Interview with Jeff Ross - Candidate for State Senate

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk with Jeff Ross, a Cambridge human rights attorney who is running in the Sept. 11th special election to replace former Senator Jarrett Barrios in the Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex state senate district. Ross is up against Cambridge City Councilor Anthony Galluccio, Chelsea City Councilor Paul Nowicki, and Cambridge attorney Tim Flaherty. I contacted all four candidates, but Ross is the only one so far who responded to my request for an interview.

Ross touted himself as an independent progressive voice for the legislature, one with fewer ties to the political establishment. He noted that environmental problems were among the most important that the district, and that bringing clean energy jobs and technology to the area would be a priority. To that end, he supports Governor Deval Patrick's plan to invest a billion dollars in high-tech and would consider tax incentives for companies looking to set up shop in Massachusetts. That said, he also favors closing corporate tax loopholes.

While Ross does not favor deregulation of the auto insurance industry in the Commonwealth, he would like to see more competition and more companies moving into Massachusetts. He also spoke of the need to fully fund our health care system, particularly our public hospitals, and the expansion of state immunization programs.

One of his more unique suggestions was the idea of setting up issue-based councils of advisors so that the various communities in the district could share information and collaborate on solutions to similar problems.

In addition, Ross noted his support for the Urban Ring and North/South Rail Link projects and favors raising the bond cap for infrastructure repairs. He notes that apathy among youth is a pervasive problem and would like to see more after-school community programs, a Boys and Girls Club in Everett, on demand treatment facilities for substance abuse, CORI reform and job training and development programs. While he told me that he supports merit pay for teachers, he is not in favor of lifting the cap on charter schools until the funding formula can be fixed.

If you're interested in supporting Jeff Ross' campaign, his website can be found at www.ross4senate.org and his campaign email is info@ross4senate.org.

Read the full interview inside
Q: Your website touts you as the progressive Democrat in the race. What makes you the progressive choice, as opposed to the other candidates?

I think being the progressive choice means that I bring a unique combination of real-life experience coupled with legislative writing, drafting, and advocacy. I'm not supported by any special interest groups. I don't owe any political favors, so I will be an independent voice for the will of the people in the legislature. I've also got years of pragmatic consensus-building experience, working on legislative issues and meeting with advocacy groups, and drafting and whatnot. I feel like a progressive democrat is somebody who has fewer ties to the political establishment and who's a consensus builder and who has a unique ability to look at social problems in the course of life and try to figure out how to solve them if it requires a legislative issue or to be involved in unlawful rule-making and to try to stop that, like the Registry of Motor Vehicles in the previous governor's administration.

For me, and for the people I've spoken to in the community, a progressive is somebody whose politics looks forward, who's young, fresh, new, and who tries to realize solutions. And to keep these solutions moving forward, and try to build consensus. So that for me puts the progress in progressive. Also, advocacy on behalf of those who are most at risk for injustice.

Q: You said that you wanted to seek out solutions. What are the most important problems in this district that require solutions?

Well, I think that we're looking at serious environmental problems in the world today and in this district, and I think the solution would be real clean energy solutions like the wind project, which is a real clean energy solution. Once that's built there's little maintenance, no pollution, and long-term effects.

Q: Do you support Cape Wind?

I support Cape Wind, and I think that it's a real clean energy solution, unlike some other alternative energy solutions that may use solar energy, may have short term panel or chemicals in them have, in the long term, it's uncertain how other forms of energy will affect the environment, and I think that Cape Wind is a real clean energy solution, and I like it, and I think that the question is where.

Q: Do you see any opportunities for wind or solar energy in your district?

I do, because off the coast of Charlestown there is. Massachusetts is one of only two states that have an alternative wind project, and it's a wind turbine that will be developed off the shore of Charlestown, and that's right in the district. So I'm excited that we'll have the opportunity to do that, to develop it, and I think that Massachusetts can be a leader in product services and technology worldwide, and something like that will bring interest and investment into Massachusetts, and the technology sector has a great tax base for growing the economy, so I support the governor's interest in investing a billion dollars in technology.

I think that partnerships with technology companies are not something that requires legislative rulemaking, but requires outreach to companies and incentives for companies to come to Massachusetts. I think we're on the verge of an era in politics where we have the opportunity for the government to reflect our shared values and I think that developing technology is around the corner in terms of the future.

Q: What would you do to encourage technology companies to come to Massachusetts in general and in particular, to locate in your district?

If possible, I think that tax incentives can be provided, and I think that building relationships with companies that might be considering moving here. Part of it is tax incentives, which is a state issue. Part of it is reaching out and building relationships with companies and bringing them to Massachusetts and introducing them to people in the community and talking about our intellectual capital base and facilitating those relationships to deepen interest in development in Massachusetts.

Q: Do you have experience doing that sort of thing?

I've spent years reaching out to different communities and trying to build relationships in communities. I worked at the US Embassy, at the training program in 1994 which was developing relationships between US companies and French distributors so that we could help the United States businesses export technology to Europe -- trade shows and making introductions and advocating on behalf of US companies. I've also written articles on export licensing controls to help keep United States businesses from exporting technology by hiring foreign national workers and keep jobs in the United States, and educate the companies about the HR requirements and licensing controls that exist, and as they're amended, so it's something I've been interested in for a long period of time. Also, I think that I could be quite useful in that area in the district.

Q: You mentioned tax incentives, and the governor has proposed closing corporate loopholes. But he's also proposed lowering corporate tax rates in exchange for that, so it would be revenue-neutral. What do you think about that?

I think we need incentives for companies to come to Massachusetts and to create jobs. I think that some of the exemptions, like the telephone company exemption, are arcane, outdated, and the quality of service we're getting in Massachusetts from broadband providers is very low compared to the cost to the state and cost to end users. I think we need to close those loopholes. Now, in terms of getting companies to come to the state and create jobs and help grow our economy, we need to have incentives for those companies to come here.

Q: One group of companies that has wanted to come here for a long time is out-of-state auto insurance companies. Now the issue of auto insurance reform is being revisited. Do you have any thoughts about those reforms?

I think that more companies would provide more competition, in terms of the rates.

Q: So you would be in favor of letting companies set their rates with fewer restrictions than we currently have?

No, because that would mean an increase in rates. I think we could let more companies come in and sell more affordable insurance and compete for services in the community. I think people in the community are feeling overwhelmed with the cost of insurance and rising prices, so I think bringing in more competition in that area. I don't think that we need to lift price restrictions because I think that will let companies charge more and buy each other out. When we're looking at insurance reform we need to be mindful of the end user and people in our communities that are struggling with the cost of insurance.

Q: Of course, the big cost of insurance that people are concerned about is not auto insurance, but health insurance.

We need to fully fund our health care system.

Q: Do you think our state's new health care law is working?

I think it's a good place to start. It needs additional analysis, additional legislation. I think that one of the problems with the way the health care system is set up now is that we have one remaining public health care system in Massachusetts and that's Cambridge Health Alliance. It's in financial jeopardy -- the state owes it $150M and the MassHealth pool is not fully funded, so I support fully funding it.

I think the state has made strides in raising the requirement of poverty up to 300% of the poverty level, because it includes additional families. A family of 4 needs to make $60K a year to participate in the MassHealth program, which I think is good because it will cover more people, but it needs to be funded so that the public hospitals don't bear the burden of absorbing those costs. That puts the whole system in jeopardy and I would be in favor of protecting the system and creating access to health care and preventative care so that people don't end up in the emergency room. I think that we should have immunization programs from children and seniors more readily available.

Part of the problem with the way the law is written now is that companies are penalized $295 for not providing health care to their employees, and $295 sounds like an incentive because the cost of providing health care for employees when you have more than 11 would presumably be higher than $295. It's written so that companies who opt out pay a penalty, and I think that large companies should pay into a pool so that companies that are right on the cusp of being required to cover their employees and are struggling have a pool to draw from so they don't end up closing and so the state doesn't lose jobs.

Q: Does that conflict with what we were talking about earlier -- trying to provide incentives for companies to come here, if we're increasing their costs?

No, that's going to be a cost, but in the larger balance of equity maybe people would locate here and get set up and get access to state resources to set up their business here, so I'm not sure they should get exemptions for health care. They could get exemptions for setup, other tax exemptions. We have to balance out our interest in creating jobs and providing incentives for companies to come here with workers' rights. That would be a question I would focus on as a state senator.

I don't have all the answers. There are going to be new issues that come up all the time. I feel that it's important for a state senator to be able to get communities involved and create dialogue around the issues, and that's a skill that I provide, bringing consensus and building relationships so that people can work together to find solutions. To me, progressive is a nice liberal label, but to me it means getting to the end result.

Q: It seems like a difficult job getting communities together in this district particularly because it's so spread out -- going from Brighton all the way up to Saugus. In fact, I found out the district is in the Massachusetts Common Cause's Gerrymander Hall of Shame because of its shape. Would you support legislation to move redistricting out of the hands of the legislature?

A: I would support the appointment of a council for redistricting. I would also, if elected, create a council of advisors across the district on health care, education, technology, art, human rights...

Q: What would those advisors do?

They would meet and talk about what's going on in their district. There are seven cities and they can learn from each other. Saugus is struggling with their budget, and they have a diverse body of new residents and Everett has taken great time and effort to count and keep accurate records of the new residents that are moving in and what the language needs are, and what special needs are. Because of that, Everett got $4M back this year for some of their education programs, for some of their ESL and special needs work that they need to do. If Saugus reached out to its community that it could benefit in a similar way.

Creating a council of people who share their experiences about what's going in other areas of the district could be enlightening and beneficial for residents and help build a sense of community in a district that's ethnically and economically diverse. I'm very excited about the prospect of working with the challenges that such a spread-out district presents.

Chelsea needs to be brought into transportation planning in a way that's equitable and would help create an infrastructure. I support the Urban Ring project, I think it should be underground and should be done right the first time, it should go to all of the communities and serve them all equally, and that will help develop the economies of all the communities.

Q: You also support the North-South Station rail link. In light of the Big Dig and all the problems we've had with the large public works projects, do you think there's an appetite for more of that in Massachusetts?

I think that the federal government and the state and local governments are struggling right now because the federal money is being drained off the states so I don't think it's a realistic project in the short term. I think it would be optimal, and public works projects create jobs, they create tax revenue, they create economy, they keep people working, they keep people in their homes, so I'm not opposed to public works projects.

We got a lot of federal money that would not have come to Massachusetts, for the Big Dig, that we otherwise wouldn't have gotten. I certainly think that public works projects could be better managed than the Big Dig was. A public works project doesn't have to be poorly run and poorly managed. There was a time in this country when public works projects got us out of the Depression and created some of our greatest assets, the Hoover Dam, etc., so I don't think that public works projects are necessarily the big evil. I think [apathy] and lack of interest in our youth are the big evil out there.

Q: Do you support lifting the state bond cap to pay for infrastructure repairs?

Absolutely. We have an urgent need to repair our roads and bridges, and I think that building infrastructure helps to grow the economy and improve the transportation system. The Tobin Bridge is falling down and residents are worried about crossing the Longfellow. We desperately need to look for revenue to keep our infrastructure. We need to continue to invest in maintaining the infrastructure and not wait until projects are desperately in need of repair because the cost is greatly increased by prolonging investment.

The previous governor's administration talked ad nauseum about maintaining our bridges and our roads, and we're still in the same position that we were, four years later. We need somebody in there who is not divisive, who's going to continue to build relationships and work to build consensus to move things forward.

Q: Earlier you said the great evil was apathy among youth. What can be done about that?

Well, in Everett, they need a Boys and Girls Club, and a place for kids to go recreate with supervision. We need on demand treatment facilities for substance abuse. We need CORI reform and job training and development programs, so that youth are occupied during the summer. In Chelsea, Central Latino recently got $200M slashed from its budget, line-itemed by the governor's office. Those are funds that keep kids involved in community projects, give them something to do, and build a sense of community responsibility and belonging to a community like Chelsea that has a huge problem with gang violence. Slashing those funds -- in summer, we're going to have more kids on the street with working and struggling parents and less to do. We need to have workforce training and development programs, we need to have youth centers and keep kids involved.

Q: What would you like to see the schools themselves do, if anything?

I'd like to see longer school days and stipend incentives for teachers -- merit pay -- to stay after school and get kids involved in science and technology. There's a great program statewide, the Massachusetts Science and Engineering Fair, that's a great opportunity for kids from communities to get involved in something that will help them go to college.

Q: Do you also support raising the cap on charter schools?

I think until we can find funding charter schools without draining public school resources, we should have a moratorium on expanding the charter school system. I've met parents who are very happy who have children in both. Some children don't function well in the public school environment, so I think the charter schools we have are a good alternative, but I don't think that we should be draining resources off our public education system. I'm product of the public education system, my children are in the public school system, and I think that we need to continue to invest in our future and invest in our children.

Q: Lastly, what's your stance on Marshmallow Fluff?

We did a study on my campaign team, with the fluffernutters, and we took a poll, and we all agree that we like fluffernutters and that we value the jobs that the Fluff company creates in the district. Everyone agreed that we should also look at school lunches and make sure that school lunches provide our children with the nutrients they need to succeed.

Q: How can people get involved in your campaign?

They can email us at info@ross4senate.org, or visit our website at www.ross4senate.org.

Another Special Election in the Cards

It had been widely rumored, but now it's confirmed. State Senator Bob Havern (D-Arlington) is resigning to take a position with a lobbying firm. Havern represents the The Fourth Middlesex District, which includes the towns of Arlington, Billerica, Burlington, two thirds of Lexington, and all but one ward of Woburn. This means another special legislative election will have to be held over the winter. He's also the third high-profile state Senator to leave before his term is up this session. The other vacancies so far this year alone have been:

• Rep. Jim Leary resigned to become then-newly elected Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray's chief of staff.
• Rep. Bob Coughlin resigned to become the undersecretary for business development in the Patrick administration, a job he's now leaving to become president of the Mass. Biotech Council.
• Senate President Robert Travaglini left his post to become a lobbyist.
• Senator Jarrett Barrios resigned to become the head of the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation.
• Rep. Anthony Petruccelli had to step down from his seat in the House after he won the election to replace Trav in the Senate.

And of course, that doesn't include former Congressman Marty Meehan, who announced his resignation early this year and who formally resigned from the Congress over the summer to become Chancellor of UMass Lowell. If one of the three state reps looking to replace Meehan happens to win that election, there will be another special election early next year to fill that vacancy.

ADL Recognizes Armenian Genocide (Mostly)

One week ago today, the Watertown Town Council broke off ties with the Anti-Defamation League's No Place for Hate program due to the refusal of the ADL to call what refer to the massacre of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire as genocide and reports of the League's lobbying efforts to defeat a Congressional resolution that would recognize the Armenian Genocide. Since that time, this amazing chain of events has occurred:

• Other local communities started exploring the idea of cutting ties with No Place for Hate.
• The New England chapter of the ADL broke with the national group in acknowledging the genocide. The local chapter called on the national ADL to do the same.
• The next day, Andrew Tarsy, the regional director of the New England Chapter was fired for breaking with the national ADL by recognizing the genocide.
• Two members of the ADL's regional board resigned in protest of Tarsy's firing.
• Other Jewish groups started to pressure the ADL to change its stance.
• Finally, today, the ADL announced that it has changed its policy and will now recognize the slaughter of Armenians as genocide.

Of course the ADL has not changed its stance on the Congressional resolution that would recognize the genocide as such. They still oppose it as something that would endanger Turkish relations with the US and Israel, as well as Jews living in Turkey. I understand these concerns, but isn't it somewhat worse to acknowledge the genocide but then claim that we shouldn't do anything about it because it's too contraversial? This strikes me as a half-measure, though it is at least a step in the right direction. The ADL's credibility has really suffered during the course of this controversy, and while they claimed that it was not one of their own making, every response they made to critics seemed to be formulated to generate the maximum amount of outrage, miring them deeper. One would expect more sensitivity from an organization created to combat bigotry and promote understanding.

On the other hand, former regional director Andrew Tarsy managed to come out of this looking like a hero. He did the right thing by refusing to wait for the national group to recognize the genocide, and he lost his job because of it. He took a lot of criticism here in Watertown for toeing the ADL line, and I'd like to think that part of the reason he changed course was because he came to town and met with the people the ADL's stance was affecting. If he had not called on the national ADL to change, it's unlikely that they would have done anything.

There's a lesson in this, and I think it's the opposite of the one from last week's Watertown Tab editorial. The Tab's editors looked at the situation as of last week and decided that it was evidence that Watertown should not get involved in "national or international issues". Leaving aside whether fighting bias is not a local issue (my personal experience in Watertown says that it is), I think that sentiment is exactly backwards. What this episode proves is that the measures we take in local government can, in fact, change the world. A 94-year old organization referred to the killings of Armenians during World War I as a genocide for the first time today in large part because our town council stood up to them.

Weekend Baby Blogging

I can hold the spoon all by myself!

Globe Discovers Fifth District Race

Yesterday, the Boston Globe had a front page article on the race to replace former Congressman Marty Meehan in the state's fifth district. The piece focused on some of the methods that the candidates are resorting to in order to get people's attention over the course of a special election that no one seems to be following. I thought it was particularly ironic for the Globe because part of the reason that no one is following this race is that the Globe just hasn't been covering it. Sure, there have been occasional articles, and some columns (mostly about candidate Niki Tsongas), but the Globe's coverage of the race has been substandard when compared with in-district papers like the Lowell Sun and Lawrence Eagle-Tribune.

That may be changing. After yesterday's article, five stories about the race appeared on the Boston.com local politics blog -- the first posts to that blog in more than two weeks. In addition, the Globe had a story today covering yesterday's fifth district debate in Haverhill. The Demcoratic candidates for this seat have had what seems like hundreds of these local debates across the district and it's rare that the Globe even sends someone to cover them, let alone prints an article afterward. I hope this is a sign that the race will be getting the attention it deserves from the region's largest paper.

Now, if we can only get the Globe to cover the special legislative elections...

SUSA Poll of MA-05

Via Jon Keller comes the latest WBZ4/SUSA Fifth Congressional District poll. This, I believe, is the first poll done by an independant firm for the race to replace former Congressman Marty Meehan (D-Lowell). The results showed candidate Niki Tsongas as the frontrunner, as expected, while Eileen Donoghue, Barry Finegold and Jamie Eldridge are roughly tied for second place. Barely registering (in fact, below "other" and "undecided") is Jim Miceli. Here are the numbers:

Tsongas	38%
Donoghue	16%
Finegold	14%
Eldridge	13%
Miceli	4%
Other	10%
Undecided	6%

Now, some may find it surprising that the number of undecided voters is so small in the SUSA poll. I've discussed this about SUSA before, but the reason for that is two-fold. Part of it is the question that's asked: "If the Democratic Primary for U.S. House of Representatives were today, and you were standing in the voting booth right now, who would you vote for?" That question encourages the respondent to make a choice. This is appropriate, in my opinion, because if people are undecided on election day, they're likely to stay home. This is particularly true of a special election where only one race will be on the ballot. It's also important to remember that these respondents are those SUSA considers likely voters. People who support a candidate are certainly more likely to vote than those who do not.

Of course, since this is a special election the day after Labor Day, any likely voter model is practically guesswork. The only people who I expect to come out to vote in the primary are people who have been contacted by a campaign. The winner of the race is likely to be the candidate who has done the best voter ID and is able to drag their supporters out on the first day of school.

Also interesting in this poll was the fact that 66% of the respondents disapproved of the job Congress is currently doing and 82% said the country is going in the wrong direction. These opinions, however, had no bearing on their choice for Congressional representation.

In other MA-05 polling news, I just got a notice from Eileen Donoghue's campaign touting the fact that their internal tracking poll shows them just six points behind Niki Tsongas. Their own polling also has Donoghue winning Lowell by a better than two-to-one margin and winning among "voters who have made a final decision on a candidate". Given how different this is from the public poll, I'm skeptical. The timing suggests that the internal poll was released to counter the SUSA poll, so take these numbers with a grain of salt.

Question of the Day

How badly do you have to screw up an election cycle to not get hired as a Washington lobbyist?

I guess if there's hope for Brian Dodge, the now-former director of the Mass GOP who oversaw last year's devestating losses for state Republicans, there's hope for anyone. I wonder if his search for a way out is the reason that so many Democrats have gone unopposed in special elections this year.

I am Not a Lawyer

If I were, I might have known this:

1819. That’s the year state lawmakers last updated penalties for corporations convicted of involuntary manslaughter, the charge now facing a Big Dig epoxy supplier. Consequently, the maximum penalty is $1,000. Lawmakers want to stiffen the law, but it won’t matter in this case, because the attorney general is bound to the law on the books at the time of the tunnel collapse.

And taken it into account in the post I wrote Friday. It makes sense, but it also means that if Martha Coakley comes down with involuntary manslaughter charges for any of the other Big Dig companies, she'll be stuck with the $1,000.

Weekend Baby Blogging

Daddy and Grandpa prove incapable of putting the Exersaucer together correctly.

Another Blow to Fall River LNG

Weaver's Cove Energy, the group attempting to put a liquified natural gas terminal in Fall River, has been dealt another setback. This time, it's the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, which rejected the company's request to dredge Mount Hope Bay. Weaver's Cove needs the bay dredged because it's currently not deep enough for the huge LNG ships that would need to travel the channel. This is apparently even after the company agreed to use the smaller ships necessary to travel under the Brightman Street Bridge -- necessary after the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation prohibited federal funds from being used in the bridge's destruction. From the Providence Journal:

Along with denying the application because it was incomplete, the DEM said it also found the scope of the project "had substantially changed" and that Weaver's Cove "had failed to provide adequate information to enable the department to determine the exact nature of its project or how the project is viable" following a May 9 U.S. Coast Guard letter "effectively denying the project."

While the company has gotten approval from the Federal Government for the project, state and local officials have consistently opposed the project and the Coast Guard has also expressed skepticism. So far, however, Weaver's Cove has pushed forward despite all the opposition. I can't help but wonder, however, if the company had started the siting process for a different location years ago, when it was apparent that Rhode Island and Massachusetts officials would try to kill this project by any means necessary, that they would be ready to build at a different site. At what point does it become not worth it anymore for Weaver's Cove to keep fighting? LNG opponents will certainly be trying to delay the project until that time.

First Things First

Yesterday, the Boston Phoenix's David Bernstein had this to say about the $1,000 criminal indictment faced by Big Dig epoxy supplier Powers Fasteners:

[I]t was pretty clear at yesterday afternoon's press conference that AG Martha Coakley wanted to use the indictment of Powers Fasteners as an impetus to spur the state to change its ridiculous cap on criminal penalties for corporations. Good for her.

Today, it looks like that's exactly what's happening. From the Boston Herald:

With an angry public demanding justice in the tunnel disaster, top state lawmakers vowed yesterday to stiffen an ancient 1819 manslaughter law that could let a Big Dig company get off with a meager $1,000 fine if found guilty in the death of Milena Del Valle.

"Clearly, we've got to take action," said State Sen. Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester), who vowed to file legislation within days. "If we're going to have criminal sanctions, they need to mean something and they must match the seriousness of this situation."

While some may be clamoring for Coakley to take down the major players in the Big Dig investigation like Bechtel/Parsons Brinkerhoff, Gannett Fleming, or Modern Continental, it makes perfect sense to me for her to wait for the legislature to raise the absurdly low cap before going public with any charges against those firms. Can you imagine the outcry if Bechtel were the company facing just a $1,000 fine? Hopefully the legislature will act quickly to update the manslaughter penalties for corporations.

Media Coverage of Senate Debate

While the big Boston dailies completely ignored this past Monday's State Senate debate in Charlestown between candidates looking to replace former Senator Jarrett Barrios, some of the area's weeklies came through with reports on the event.

The Charlestown Patriot-Bridge has a good synopsis of the event, though they did not manage to include information about which candidates actually made the ballot. In addition Bay Windows has a long profile of the race, including the candidates' support of LGBT issues. That did not end up being much of a topic in the Charlestown debate, but it promises to come up in next week's debate in Cambridge on August 16th.

Unsaid Word Speaks Volumes

Guess what word is missing from the letter to the editor in yesterday's Boston Globe by Anti-Defamation League New England Regional director Andrew Tarsy and Regional chairman James Rudolph?

Give up? It's "Genocide".

Not to belabor a point I made earlier this month, but if I had been accused of Holocaust Denial by the ADL and then came back and said "many groups have experienced horrific atrocities" as a way of explaining myself, I'm not sure that anyone would find that answer satisfactory. I'm sure that Tarsy was surprised by the controversy, but he keeps digging himself and his organization deeper into it with each statement he makes to the local paper. It would have gone a long way toward quieting the uproar if he had simply used the word "genocide" to describe what happened to the Armenians under the Ottoman Empire instead of dancing around it with "massacre" and "suffering".

Governor Holding Cards Close to his Chest

Governor Patrick, you don't need to show your cards yet, but we're going to have to see your hand before you get any payoff. People already think that the process is rigged in favor of casino gambling -- and in some cases, they're probably right -- that you need to be sure that everything you do is completely transparent. You can hold on to the casino study until you make your final decision, but if you don't release it people are always going to wonder what was so awful in there that the public wasn't allowed to read.

[Update]: Now that I've had some time to think about it, there is one scenario where it makes sense to keep the casino report private. If the report recommends allowing casinos and also lists concessions that the state must seek from Indian tribes and casino developers, it does make sense to keep those under wraps until such time as the Governor gives his Yay or Nay. There's no sense in giving casino proponents extra time to prepare for the eventual negotiations. Still, this report should be released when Governor Patrick makes his decision on whether to allow gaming in Massachusetts -- even if his eventual position is at odds with the study's recommendations.

How to Dislodge an Appointee

Today, the Boston Globe noted that John Moscardelli, a member of the Turnpike Board, has resigned, giving Governor Deval Patrick free reign to appoint a majority of the board. Why did Moscardelli resign? He wasn't speaking to the media, but this says it all:

Moscardelli, who was appointed to the board in 2002, resigned a month after a change in state law stripped board members of several perks, including health insurance and a $25,800 annual stipend. It was the only state board that paid benefits, state officials said.

Coincidence? You decide.

Question of the Day

What crumbling infrastructure?

Four Candidates Left in Race for Barrios' Seat

Yesterday the Cambridge Chronicle reported that four candidates remain in the special election to replace former Senator Jarrett Barrios. Here is the final list of candidates, all of them Democrats:

• Cambridge attorney Tim Flaherty, the son of former House Speaker Charlie Flaherty
• Cambridge City Councilor Anthony Galluccio
• Chelsea City Councilor Paul Nowicki
• Cambridge attorney Jeff Ross

I exchanged an email with Laurie Leyshon, the only other candidate who had submitted signatures, to find out why she was not on the ballot. She told me that she had collected enough signatures -- more than 700 -- but one of the sheets was disqualified because of an incomplete address. She said that she is "absolutely devastated" and is currently considering her options. I'm not sure there's anything left she can do, however. To my knowledge, the SJC has already upheld the seemingly capricious rules regarding signature petitions (one stray mark and the whole sheet is disqualified!?). Frankly, I'm a little disappointed. While I did not expect Leyshon to win the election, I did think that Monday's debate was better for her presence in it.

[Meta-Update]: I'd just like to note that according to Blogger this is my 756th post. And I did it all without any blogging-enhancement drugs, too.

Senate Candidates Debate in Charlestown

Last night, I attended the state senate debate between candidates vying for former Senator Jarrett Barrios' seat in the Middlesex, Suffolk and Essex District. The debate was held in Charlestown and was sponsored by three local organizations, Friends of the Charlestown Navy Yard, Charlestown Business Association, Charlestown Waterfront Coalition. As you might imagine, local issues dominated the discussion. The candidates, as mentioned previously, are Chelsea City Councilor Paul Nowicki, Cambridge attorney Tim Flaherty, Cambridge attorney Jeff Ross, Cambridge City Councilor Anthony Galluccio, and Cambridge teacher and activi