Everett Mayor Stands Firm as Local Paper Hits Him Hard on Steve Wynn

Poor Carlo DeMaria, the mayor of Everett, has been getting his brains beat in by one local newspaper for not publicly denouncing disgraced ex-casino mogul Steve Wynn and for standing behind The Wynn Corp. as it fights to keep its Eastern Massachusetts casino license.

On Thursday, April 12, the Everett Leader Herald ran an editorial on the front page under the headline, “Mayor Loath to Lose Wynn; Silence Would Have Been Golden.”  You could hear the thunder booming as you read it.

“That the mayor, who has younger children,” it said, “has not denounced Wynn and the sexual harassment culture that is pervasive in the business he founded and grew is a mistake, an oversight of mountainous proportion for a man who believes this city is his own and that he has the moral temperament and resolve to lead the way.”

One week later, on April 19, in a front-page commentary, the Leader Herald again could not contain its indignation.

“We have a mayor,” it cried, “who has yet to say one word about Steven Wynn’s appalling behavior – as the governor called it.

“The Attorney General has asked for the license to be stripped from Wynn Resorts.

“The Boston Globe has done the same.

“The Gaming Commission in the meanwhile is muddling along with an investigation that might have its results set for the public sometime in the summer.

“No need to rush.

“With (commission chairman) Crosby at the helm, anything is possible – even satisfying the mayor’s beg for Wynn Resorts to stay when nearly everyone thinking straight around here knows it is time for them to go.”

Mayor DeMaria has provoked such wrath because he dares to perceive something large at stake at this moment for his city and is proceeding cautiously so as not to harm Everett in the long run or have it lose any portion of the multiple, substantial benefits it has won in negotiations with the Wynn Corp. if the organization were forced to sell out and if the succeeding casino operator were able to abrogate some of Wynn’s commitments to the city.

“There’s a grander vision here than just a casino,” DeMaria said in a recent prepared statement.  “We are planning for a whole new district in the City of Everett that can generate a lot of great jobs.  The Wynn Corporation has demonstrated it can partner with us to fulfill that vision.”

Responding to reports that the corporation is exploring a sale of its unfinished casino on the site of an old Monsanto chemical factory in Everett, DeMaria continued, “I am deeply concerned that a new owner would not honor that vision and could have plans that fall far short of what we want to see happen – a complete transformation of an area that had been blighted, contaminated, and under-utilized before the Wynn development team arrived.”  

DeMaria concluded, “I am encouraged the commission has begun the process of removing Mr. Wynn as a qualifier and a participant in the gaming license.  I believe that anyone else (in the Wynn Corp.) who is found unsuitable as a result of their process should also be removed so we can move forward with this project.  This high-performing organization of 27,000 employees worldwide is the right partner for us, right now, and I want their work to continue on in Everett.”

I admire DeMaria for having the courage and loyalty to stand by this company at its lowest and weakest point when it would have been easier -- it would have been expedient -- to trash it all over the place.

Steve Wynn has been unmasked as a sex harasser, an exploiter and a victimizer of women.  He clearly lacks the moral fiber, the character, to run a publicly traded company and to hold a casino license from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

It’s good that all the bad stuff about Steve Wynn the person is finally out, for all the world to see.  It is good and it is just that Wynn was forced to resign as president/CEO of the company and to divest himself of all shares he held in the company.  Those shares amounted to 12% of the company’s stock, meaning other parties owned an 88% majority stake in the company.  The Wynn Corp. is much bigger than one person, or several persons.

I don’t believe for a second that Carlo DeMaria believes Steve Wynn is an OK guy and that his bad treatment of women is an insignificant matter.

I was glad to see that, in his recent prepared statement, DeMaria mentioned the Wynn Corp.’s transformation of that “blighted, contaminated, under-utilized” site on the Mystic River, in the inner Boston Harbor.  It’s hard to see how any other company would have had the resources or the rationale to invest $30 million-plus in the massive environmental remediation required before a single piece of steel for the casino could be lifted into place.

As part of that clean-up, the toxic sediments along the Everett Mystic River/Boston Harbor waterfront have been removed and public access to that waterfront has been guaranteed.  Where once there was an off-limits, poisoned piece of shore, there will be a restored waterfront for the free enjoyment of the public.  That should count for something as the Gaming Commission wrestles with the issue of revoking the Wynn Corp. license.  

Zillow Looks at Boston Rents, with an Amazon HQ2 Here, and It Ain't Pretty

Boston is among the 20 finalist cities in the competition to become the second (after Seattle) headquarters city in the U.S. of Amazon.

The old Suffolk Downs racetrack in East Boston and Revere is widely seen as the best of the sites in and around Boston that have been put forward as potential locations for this headquarters facility, or “HQ2,” as it’s been labeled.

I grew up in a large family in Revere.  Even though I have not lived there for many years, when someone asks me where I’m from, I still say Revere because I have never been anything other, nor have I ever wanted to be anything other, than a Revere person.  I guess I’m like most folks in that regard: the place where we grow up remains forever special in our hearts and memories.  It holds an outsized place in our imaginations.

My love for Revere is possessive.  I don’t want anything bad to happen to it.  So I’m not happy Amazon may be what replaces Suffolk Downs.

Amazon’s talking about employing, ultimately, up to 50,000 persons at HQ2.  Previously, in this space, I have wondered how all those workers would get to work on time every day when the roads in the area are already often at capacity or over capacity.  Tens of thousands of motorists use the roads in that area, principally Route C-1 and Bennington Street, every day to get to and from Logan Airport.  I (and many others) have speculated that Amazon-at-Suffolk-Downs would drive the already high price of housing in Revere, East Boston and Winthrop to head-shaking heights. 

Ridiculously more costly housing would almost certainly squeeze middle-earning and low-earning working families out of those communities, changing them forever. Those are the families that made Revere, East Boston and Winthrop the good and distinctive places they are.  Once Amazon got established, they’d no longer be communities where immigrants could get a start.

Now comes the popular real estate web site Zillow with an analysis of how HQ2 would affect housing prices in each of the 20 finalist cities.

If Boston were to win the HQ2 competition, Zillow is projecting that, by 2028, the average home/apartment renter in the area would be paying $1,501 more per month in rent; whereas, if Boston were to lose the competition, the average renter would be paying $1,015 more per month.

Here’s another way to frame that estimate: with Boston hosting HQ2, renters could be paying $5,832 more per year in 10 years’ time than they would in a city lacking an Amazon mega-works.

No place on this earth can (or should) be frozen in time for the comfort of a previous generation.  It’s impossible to stop change in a free economy.  But shouldn’t we at least be trying to shape change in areas like the cost of housing, where a large part of the population will otherwise emerge from that change in much worse shape?

Guv Candidates Who Won't Take Fossil Fuel Bucks Shouldn't Stop There

Each of the three Democrats running for governor of Massachusetts has pledged not to take certain campaign contributions from the oil, gas and coal industries, the State House News Service (SHNS) reported yesterday. 

Jay Gonzalez, Bob Massie and Setti Warren are among the latest candidates for public office in this nation to take the "No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge," which has been conceived and promulgated by a group called 350 Mass Action. 

350 Mass Action bills itself as "a statewide volunteer network dedicated to eliminating the influence of fossil fuel special interests over our political process and advancing a fair and speedy transition beyond fossil fuels towards a 100% clean, renewable and just energy future." 

The pledge requires Messrs. Gonzalez, Massie and Warren not to "accept knowingly" any contributions exceeding $200 from the political action committees, executives or "front groups" of companies whose primary business is extracting, processing, distributing or selling fossil fuels.  (Knowingly.  Isn't that a great lawyer word?)

In 2016, the SHNS informs us, 350 Mass Action put forward a similar pledge, asking candidates to forswear donations of over $200 from executives, lobbyists or others employed by 10 specific companies: British Petroleum, Chevron, Eversource, Exxon/Mobil, Global Partners, Global Petroleum, Kinder Morgan, National Grid, Shell and Spectra Energy. 

Seventy-five candidates for the Massachusetts legislature ultimately signed that pledge, and 40 were elected, 350 Mass Action says.

I’m kind of impressed that three would-be governors of a major state have taken such a bold position against the oil, gas and coal industries. 

I'd be seriously impressed, though, if this trio swore off using fossil fuels ever again.  No cars.  No train, bus or airline trips.  No furnaces or boilers for home heating, etc., etc.

 

It Will Be Too Bad If Clock Runs Out on Bill to Squelch Bogus Service Animals

It doesn’t rank up there with the abuse of overtime by State Police officers, but allowing pretenders to go places they shouldn't with bogus service animals cries out for government action.  Which is why I am hoping House Bill 2277, An Act Relative to the Misrepresentation of a Service Animal, soon receives a favorable report from the legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary. 

H.2277 would make it a civil infraction to misrepresent a pet dog as a service dog.  Violators would be subject to a fine of not more than $500 and/or 30 hours of community service for an organization that helps persons with disabilities.  A violation of the law would occur under the following conditions:

ONE, “An individual expressly or impliedly represents that a dog in his or her possession is his or her service dog or a service-dog-in-training for the purpose of obtaining any rights or privileges afforded disabled persons accompanied by service dogs, but unavailable to people and their pets…”

TWO, “Said individual knew or should have known that the dog in question did not meet the definition of a service animal or service-animal-in-training.”

THREE, an intentional misrepresentation occurs when someone takes a non-qualifying dog “into a place of public accommodation where pets are not permitted, and the dog is wearing a cape, vest, special leash, or other form of identification that states or implies that the dog is a service dog entitled to be present, even if the individual makes no affirmative statements (that the dog is a legitimate service animal).”

Rep. Kimberly Ferguson of Holden, the four-term Republican who filed H.2277, enjoys wide legislative support on this issue. Fifty-two members of the House (33% of representatives) and six members of the Senate (15% of senators) have signed on as bill co-sponsors.

Among the good things the bill would do is have the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development Business produce: (a) decals for businesses that say service dogs are welcome and misrepresenting a service dog is a violation of law, and (b) brochures “detailing permissible questions a business owner may ask...to determine whether a dog is a service dog, proper answers to those questions, and guidelines defining unacceptable behavior.”

If Rep. Ferguson’s bill becomes law, any police officer or animal control officer in the Commonwealth would have the authority to investigate possible violations.  And any service dog owner who refused to answer the permissible questions concerning a possible violation would be presumed to be violating the law.

The Judiciary Committee has until Wednesday, May 2, to report the bill out favorably or unfavorably.  Its third (and final) option is to send it “to study,” which is not as bad as an unfavorable committee report; however, a study order would effectively kill the bill for this legislative session, which runs until July 31.

If, on May 2, Judiciary gives the bill a favorable report, the odds would still be against enacting it, all those co-sponsors notwithstanding, because there will be less than two months left in the session and higher-priority (and often contentious) bills will be eating up more of the precious legislative calendar with each passing day.  It could get passed this session.  But I kind of doubt it.

So we can expect the fakers in our midst, those selfish souls who have no qualms exploiting legal protections for persons with disabilities, to increase in number and grow shamelessly bolder in their exploits. 

   

 

 

Blogster's Miscellany: a Fond Farewell, a Delayed Maiden Speech, and More!

FORRY FAREWELL, PART 1.  It’s been about a month since Linda Dorcena Forry left the Massachusetts Senate for the more remunerative pastures of John Fish’s Suffolk Construction Co. and already the State House seems a less exciting place.  Former Senator Forry, a proud daughter of Haiti, oozes charisma.  She’s got a smile and a laugh so good as to make a portrait of J. Edgar Hoover break into a grin.  When she goes out in public, men and women who want to be her friends form a line behind her. This past Valentine’s Day, when Forry gave her farewell speech in the House chamber, the place was filled with bold-faced names, including Governor Charlie Baker, former Governor Deval Patrick, former Senate President Therese Murray, State Treasurer Deb Goldberg, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, Boston City Councilors Frank Baker and Ayanna Pressley, New England Council President (and former Dorchester rep) Jim Brett and Israeli Consul General Yahuda Yaakov.  “There is no one in this building with whom I can’t work or laugh with and find common ground,” said Forry.  “We have shown what’s possible when good people come together.  We can use more of this Massachusetts form of leadership across the country.”  I’ll drink to that. 

IN NO HURRY TO SPEECHIFY.  “Never speak when you can nod.”  That was the maxim of Martin Lomasney, a Democratic ward boss from the West End of Boston back when mostly poor folks lived there. Lomasney’s been dead since 1933.  It’s doubtful most politicians today have heard of him.  But I can’t help but wonder if Rep. Tackey Chan, D-Quincy, maybe has.  Chan, 44, worked for a number of years as a top legislative hand for former Senator and now Norfolk County DA Michael Morrissey and as an assistant district attorney before running for and winning the 2^nd Norfolk House seat in 2010.  With his experience and drive, Chan was a mover in the House from the start.  In 2017, he became House chair of the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure.  Yet, it was not until last month, on Feb. 14, that Chan rose, at long last, to deliver his maiden speech on the House floor.  He devoted that speech to a forceful appeal for the enactment of House Bill 4232, An Act Removing Fees for Security Freezes and Disclosures of Consumer Credit Reports.  “With free credit freezes and thaws and lifts, there is a great savings for customers,” he said. “…I think we should be proud of the fact we’re able to address this in a timely manner, and tell people at home we’re creating a new consumer protection for everyone in the Commonwealth.”  On a roll call vote, H.4232 was promptly adopted.  House members gave Chan a sustained round of applause.  Then, as is customary upon the conclusion of a maiden speech, every representative came forward, shook Chan’s hand and congratulated him, both on his speech and the winning vote for his bill.  Maiden speeches have always been treated as a big deal.  It’s one of the many customs I love about the Massachusetts legislature.  I cannot recall there ever being a seven-year lag between a legislator taking office and making his maiden speech, but it’s probable there has been a similar or longer lag at some point in our state’s long history.  Not that I’m saying there’s anything wrong with that. Less talk can be a smart career move, if combined with a good brain for strategy and a good personality for alliance building, as Tackey Chan has shown us.

MUCH-NEEDED WORKER PROTECTIONS.  On Friday, March 9, Gov. Baker signed into law House Bill 3952, An Act to Further Define Standards of Employee Safety, which applies federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace standards to municipal workers.  Good thing he did.  An estimated 400,000 workers are getting protected under this law.  It’s great the Commonwealth will be enhancing safeguards for municipal employees who handle many inherently risky tasks, like working on pipes in trenches.  And it would be even better if our state found a way to address a somewhat parallel situation involving commercial fishermen, who are not covered by any federal workplace safety mandates.  That’s right, OSHA stops at the shore.  The men and women employed in one of the world’s most dangerous industries lack workplace protections that have been taken for granted on land for decades.  Franklin Roosevelt’s Fair Labor Standards Act also does not apply to fishermen, meaning such good things as child labor laws and overtime rules do not apply to fishermen.  It’s not like there isn’t sufficient profit in the consumption of seafood to enable modern, reasonable protections for fishermen.  It’s just that the money does not trickle down to the persons who do the actual hard work of catching fish. While the seafood industry in Massachusetts is a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry, the average fisherman makes $35,000 a year. Approximately 6,000 full- and part-time fishermen (or “harvesters” as they are often termed in official documents) support 90,000 jobs on land -- everything from seafood processors and delivery truck drivers to chefs and waitresses in seafood restaurants.  It’s about time you hugged a fisherman.

FORRY FAREWELL, PART 2. Former Senator Linda Dorcena Forry got her start in the legislature as chief of staff to former Rep. Charlotte Golar Richie in 1996.  In 2005, she won former House Speaker Tom Finneran’s House seat after Finneran left the legislature for a job in private industry, and she held the seat until 2013, when she won a special election in the 1^st Suffolk Senate district, Jack Hart’s, Steve Lynch’s and Bill Bulger’s old bailiwick. It was nice that Forry, during her Feb. 14 farewell, acknowledged the support she received early on from former House Speaker Sal DiMasi, whose career in politics did not end well.  DiMasi’s wife, Debbie, was in the audience.  Said Forry, “I was fortunate to serve under Sal DiMasi.  Sal saw promise in a young woman from Dorchester.”  When Sal was holding all the cards, he treated people well, regardless of their status, rank or situation.

OLD WISDOM FOR NEW DIGITAL ERA. If you’ve heard this before, please bear with me.  I love this piece of Boston political folklore and am wont to recite it at odd moments.  The full “never speak when…” Martin Lomasney credo goes like this:  “Never write when you can speak. Never speak when you can nod.  Never nod when you can wink.”  Were he alive today, Lomasney would not ever be undone by the publication of an email or text tapped out late at night in a weak moment.

NO SUMMER VACAY FOR DEAN.  The longest-serving member of the House, Rep. Angelo Scaccia of Hyde Park, will likely have two opponents when he stands for re-election in the Democratic primary this September: Gretchen Van Ness and Segun Idowu.  “The Dean,” as he is known to one and all in the lower branch, has been in the House, with only one two-year interruption, since 1973.  He’s now in his twenty-second two-year term and is on the outs with current House leadership.  Van Ness, a former head of the Women’s Bar Association, was dubbed “the patron saint of underdogs” in a 2006 profile in Boston Magazine.  Idowu served as an aide to former Boston City Councilor Charles Yancey and organized the Boston Police Camera Action Team in 2014 to promote the adoption of body cameras by the BPD. Neither Van Ness nor Idowu has ever held elective office but both are obviously fighters.  At the least, they’ll make it interesting for The Dean.

TAKE THAT, SNOOTY CONDO BOARDS. The Senate has moved to a third reading Senate Bill 1117, An Act Relative to Solar Drying of Laundry, meaning it is now one quick step away from passing in the upper branch.  Sponsored by Senator Michael Barrett, D-Lexington, the bill would authorize municipalities to enact laws preventing homeowners’ associations from barring clotheslines on their properties.  Clothes dryers may not be real energy hogs, but, in an era of climate change, every bit of carbon is worth keeping out of the atmosphere.  

GUV’S ENEMY: THE CALENDAR.  We’re entering the biannual hourglass phase of the legislative session, when time available for lawmaking is fast running out and everyone more or less acknowledges that a lot of good -- and maybe even quite necessary -- bills just won’t get done.  It’s about calendar math.  This is year two of the session, an election year for all legislative offices.  By law, the legislature must adjourn by July 31; no formal sessions of the House and Senate may be held after that.  In the less than five months remaining on the calendar, the legislature will be mainly occupied with formulating and passing a new state budget for Fiscal Year 2019 (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019), and then dealing with overriding  gubernatorial vetoes of various budget items.  The annual budget process mercilessly crowds out other legislative business and priorities; however, the crowding out is especially problematical in the second year of the session because virtually all unaddressed bills die at midnight on July 31 of the second year.  This past Monday, March 12, at the end of a State House press conference promoting a bill to spur housing construction, Gov. Baker was asked by the State House News Service if he was concerned by the legislature's slow pace and frustrated by the lack of action on major bills he’s proposing.  Never one to pick a fight with a legislator, any legislator, Baker answered, “I fully expect that we’re going to have to push and advocate with our colleagues and others to try to get all of this stuff done over the course of the next four months, but the one thing I think we can all agree on is that there’s a tremendous amount of traffic and activity that takes place in the legislature in the last four months of the session, and we’re anticipating a big piece of that agenda will get done over the next 120 days.”  Translation: “Yes, the calendar is my enemy.  I don’t like my situation but it would only get worse if I tried to crack the whip on the legislature.”     

FORRY FAREWELL, PART 3.  Like any good, natural performer, former Senator Linda Dorcena Forry ended her farewell speech with a tantalizing hint of things to come.  “I’m excited to move into the private sector and join John Fish (as Vice President, Northeast Region, Diversity), but I will not be a stranger.  And I won’t promise I won’t be back some way, somehow.  You never know what tomorrow brings.  For the people! The people!”  According to the State House News Service, she choked up at that point and could not continue, whereupon everyone in the chamber stood and applauded.  Forry regained her composure and concluded thusly: “To the people I’ve been honored to represent, this is not a forever goodbye.  This is a time to say, ‘Thank you and I love you.’  Thank you and God bless.”  Always leave them wanting more, right?

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

                           

Revocation of Casino License Would Punish 88% of (Non-Culpable) Owners

“Wynn Boston Harbor,” the name of the Las Vegas-style casino under construction now in Everett, is sinking faster than a gambling addict’s spirits.

Wynn Resorts founder Steve Wynn has been revealed as an alleged abuser of women and our governor and attorney general say the casino cannot possibly bear his name.  Countless women no doubt share that view with Governor Baker and AG Healey.

But if all Wynn Resorts had to do now was devise a new casino moniker, the folks running the show would be sitting prettier than a high roller in a penthouse suite.

With the Massachusetts Gaming Commission trying to determine if persons in the company hierarchy other than Wynn helped conceal Wynn’s reputed history of sexual misdeeds in its license application, Wynn Resorts could forfeit its right to do business here.

“A central question,” Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby has said, “is what did the (Wynn Resorts) board of directors and staff know, and when did they know it, about the settlement (with Wynn’s woman accuser) and the associated allegations.  That’s a critical point for us and the public of Massachusetts to know ASAP.”

Healy says, “I’m not convinced the company should have a license at all.”

Elaine Driscoll, gaming commission spokesperson, says, “Currently, all options are on the table.”

The tales of sexual abuse swirling around Wynn are being treated, as they should, with utmost seriousness.   Wynn Resorts, a publicly traded company, did the right thing in bouncing him.

License revocation by the state of Massachusetts is a whole other matter.

As bad and as reprehensible as Wynn’s behavior may have been, I don’t see how the commission can justify revoking his former company’s license at this advanced point in the development of the casino.  This betting mecca on the Mystic is on schedule to open in mid-2019. 

First, there’s the issue of ownership. Wynn holds only 12% of the stock in Wynn Resorts.  Punishing the many who own 88% because of the alleged actions of the one who owns 12% would not be fair to the 88%.  (It would be fair to compel Wynn to liquidate his stake in the company so that he can no longer profit from it, but that's a matter for the company and securities regulators to decide.)

Secondly, although Wynn was clearly in the wrong not to inform the gaming commission of his dealings with women who had accused him of abuse, too much has transpired in the development of the casino, too much money has been expended, too many lives have changed courses, and too many interlocking, far-reaching moves have been made since the casino was licensed in 2014 to turn the project on its head now. 

After years of planning, strategizing, investing, site preparation and building, we’re seeing the casino as the amazing project it was destined to be when Wynn Resorts committed to spending $2.4 billion dollars on it.  There’s never been anything like it on this scale in Massachusetts, and I say that as someone who never gambles and will set foot in the casino just once to satisfy my curiosity as to its excesses and spectacles.  We’re also seeing that Wynn, despite having been the project’s public face and its most persuasive salesman, was just one component of this complex, multi-year undertaking. 

By 2014, the project had achieved a life and a force all its own.  Had Wynn, who is 76, died in 2016, it would have gone on without him.  So should it now that he’s been dishonorably discharged.

Thirdly, if the commission takes back the Wynn Resorts license, forcing the company to sell the unfinished casino, what you’ll have is a fire sale.  In distress, the company would never get the price it would if it were selling an up-and-running casino at a time of its choosing.   Post-fire sale, can anyone doubt that Wynn Resorts would sue the Commonwealth for hundreds of millions in lost profits and damages?  Company shareholders would demand it.  One hell of a lawsuit it would be. If the state lost, we the taxpayers would be on the hook. Talk about a bad gamble.

I end with a question on requiring Wynn Resorts to ditch the “Wynn Boston Harbor” name: Is it the state’s business to tell businesses what to call themselves?

If Wynn Resorts makes the judgment that keeping Wynn’s name on its Massachusetts casino (and others) is good for business – and who’s to say it might not be, given we’re talking about enterprises founded on a vice and sustained by delusion and human weakness – I don’t believe the state has the right to deprive the company of its preferred label. (Remember, we’re living in Trump’s world now. Presidents can pay off porn stars and no one really cares.) 

If Wynn Resorts is willing to risk offending women and hurting its bottom line with a controversial name choice, who are we, the public in whose name our government acts, to say they can’t?    

 

 

Republican, Democrat Frenemies Always Ready to Slip Their Knives In

The working relationship between our Republican governor and the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate is a beautiful thing, so beautiful you might be lulled into thinking partisanship in Massachusetts is practically extinct. 

Don’t be lulled.

Yes, Charlie Baker is sincerely committed to working well with others in the legislature.  You’re no more likely to hear him criticize House Speaker Robert DeLeo or Senate President Harriette Chandler -- or any legislator for that matter -- than you are to hear President Trump apologize for a Tweet.  The same goes for DeLeo and Chandler vis-a-vis Baker.

They all want to get things done, they all fundamentally agree on many issues, and they’re all glad to work together on a positive agenda for the Commonwealth.

However, while valuing, and occasionally extolling, the benefits of bi-partisanship, both parties still know they are enemies.  They know they’re obligated by the conventions of politics to act like foes in public, sometimes ferociously so.  

For proof of that, you do not have to look far.

In a Feb. 5 fundraising letter, for example, Kirsten Hughes, Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman, said:

“Governor Baker and Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito have run a transparent, accountable administration that has put taxpayers – not Beacon Hill politicians – first.

“But for all of this progress, there are still those who want to take our state back to the dark days of one party rule and all the ugliness that went along with it…like sky high taxes, uncontrolled spending, cronyism, and corruption.

“Just to name a few.

“The Beacon Hill status quo politicians will fight tooth and nail against the Republican agenda of keeping taxes low, creating jobs, building stronger communities, and supporting education."

Now consider a Feb. 19 press release from the Massachusetts Democratic Party regarding a big donation from disgraced ex-casino mogul Steve Wynn to the Republican Governors Association.

Headlined, “Outrageous Emails Show Gaming Commission Ducking Responsibility on Wynn," the press release featured a statement by Democratic Chair Gus Bickford in response to emails by Gaming Commission board members and staff.  Those emails, Democrats allege, “demonstrate a shocking lack of commitment and direction regarding allegations against Steve Wynn.” 

Here’s the core of what Bickford said:

“The growing scandal over the Commission’s botched review of Wynn’s suitability for a Massachusetts gaming license will not just go away.  The Commission must investigate the $2 million donation that Steve Wynn funneled to Charlie Baker through the Republican Governor’s Association in 2014.  It violates the law that established this Commission and threatens the integrity of the gaming industry in Massachusetts.

“Both Wynn and Governor Baker have a long history of relying on dark money to try and get what they want.  The Steve Wynn ‘stink bomb’ is right up there with Charlie Baker’s ‘nothingburger.' ”

So, we have Republicans conjuring “the dark days of one-party rule” on Beacon Hill and “all the ugliness that went along with it.” 

What?  Might they be referring to the immediately prior administration of Democratic Governor Deval Patrick, who held sway at the State House with House Speaker DeLeo, the same speaker whose hand Governor Baker is eager to clasp?

And, we have Democrats playing their variation on the darkness theme, wherein Wynn and Baker allegedly have a “long history of relying on dark money to try and get what they want.”

What? That $2 million donation from Wynn, isn’t that the same donation previously blessed by the chief enforcement lawyer for the Gaming Commission, a donation this lawyer determined did not violate state campaign finance laws because Wynn gave the money to the Republican Governors Association after the commission had decided to grant his company the Eastern Massachusetts casino license?

To paraphrase the Book of Ecclesiastes, there is a time in Massachusetts for Republicans and Democrats to work together, and there is a time for them to work each other over.

Footnote #1. I gave Kirsten Hughes and Gus Bickford the titles they themselves use in documents.  Hughes prefers Chairman; Bickford prefers Chair.

Footnote #2. The term “Charlie Baker’s ‘nothingburger’ " refers to a mini-controversy that erupted late in the summer of 2016.  When it was reported that the chair of the state’s elementary education board, Paul Sagan, had donated $100,000 to a referendum campaign to authorize more charter schools, some Democrats called upon Sagan to resign.  Baker dismissed the situation as a “nothingburger.”