This Month in Corruption: Power Plant Tech Punished for Equipment Tampering

A recent Massachusetts case involving violations of the federal Clean Air Act serves as a reminder of how dependent we all are upon the honesty and diligence of those responsible for monitoring the purity of the water we drink, the quality of the air we breathe, and the wholesomeness of the  foods we eat and beverages we drink. 

We worry a lot about terrorists. Yet we barely ever give a thought to the guys testing samples at our municipal water plant or operating the pollution controls at the power plant a few towns away -- unknown persons, laboring in obscurity, who can seriously hurt us through negligence and malfeasance. 

The real daily risks we face are more familiar, more ordinary, and closer than we think.

On June 9, U.S. District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni sentenced Scott Paterson, age 46, of Manchester, CT, to one year of probation for tampering with environmental monitors while working as an instrument and control technician at the Berkshire Power Plant in Agawam, not far from Springfield.

The Office of Acting U.S. Attorney William D. Weinreb of Massachusetts reported that:

• From 2008 to March, 20111, Paterson, at the direction of senior managers at the plant, tampered with the plant’s Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), which measures and records concentrations of regulated pollutants emitted at Berkshire.
• The purpose of the tampering was to delay repairs and avoid reporting to federal and state regulators that the plant was, at times, releasing certain pollutants, specifically nitrogen oxides, in excess of the plant’s Clean Air Act permit limits.
• Initially, the tampering involved lowering monitors by a constant rate – approximately .5 parts per million (ppm) – below the known value.  These constant adjustments did not trigger any alarms or warnings and were thus usually maintained in the system through approximately Mid-March of 2011.
• In the summer of 2009 and 2010, the plant underwent an independent annual audit.  Prior to the audit, Paterson’s supervisor directed him to take out the adjustments in the CEMS monitors and then to reinstate them after the audit.
• By 2010, this .5 ppm adjustment was not sufficient to allow the plant to run at full power and to comply with the facility’s Clean Air Act permit.  Rather than making necessary repairs, Paterson, again at the direction of his supervisors, lowered the CEMS readings even more to avoid (a) reporting emissions in excess of the hourly limits or (b) hitting warning levels.

In 2015, the Berkshire Power Plant was charged jointly by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office with tampering with its monitoring equipment and falsely reporting data to environmental and energy regulators.

In March, 2017, Berkshire Power Company and Power Plant Management Services, the owners and operators, respectively, of the plant, were ordered to pay $7.25 million in fines, penalties and other payments for their roles in tampering.

Legislature Poised to Open Up Medical Marijuana Licensing to For-Profits

Last week, the Massachusetts House voted 126-28 to make major revisions to Chapter 334 of the Acts of 2016.  That’s the law allowing recreational use of marijuana, which was enacted via an initiative petition on the November, 2016, statewide ballot.

The measure containing those revisions is House Bill 3773, An Act to Ensure the Public Health and Safety of Patient and Consumer Access to Medical and Adult Use of Marijuana in the Commonwealth.

On a parallel track, the Massachusetts Senate voted 30-5 to add a bunch of its own amendments to H.B. 3773. 

A six-member House-Senate conference committee is now at work on a compromise, final version of the recreational marijuana law.  Its goal is to have a reworked bill before Governor Charlie Baker by the end of this week and signed into law as soon as possible after that.

If that timetable is met, Massachusetts will begin the process of regulating the sale of marijuana for adult consumption next week, with recreational marijuana stores set to open in July, 2018.

The media covered last week’s action on recreational marijuana in the House and Senate extensively – not surprising when you consider it is truly a groundbreaking piece of legislation that will have wide ramifications in our society, economy and culture.

We heard and read a lot, for example, about the percentage of the tax to be imposed on recreational marijuana.  The House wants it to be 28%, while the Senate favors something much less onerous, 12%, the same percentage as in last November’s initiative petition.

There was, however, at least one significant aspect of this exercise in lawmaking that generally escaped notice beyond the confines of the State House: How the House and Senate have agreed on the need to reshape the five-year-old law allowing state-licensed dispensaries to sell marijuana products for medicinal use, Chapter 369 of the Acts of 2012, An Act for the Humanitarian Medical Use of Marijuana.

A significant change to Chapter 369, on which both the House and Senate agree, is to allow medical marijuana dispensaries to be for-profit businesses.  Chapter 369 called for dispensaries to be not-for-profit companies.  This made it difficult to raise funds to open dispensaries and accompanying cultivation facilities, as profit-driven investors could not hold a stake in those companies.

If the governor goes along with this change, we could see dispensaries opening everywhere they’re needed throughout the state.

During the Senate debate last week, Senator Patricia Jehlen emphasized that House Bill 3773 “will preserve and protect the medical marijuana program.”

The bill, she noted, will “protect the ability of the medical program and reduce bureaucracy” by transferring state oversight of medical marijuana to the C.C.C. (Cannabis Control Commission) "carefully over 18 months." 

The bill “institutes privacy protections for patients and helps current medical facilities to compete by allowing them to convert to a for-profit entity to allow them access to capital,” she said.

A trustworthy person I know, who has kept tab for years on all-things-marijuana, says the limitation of medical marijuana dispensary licenses to non-profits was “a major flaw” in the 2012 law, and “a defect that had become increasingly apparent.”

It is “extremely difficult,” he asserts, for the entities with dispensary licenses or applying for those licenses “to raise funds or borrow money from investors when the operations they’re investing in have to operate as non-profits.”

The Commonwealth, as my friend rightly puts it, imposes “a regulatory scheme” on marijuana use solely to protect “the health, welfare and safety of Massachusetts residents.”

He asks, “What does being a non-profit or a for-profit have to do with this extremely important governmental obligation and objective?” 

Answering, he says: “Nothing!  It is more in the interest of the Commonwealth to ensure that we have well-capitalized operations dispensing marijuana for either medicinal or recreational use. Dependable, long-term financing is directly connected to managerial expertise, sound management practices, operational efficiency, and customer satisfaction.”

My friend adds, “I’m glad the legislature now agrees with me on this.”

NOTE: Members of the conference committee on House Bill 3773 are, from the House: Majority Leader Ron Mariano of Quincy, Mark Cusack of Braintree and Hannah Kane of Shrewsbury; and, from the  Senate: Jehlen of Somerville, William Brownsberger of Belmont and Richard Ross of Wrentham. Rep. Kane and Senator Ross are Republicans; all other conferees are Democrats.  Rep. Cusack and Senator Jehlen also serve as co-chairs of the special legislative committee on marijuana policy.

 

Bikers Who Love that 'Wind-in-My-Hair Feeling' Still Hoping for Legislative Relief

When I was 18 and a freshman at Northeastern, my sister-in-law, Sue, was a recent graduate of the Mt. Auburn Hospital school of nursing (Cambridge) and working as an operating room nurse at that hospital. 

One day she asked me to promise I would never ride a motorcycle.  I asked why.

“Because,” she said, “I’ve already seen too many people in the O.R. who were permanently damaged in motorcycle crashes or did not survive those crashes.  Some of them weren’t much older than you.”

She added, “Do you know what some people call motorcycles?”  I did not know.

“Donorcycles,” she said.  “They make organ donors.”

A recent article in STAT, an online product of Boston Globe Media, brought me back to that conversation with Sue. Headlined, “Pro-helmet activists are notching wins against motorcyclists shouting ‘freedom,’ ” it said:

“Pro-helmet activists have launched aggressive efforts in state legislatures across the nation to fend off motorcyclists demanding the right to ride bareheaded.

“For two decades, the riders – and their rallying cry of freedom – have often had the upper hand in these battles.  Now, though, the public health advocates are gaining traction as more and more evidence emerges that mandating helmet use saves lives.”

Around 4,500 motorcyclists are killed every year in the U.S., STAT reported.

STAT cited an academic research paper recently submitted for peer review that posited a 20 percent increase in the supply of donated organs in jurisdictions where motorcycle helmet laws had been repealed.  The paper is titled, “Allocating Scarce Organs: How a Change in Supply Affects Transplant Waiting Lists.”  Here’s an excerpt:

“…we hypothesize that the repeal of a universal helmet law, which requires all motorcyclists to wear helmets, increases the number of helmetless motorcycle riders. [Blogger’s note: Duh?]  This in turn increases the probability of brain death – the principal criteria for becoming a deceased organ donor in most cases.”

In each of the two previous legislative sessions, 2013-14 and 2015-16, at least one bill that would have weakened the Massachusetts statute requiring universal helmet use by motorcyclists has been introduced in the legislature.

This session, there’s House Bill 1862, An Act Relative to Motorcycle Helmet Choice, and Senate Bill 1932, An Act Relative to Standards for Protective Headgear for Operators or Passengers on Motorcycles.

H.1862 would change the existing law to mandate that only persons under 18 who are driving or riding on a motorcycle wear a helmet, while S.1932 would eliminate the section of a state law (Chapter 90, Section 7) requiring everyone on a motorcycle to wear a helmet.

In previous sessions, all anti-helmet bills died in committee.  There’s no reason to believe H.1862 and S.1932 will do any better this session.

On Thursday, May 18, a convoy of motorcyclists arrived on Beacon Hill to demonstrate support for S.1932.   According to the State House News Service, Rick Gleason, legislative director of the Massachusetts Motorcycle Association, said that day that one reason bikers want to be able to ride helmet-free is to experience the feel of the wind in their hair.

I wrote a post, back in April of 2014, on an earlier version of a helmet-free bill, one of those that later died in committee.  What I wrote then I write now:  I would endorse the enactment of a helmet-free law for motorcyclists if it included a section stipulating that anyone on a motorcycle not wearing a helmet who suffers a head and/or spinal injury leading to permanent disability agrees to forego permanently any public assistance, as through Medicaid or Medicare. 

If you don’t want the government meddling in your open-road experience and ordering you to protect your own brain in the most effective way possible, you can’t expect the government, i.e., taxpayers, to pay for the long-term care you may need after you’ve been badly hurt in a motorcycle crash.

 

 

Complainants Mostly Strike Out at Commission on Judicial Conduct

Except for one judge who made a racially insensitive comment to a colleague and was forced to resign (see previous post), Massachusetts judges, in the judgment of their watchdogs, pretty much behaved themselves in 2016.

That’s an obvious take-away from the recently issued 2016 annual report of the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct, which has been keeping tabs on judges for nearly 40 years.  The unpaid, nine-member commission has a threefold mission: to enforce the standards set forth in detail in a written code of conduct; to promote public confidence in the judicial branch of government; and, to preserve the integrity of the judicial process

In 2016, the commission received a total of 252 complaints; of that number, 62 were “docketed for investigation or preliminary inquiry.”

Overall in 2016, the commission officially looked into 75 complaints and disposed of 61 of them.  And 59 of the 61 disposed cases were dismissed with a finding of no misconduct.  Judges had a success rating of nearly 97%!

In four of the 59 no-misconduct dismissals, however, the commission “expressed concern to the judge regarding future conduct.” If I understand, this meant that each of the four had messed up, but not so badly that they crossed the line to misconduct land.  The commission basically warned them and said we’ll be watching you.

The remaining two among the 61 disposed cases were ones the commission had subjected to “Informal Adjustment or Agreed Disposition,” had been monitoring, and had decided to close. 

Here’s the excerpt from the report explaining what that means:

“An Agreed Disposition may take the form of an Informal Adjustment in which the Commission informs or admonishes the judge that certain conduct is or may be cause for discipline.  This form of disposition requires agreement by the judge to the terms of Informal Adjustment.  In most cases, this type of disposition has a valuable, favorable effect on a judge’s conduct.  [Blogger comment: As do near-death experiences.]

“The terms for such a disposition usually include a period of monitoring by the Commission and conditions imposed on the judge that are designed to prevent a repetition of the misconduct.  The conditions may include counseling, education, assignment of a mentor judge, monitoring by the Commission for a specified period of time, voluntary retirement, or other appropriate conditions.”

Of the 252 total complaints against judges in 2016, the most frequent complaint was that a judge had denied someone a full opportunity to be heard.  That was alleged in 42 instances.  The most frequent complaints after that were inappropriate demeanor (39), bias or prejudice (35), and disagreement with decisions and rulings (24).

The most complaints, 30, were filed against judges in the Probate and Family Court, not surprising when you consider that’s where people fight relentlessly over divorces, properties and wills.  The second highest number of complaints, 17, was inspired by district court judges – not really high, considering there are more district court judges, 158, than any other kind. 

The second largest contingent of judges is found in our superior courts, where there are 82.  And, all told, we have 411 judges serving in nine separate court divisions, headed by the seven justices of the supreme judicial court.

In his introduction to the 2016 report, Howard V. Neff, III, Executive Director of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, said, “Many complaints are filed with the Commission by parties who are disappointed with how their cases came out and believe the judge was not ‘fair’ or that his or decision was wrong.”

Neff continued, “Hardly a judge in Massachusetts escapes such claims over the course of his or her career on the bench, and the Commission’s examination of complaints regarding a judge’s decision is limited to allegations that a judge clearly violated the Code, or made a legal decision in ‘bad faith’ or based on a corrupt motive.  If a party alleges that a judge has misinterpreted the law or evidence, the proper forum for a remedy includes the appellate court but does not include the Commission.”

 

FOOTNOTE:  You may find the annual reports of the Commission on Judicial Conduct at www.mass.gov/cjc, and the Code of Judicial Conduct at http://www.mass.gov/courts/case-legal-res/rules-of-court/sjc/sjc309.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Official Report Leaves One Eager to Know More about 'Racially Insensitive' Judge

There’s one intriguing item, and one only, in the latest annual report of the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct, which fills some 90 pages of text.  (I read these things so you don’t have to.)

It concerns a judge who made “insensitive racial comments” to another judge.  The second judge filed a complaint with the commission, after which the first judge retired, citing “family health reasons.”

Here’s the item, excerpted in its entirety from the report:

“A judge was alleged to have made insensitive racial comments to another judge while in the judges’ lobby of the court in which he served, in violation of Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.3(A), 2.3(B), and 2.8(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Because of this complaint and for family health reasons, the judge retired as a judge and agreed not to seek appointment as a recall justice.” 

Editor’s Note: Above-cited rules may be found at bottom of this post.

The names of both the offending and offended judge are omitted from the report.  Also missing is the name, category and location of the court where the conversation occurred and the races and genders of the two judges.

One’s imagination naturally rushes in to fill the vacuum. 

Your guess is as good as mine as to how far over the line the offending judge went.  To use a word that lawyers love, how “egregious” was the judge’s racially insensitive behavior?  Off the top of my head, I’d say quite.  “Family health reasons,” in the public realm, is akin to patriotism: the last refuge of scoundrels.

It would seem from reading its annual reports, which may be found at www.mass.gov/cjc, that the Commission on Judicial Conduct has pondered the concept of public information the way Medieval scholars did original sin and has come to the firm conclusion that extreme caution and reluctance are almost always called for.

Under the heading of Confidentiality in its latest report, the commission states, “The statute and the rules that govern the Commission on Judicial Conduct require that the complaint and all Commission proceedings remain confidential, unless and until the Commission files Formal Charges with the Supreme Judicial Court. (There are certain limited exceptions to this requirement.)  This strict confidentiality includes all communications made to and by the Commission or its staff; it protects complainants, witnesses and judges.” 

Editor’s Notes: 1. Commission actually capitalizes the “F” and “C” in Formal Charges, apparently to distinguish Formal Charges, i.e., serious shit, from formal charges, i.e., less serious but still problematical. 2. Question: Do you think anyone complaining about a judge perceives the commission's confidentiality policy as something that exists primarily to protect them?

The Supreme Judicial Court is the forum where Formal Charges against judges are adjudicated.  If one of these cases gets to the SJC, the proceedings "are nearly always public," the commission says.  That means a judicial misconduct case has to have substance before the public may learn anything about the judge and how he has come to grief.

Contrast that situation to what would happen to you if you became ensnared in a mistaken identity case where the police arrested you and charged you with, say, rape, armed robbery, or assault and battery on an elderly person.  Do you think there's any chance your name, age and address would not quickly appear in your local newspaper?

Or consider what would happen if you were named in a civil lawsuit by a mentally imbalanced neighbor or ex-friend who was desperate for money.  That person could state in court-filed documents all kinds of outrageously false things about you that would immediately become a matter of public record, a record upon which your local newspaper could feast at will.

Howard V. Neff, III, the commission’s executive director, in the introduction to the 2016 annual report (published April 28) relates that “One understandable frustration sometimes expressed about the Commission is that the bulk of the Commission’s work and decision-making is behind closed doors and is never made known to the public.”  Imagine.

“Some would have everything ‘out in the open,’ ” Neff continued, “but for very good reasons, the law does not go that far.”

Although the commission has “limited authority” to make information public, Neff explained, “the experienced membership of the Commission must carefully weigh whether, given the facts and circumstances of a particular complaint, public disclosure would serve or undermine the Commission’s mission to preserve the integrity of the judicial process and promote public confidence in the judiciary.”

We simply have to trust the judgment of Mr. Neff…and the commissioners to whom he reported during the period covered by the 2016 annual report:

Julie J. Bernard, John J. Carroll, Jr., John D. Casey, Quinton B. Dale, Susan M. Finegan, Kathleen M. O’Donnell, Jacqueline A. O’Neill, Edward P. Ryan, Robert N. Tochka and Felicia P. Wiltz.

FOOTNOTES, re: Pertinent Rules, MA Code of Judicial Conduct

Rule 1.2  A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Rule 2.2  A judge shall uphold the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.

Rule 2.3(A)  A judge shall perform the duties of judicial  office, including administrative duties, without bias, prejudice, or harassment.

Rule 2.3(B)  A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice or engage in harassment, including bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon a person’s status or condition.  A judge also shall not permit court personnel or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to engage in such prohibited behavior.

Rule 2.8(B)  A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court personnel, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court personnel, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.

 

 

 

 

This Month in Corruption: Bilking of Disabled Veterans a Notable Low

Ex-Cop Guilty of Misusing Funds for Disabled Veterans.  On May 16, Glenn P. Pearson, a former sergeant in the Whitman Police Department, pleaded guilty in connection with the misappropriation of funds from accounts owned by disabled veterans, the Office of Acting U.S. Attorney William D. Weinreb announced. 

According to Weinreb, Pearson crossed the line while serving as a fiduciary of the accounts.  From 2007 to 2012, he was a federally authorized fiduciary for eight disabled veterans.

A press release from Weinreb says that Pearson, age 60, admitted guilt to wire fraud, misappropriation by a federal fiduciary, preparation of fraudulent tax returns, and obstruction of the Internal Revenue Services.  He’s scheduled for sentencing on September 19, at which time he faces up to 20 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

 “Mr. Pearson abused his position as a fiduciary and took advantage of vulnerable members of our society,” Weinreb said.

Acting Deputy U.S. Assistant Attorney General Stuart Goldberg commented, “Glenn Pearson took advantage of disabled military veterans who could not manage their own financial affairs by diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars in VA (Veterans Administration) payments to his personal benefit.  He then used his tax preparation business to generate more than $1.5 million in bogus refunds and obstructed IRS audits looking into the fraudulent returns he prepared.”

“Mr. Pearson,” said Harold H. Shaw, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston field division, “now finds himself on the opposite end of the very laws he was once sworn to uphold,”

Former Police Officer Accused of False Statements on Gun Buys.  Adarbaad Karani, a former Boston police officer, was arrested on May 1 and charged in connection with illegally purchasing two firearms on behalf of acquaintances.

Karani, who is 37 and resides in West Roxbury, was charged in an indictment with two counts of making a false statement during the purchase of firearms and two counts of making a false statement in a record, according to a press release from the Office of the Acting U.S. Attorney, William D. Weinreb.

The indictment in the case states that, in November 2014 and September 2015, Karani acted as the “straw purchaser” of two firearms, acquiring them on behalf of acquaintances while falsely claiming the guns were for his official police use and not for re-sale.  One of the weapons, however, was found in the possession of an alleged member of the Columbia Point Dawgs when that person was arrested in November 2015, Weinreb’s office said.

If convicted of the charges, Karani faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

Companies Cited for Underpaying Workers on Public Projects.  Three Massachusetts construction companies have, collectively, been cited more than $600,000 in restitution and penalties for failing to pay the proper prevailing wage rates to employees for work performed on public projects, as well as other violations of state wage laws, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced on May 15. 

The parties cited by Healey’s office in the case are: Ronan Jarvis, former owner of MC Starr Companies, Inc.; DANCO Management, Inc., and its owner, Daniel Tremblay; and R&A Drywall and its owner, Allan S. Vitale.

The restitution and penalties in each case were: Ronan Jarvis, $325,053; DANCO Management and Daniel Tremblay, $293,812; and R&A Drywall and Allan S. Vitale, $62,359.

“Our prevailing wage laws ensure a level playing field for contractors who perform work for public entities, including municipalities, schools, libraries and housing authorities,” said Healey.  “When contractors skirt these laws, they not only cheat employees out of their wages, they undermine the competitive business environment of Massachusetts.”

With Eye on Legislative Purse Strings, Public University Board Promotes Former Rep

The board of trustees of Salem State University voted 7-3 on May 24 to elevate John Keenan, a lifelong resident of Salem, former state rep and former House chair of a powerful legislative committee, to the presidency of the university.  The job pays around a quarter-of-a-million dollars a year. Since leaving the legislature in 2014, Keenan has been serving as the university’s general counsel and vice president for administration. 

Before Keenan can assume the presidency, the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education must vote to confirm his election, a vote that may take place at the board’s next monthly meeting.

Keenan served in the legislature for 10 years and was a force to be reckoned with.  He was a smart, strategic and at times audacious lawmaker.  Friendly, direct, and never tricky or pompous, he was an easy person to like and get along with on Beacon Hill.   

I admire Keenan for the political vision and touch he displayed as House chair of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications and Energy on a number of issues -- and never more so than when he engineered the legislative approvals for a legal mechanism by which the City of Salem is receiving millions of dollars in state funding over a multi-year period to cushion the loss of property tax revenue occasioned by the closing of an ancient coal-burning power plant.  I shamelessly suggest that you read a post I wrote on how that arrangement came to be in the summer of 2012:

http://pretiminahan.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-house-chairman-and-senate-leader-give.html

Keenan, age 52, has been blessed with considerable brainpower.  He’s an honor’s graduate of Harvard and Suffolk University Law School, where he served on the law review.  What Keenan is not is a professional scholar or a career college administrator.  Salem State is the first and only university he’s worked at.  

In choosing Keenan, the school’s trustees acknowledged the institution’s ultimately defining and inescapable dependence upon the Massachusetts legislature for the dollars it needs to stay afloat and to make continuous improvements.  Here’s what they must have been thinking when they bypassed female and minority presidential finalists with deeper and wider experience in higher ed:

No money, no mission.

The pro-Keenan vote of May 24 pointed to an unspoken board consensus that he’s the best available person to bring the bacon home from Boston. Public university trustees are practical souls.

The trustees were breaking no new ground when they prioritized political heft in their presidential search.   Think David Bartley, the former House speaker who became president of Holyoke Community College.  Think Senate President William Bulger and Congressman Marty Meehan who became presidents of the UMass system. 

The Boston Globe’s Michael Levenson reported yesterday that, of the 29 public higher education institutions in Massachusetts, only eight are headed by women, and that only seven of the 29 are minorities, [“Salem St. selection sparks debate. White male tapped to be president,” 5-30-17]. 

Sadly, the Globe article stated that the 10 Salem trustees voting on the new president were divided along racial lines: the seven Caucasian trustees voted for Keenan; the three trustees of color voted for Anny Morrobel-Sosa, a native of the Dominican Republic who’s worked in the top administrative tier at several prominent universities.   In the world of higher education or anywhere else, this is always disturbing.

The odds favor Keenan when the Board of Higher Education votes on confirming him.   Over time, I think the controversy in Salem surrounding his election will fade as he works sincerely and open-heartedly and indefatigably to be a champion of every student, faculty and staff member.  But it will take years – decades! -- to address and put to rest the justifiable concerns expressed about the gender and racial make-up of the state university presidents’ group.

Equality with a capital “E” is the great unfinished task of this state and nation. 

The energy evoked by the pursuit of Equality has the potential to renew Massachusetts and the United States.  There will be no new lease on the life of America if that pursuit is unsuccessful.

ADDENDUM:  The leadership of Salem State University must have anticipated at least some of the opposition and controversy generated by the selection of Keenan as the institution’s 14^th president.  The university press release on the selection (dated May 24) included a lengthy section at its end under the subheading “About John D. Keenan, JD.”  Seeing it as both a legitimate tribute to the man and an exemplary product of public relations, I am reprinting that section in its entirety:

“A lifelong resident of Salem and former Massachusetts state representative, John Keenan was one of the lead proponents in gaining ‘university’ status for Salem State in 2010.  John was also the lead sponsor of the bill providing sabbatical parity for all state university faculty.  A proud product of Salem Public Schools and first-generation-to-college, John is a cum laude graduate of Harvard College (Economics) and Suffolk University Law School where he served as Lead Articles Editor on the Law Review.  Suffolk faculty recognized John with the prestigious Leo J. Memorial Award as the student who most advanced the civic and professional responsibilities of a lawyer.  In 2015, John attended the Harvard Graduate School of Education Institute for Educational Management.

“As state representative John developed extensive expertise in public construction projects helping to deliver $290 million in capital funding for Salem projects, including the SSU Frederick E. Berry Library and Learning Commons, J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center, Salem MBTA Station and the Thaddeus Buczko Probate Court.  He was also the leading proponent of the billion dollar Footprint Power redevelopment of Salem Harbor Station, the largest project in Salem’s almost 400-year history.  At Salem State, John utilized this expertise to help fund and recently complete the magnificent Sophia Gordon Center for the Creative and Performing Arts.

“Prior to his election as state representative, John served as an assistant district attorney in Essex County and was a member of that office’s first Domestic Violence Unit.  John served in the administration of Mayor Neil Harrington and Mayor Stanley Usovicz as Salem city solicitor.  John joined Salem State in 2014, and as the university’s inaugural General Counsel, he is responsible for oversight of all legal matters.  With his background in domestic violence, John helps lead SSU’s Title IX team that deals with both the prevention and investigation of sexual assaults on campus.  As a result of John’s efforts, in January 2017, Salem State hosted the National Center for Campus Public Safety’s Training on Trauma-Informed Sexual Assault Investigation and Adjudication.  Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey also participated to bring attention to this national problem.

“At SSU, John is responsible for the university’s day-to-day operations in support of its academic mission.  He has oversight of capital planning and facilities, human resources and equal opportunity, information technology, risk and asset management, and university police.  Under John’s leadership the university just completed the North Campus Precinct Study, which provides a blueprint for SSU’s next decade of capital projects.  Lastly, he oversees the maintenance of appropriate internal controls consistent with the rules and regulations of the state and the board of trustees.  John is an active participant on campus, being a panelist on issues such as climate change and freedom of speech.  John welcomes the opportunity to advise aspiring public servants and students interested in pursuing law school.  John is also a member and active participant in both the New England Council of Counsel and the National Association of College and University Attorneys.

“John resides in Salem with his wife, Kara McLaughlin, and their two children, Aidan and Erin.  John’s community service includes being past president of the Salem Education Foundation.  He presently serves both on the Salem Award Foundation and on the advisory board of the Anti-Defamation League.  An avid bike rider in the summer, John has participated in the Pan Mass Challenge for the last quarter century, raising over $160,000 for the Dana Farber Cancer Institute.”

ADDENDUM: The Board of Higher Education voted unanimously on Tuesday, June 20, to approve John Keenan's appointment as president of Salem State.