for Medicare.  This was, alas, a while back in time.

Even if you still have private health coverage at 65, as I did, and even if you intend to keep private coverage, as I did, you have to enroll in Medicare at 65 to retain the privilege of partaking later in the program.

Soon after entering Medicare's ranks, I started getting calls at home from an entity that did not identify itself and offered to assist me in obtaining orthopedic braces at no cost through Medicare.

The first time, I made the mistake of responding to a pre-recorded voice instructing me to, "Press 1 for important information on your Medicare coverage."  A live person, a woman who sounded as if she was in her twenties, immediately came on the line, rushed through a confusing introduction, and asked for the name of my physician.  I had recently seen my doctor.

My first reaction was, This person might be calling from my doctor's office, where several medicos were employed.  I asked her if she worked for my doctor but did not mention his name.  She said, "No, but we have your records and want to confirm a few things to get you on your way to obtaining braces that will help you in your everyday activities."

This sounded funny, not least because I did not have (then or subsequently) any muscular or skeletal problems that could be ameliorated by braces.  I said, "I would like to talk with my doctor first. Perhaps we could talk later?"  Before she could get out a response, I said good-bye and hung up.

I said it was a mistake to "Press 1" because I did not realize at that time that there are innumerable scam artists who prey upon older Americans through robocalls.  If you engage in this process simply by answering the phone, even for a moment or two, you will automatically be identified as a possible mark, a "live one," and that one call will trigger an endless number of follow-ups.

For at least a year after that first call about braces, calls would come in from the same outfit at least twice a week.   Our home phone announces the caller or the number of the party calling. Since the brace people didn't use personal phones or give their names, they would be announced by the number.  Not recognizing the number, we'd let the call go to voicemail, where a pre-recorded voice would say something like: "We're calling about your braces and the limited time you now have to take advantage of this incredible offer."

After several months, the pre-recorded message switched to something like:  "This is your last call for free braces.  Please call immediately."

We got those calls repeatedly.  For months.  I could not possibly count those final offers. They became such a regular feature of our lives that I expected them to persist until the day I actually needed braces to get around the house.  Eventually, however, the calls for braces stopped.

Yesterday, Lelling's office issued a press release announcing that "A Columbian national  residing in Lighthouse Beach, Fla., has agreed to plead guilty in connection with submitting more than $109 million in false and fraudulent claims for durable medical equipment (DME) such as arm, back, knee and shoulder braces."

The guilty party was identified in the release as Juan Camilo Perez Buitrago, age 31, who was referred to as Perez subsequently in the release.  It said that he had been charged with one count of health care fraud and one count of payment of kickbacks in connection with a federal health care program, and that a plea hearing for him would be scheduled at a later date.

According to the charging documents cited by Lelling, Perez "manufactured and submitted false and fraudulent Medicare claims by instructing his employees to establish shell companies in more than a dozen different states, including Massachusetts."

Further, the documents say that "Perez directed employees to list his mother, wife and yacht captain as corporate directors and to use fictitious names when registering the shell companies as DME providers."  Also:

"Perez allegedly purchased Medicare patient data from foreign and domestic call centers that targeted elderly patients, and instructed call centers to contact the Medicare beneficiaries with an offer of ankle, arm, back, knee, and/or shoulder braces 'at little to no cost.'  He then submitted Medicare claims for those patients without obtaining a prescriber's order to ensure that the braces were medically necessary.  It is further alleged that he submitted blatantly fraudulent claims, including claims for deceased patients and repeat claims for the same patient and the same DME."

In total, the charging documents allege that Perez submitted $109 million in Medicare claims and pocketed more than $12 million.

"When Perez did provide DME to patients," the release from Lelling states, "he typically billed insurance policies more than 12 times the average price of the DME that he provided to the patient."

And for the majority of the money allegedly collected through the scam -- $7.5 million in claims -- Perez failed to provide any equipment to his victims, according to the release.

No wonder they refer to Florida as "a sunny place for shady people."

I'm thinking the least the feds could do now is offer the Sunshine State targets of this scheme a ride on Perez's yacht.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know, Who Will Ascend to Dean of the House in 2021?

Let others obsess over Trump vs. Biden and Markey vs. Kennedy.  Me, I'm keeping my eyes on the process that will produce the next dean of the House of Representatives.

"The Dean."  There's something about the title and role I find interesting...and I don't really know why.  It has to do, I think, with its paradoxical place in the legislative scheme of things -- a place where meaninglessness and significance strangely combine.

Being the dean -- that is, the officially recognized longest-serving member of the body -- is an honorary deal.  The dean does not, for example, get a bump in pay or a special State House office with The Dean on the door.

And the dean does not get to duck any of the normal duties, responsibilities or problems of a state representative.  As for the responsibilities of being the dean, those are like being a member of the British royal family: you're mainly there to make people feel good.

Members of the House are fond of hailing the dean and enunciating his title before audiences small and large, as in, "You're looking especially dapper today, Dean," and "It's time, now, that we hear from The Dean in this debate."

Whoever is dean is not supposed to get too puffed up about his title and (honorary) stature, except in a mock serious way, as perfected by the late David Flynn of Bridgewater, who was the dean one dean ago.

The ideal dean, rather, wears the honor lightly and thereby enhances the ways in which the use of the title can lighten the mood in the chamber, like the sun breaking through the clouds of the turgid action on the floor.

However, once every two years, the dean gets to exercise actual authority.  For a brief spell, the senior member holds the reins of power usually held fast in the grip of the speaker.

It happens on that day in early January when the representatives elected or re-elected the previous November have taken the oath of office and the members of the majority party have gathered in one place to choose their leaders for the new two-year legislative term.  The dean is the official presiding officer of that caucus.

On those occasions, if the dean is on good terms with an incumbent speaker waiting to be re-elected, he will dispense with his duties speedily and hand the gavel to the speaker.

If the opposite is the case, as has been the case since Angelo Scaccia of  Boston became dean in 2012, the dean will do as much as possible to drag out the process.  He will deliberately prolong his time in the spotlight to get under the skin of the speaker, Bob DeLeo in this case, who's held the position since 2009, and the speaker's leadership team-in-waiting.

A digression is in order to explain the endearingly generous way the House allots deanship "points"...

There are representatives like the late David Flynn, and like Ted Speliotis of Danvers and Tom Walsh of Peabody, who have served in the House, left to take up other professional endeavors, and later ran for the House again and were re-elected, sometimes decades later.  In every such case, their "gap years" are treated as if they did not exist when it comes to designating the dean.  In other words, the House bases dean eligibility on the very first time one takes the oath of office as a representative.  Flynn, for example, served from 1964 to 1972, was out of office from 1973 to 1997, was elected to the House again in 1998, and stayed in the House for 12 years before retiring at age 78.  When Flynn "re-upped" in 1998, he was, by House custom, immediately recognized as the dean because his eligibility was rooted in the year 1964, the first year of his first term.  Flynn was that rare bird, an instant dean!

Now back to the main narrative..

Scaccia's decision not to seek re-election this year -- and a reasonable decision it was, given his age (77) and the 40-plus years he's served as the representative from Hyde Park -- has created the opportunity for a new dean to step up in 2021.

Waiting behind Scaccia, in terms of longevity in the lower branch, are Ted Speliotis and Tom Petrolati of Ludlow.

Speliotis has had two House stints, the first beginning in 1979.  Petrolati started in the House on Jan. 7, 1987, and has served there continuously since.  Neither will become the dean in 2021 because both are retiring from politics at the end of this year.

Waiting behind Speliotis and Petrolati, longevity-wise, are Rep. Kevin Honan of the Brighton section of Boston and Tom Walsh, both of whom were sworn in for the first time on Jan. 7, 1987, more than 33 years ago, in the same freshman class as Petrolati.

In cases like those of Honan and Walsh, whose eligibilities for dean are both measured from 1-7-87, the tie is broken, by House custom, by date of birth; that is, the older one wins.  Walsh was born on July 15, 1960, and is nearing his 60th birthday; Honan was born on June 5, 1959, and is 61 years old, meaning he will get the prize -- provided he's re-elected in November.

To take dean honors, Honan needs to prevail in a fight for re-election against Jordan Meehan, an energetic, young (29) challenger.  If Honan loses, Walsh will be the dean.

I intend no disparagement of Mr. Meehan when I say that I hope Kevin Honan is re-elected, number one, because I have tremendous respect and admiration for him as a human being, and, number two, because I know he will make a great Dean of the House.

UPDATE: Kevin Honan as the next Dean of the House is now a certainty!  He beat Jordan Meehan in the primary, 4,260 to 3,598 votes, a comfortable margin of more than 8% of all votes cast, and has no opponent in the November final.

Moulton Defends Hong Kong Protestors and All Who Stand on 'Ramparts of Freedom'

I like how Seth Moulton, the U.S. representative for the Sixth Massachusetts District, used his official statement on Independence Day this year to call out the Chinese communist government for its relentless suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and how he reminded his fellow citizens that we could lose our own democracy if we do not guard it.

I like how Moulton, the pride of Salem, Harvard University and the United States Marine Corps, drew a direct line, in his Fourth of July statement, from the rebels in Boston in 1776 to the protestors in Hong Kong today.

Since March of 2019, Moulton said, the "brave people in Hong Kong have stood up to mainland China's powerful communist party with nothing but umbrellas and spray paint."

"As we celebrate Independence Day," he said, "we must never forget that throughout history, through good times and bad, people always choose freedom and self-government  over tyranny.  We also know that the success of bold experiments in democracy, including our own, are far from guaranteed."

It disturbs Moulton that the Chinese communist party is "persecuting these protestors with abandon," and that the party has now "passed a 'national security' law that falsely equated peacefully protesting to secession, terrorism, subversion of state power, and collusion with foreign entities."

He stated, "We have already witnessed protestors arrested under the new law for actions as simple as holding a flag that carry possible sentences of life imprisonment."

Moulton pointed out that, on the night of July 1, the body in which he serves passed a bill imposing sanctions on Chinese companies that violate the "political and economic autonomy of Hong Kong."

To the leadership of the  Chinese communist party, he declared, "The world is watching."

On this "most unusual Fourth of July," Moulton concluded:

"Let's recommit ourselves to the cause of freedom, self-government, and the fundamental rights of free speech and free assembly -- the ideals upon which we were founded that we share with the people of Hong Kong.

"Let's celebrate this because of what American patriots started in Boston in 1776: We are ruled not by kings, dictators, or tyrants, but by the people we choose.

"And let's work to support the people who today stand on the ramparts of freedom around the world, struggling to achieve the same ideals: freedom, liberty, and government of, by and for the people."

So it is that, on the 244th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a 41-year-old Congressman with no seniority and little actual power, is a stronger voice for freedom and human rights than the man who holds the office established by George Washington.

Holyoke Catastrophe Figures in Hypothetical Healey v. Polito Guv Contest

When the coronavirus engulfed the Holyoke Soldiers Home this past spring, Attorney General Maura Healey faced a choice: defer to Governor Charlie Baker as he methodically and openly dealt with the catastrophe or launch her own (now in progress) investigation into it.  Independence won over deference.

The consequences of that choice could have a significant impact on the 2022 election for governor, whether Baker runs for re-election -- which I doubt he will -- or his second-in-command and heir apparent, Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito, runs as the Republican nominee.

Healey, a Democrat, has not indicated whether she will run for governor in the next election cycle.  Nevertheless, she's widely seen as the favorite to win her party's nomination should she pursue it.  There's still time for her to decide on a gubernatorial run.

If Healey does run, her comments now on the carnage in Holyoke (76 veterans dead from the virus) have put her in position to lay the blame on Baker, Polito or both.

Last week, Baker released a lengthy report on the Holyoke Soldiers Home investigation, which he had commissioned by Atty. Mark W. Pearlstein, a former federal prosecutor.  It justifiably caused an uproar.

Healey quickly released a statement that the Pearlstein Report "lays bare systemic failures of oversight by the Baker administration in adequately preparing, staffing, and responding to this crisis to protect our veterans."

The statement was broad enough to conceivably cast aspersions on others in the administration, including some in the Executive Office of Health and Human Services.

But if I'm Karyn Polito and interested in becoming governor -- What lieutenant governor is not ? -- I'm taking it narrowly.

If I'm Healey, I want Polito to take it narrowly, personally.  It was almost as if Healey was announcing to her, You won't be able to duck this in '22.

Without Managers Like Tesler, Government Cannot Truly Deliver

The Baker administration removed the "acting" from the title of Acting Registrar of Motor Vehicles Jamey Tesler this past week, suggesting that the overhaul of the management of that agency, a critical public safety bureaucracy, remains a work-in-progress.

Otherwise, I suspect that Tesler would, just about now, be taking on another high-level assignment in the Baker administration or a better paying job in the private sector.

You may recall that, in late June, 2019, the RMV was shaken to its foundation when a young man from Western Massachusetts, whose driver's license should have been suspended, drove a pick-up truck pulling a large trailer into a line of motorcyclists in Randolph, New Hampshire, killing by blunt force trauma five men and two women.

In the aftermath, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles was forced from her job and Tesler was persuaded by the governor and Transportation Secretary Stephanie Pollack to quit his job as chief of staff at Suffolk Construction, become acting registrar, and make the big, difficult changes needed at the RMV to avoid a repeat of this horrific event.

In the early going, that primarily involved clearing up a backlog of thousands of cases where Massachusetts drivers who had run afoul of the law in other states -- and who should have had their Massachusetts driving privileges summarily suspended -- continued to operate vehicles here, often for incredibly long spells.  They constituted a major threat to public safety on our roads.  And no one had really done anything about it.

In announcing last week that Tesler's appointment had been made permanent, Secretary Pollack said:

"After stepping up to lead the Registry of Motor Vehicles at a difficult time, Jamey has reprioritized and re-oriented the RMV and MRB (Merit Rating Board) around public safety responsibilities and functions, while transforming the RMV's service model in the midst of a pandemic.

"He has built a strong leadership team and excellent relationships with the workforce while demonstrating the ability to identify and implement changes in longstanding practices that failed to ensure that the Registry met its core safety and credentialing functions."

Like many who serve in government positions, including a slew of highly educated and motivated legislative aides at the State House, Tesler defies negative stereotypes of public employees; for example, that they don't have the stuff to work in the private sector, that they don't do much when on the clock, and that they care mainly about their pensions and other benefits.

Tesler is Exhibit A of your tax dollars actually at work.

He's a graduate of the Ivy League (University of Pennsylvania, 1995) and a Big Ten law school (University of Michigan, 1998).  In addition to significant work in the private sector, such as at an international law firm, he has more than 16 years of experience in senior management roles in the public sector.

Tesler has been the general counsel in the office of the Massachusetts State Treasurer, the deputy legal counsel at the MBTA, the deputy legal counsel in the office of the governor, and both chief of staff and chief operating officer at MassDOT.

Tesler is not a pal of mine; we are not related by blood or marriage.  He would say hello to me if we passed each other on the sidewalk because of his inherent politeness, but he probably would not remember my name.  I stipulate to these facts in the hope you'll see my admiration for him as on the level.

The last time I was in his presence was on a client matter -- for the Massachusetts Railroad Association, the trade group for the freight-hauling railroads, I believe. It was around ten years ago, when he would have been serving as a deputy secretary at MassDOT.  I cannot remember the subject matter; it may have had something to do with the state's Industrial Rail Access Program.  Tesler asked good, pointed questions. He didn't say much. He listened sincerely, thoughtfully. In my line of work, that's a good outing.

Thank you for entering public service, Mr. Registrar, and for returning to same, sacrificing much in the process!