CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, July 5, 2003
Teachers union's failing override
strategy exposed
Check out the Web site of the Massachusetts Teachers Association for part of the answer. These professional tax proponents have developed a guide, aptly named "Better Funding/Better Schools. A Roadmap to Overriding Proposition
2˝," to improve the success rate of local override campaigns....
The guide gives tips on everything from a winning message to getting out the vote to convincing local teachers to support the campaign. And it's self-described as providing "good information about what has worked well and what has backfired ..."
Given some of the gems contained in it, the guide itself might just backfire. At the very least, it exposes some override campaigns for the teacher benefit protection plans that they are....
So let's get this straight. Don't be too greedy, keep publicity to a minimum lest voters figure out what you're up to, make sure local teachers are aware of their self-interest, but don't let anyone else figure that out. Because then the jig would be up.
The jig may already be up, with reports showing that permanent override approvals have fallen from a high of 74 percent in fiscal 2002 to just about 50 percent now. Taxpayers are tapped out, and no campaign strategy will change that.
A Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, July 5, 2003
Taxpayers beware of override tricks
The election turnout broke a record, and the town meeting a short time later attracted almost double the usual crowd. In no uncertain terms, Abington voters, who were being asked to raise taxes, were telling local leaders to read their lips about the town's cash problems.
"The message was loud and clear: They didn't want any taxes raised. Period," Abington Selectmen Chairman Kevin Donovan said....
Since Jan. 1, 13 of the 26 communities covered by The Patriot Ledger have considered overriding Proposition 2˝ property tax limits, the highest number in more than a decade.
Eight communities defeated overrides, many by wide margins, and five passed them. As in the past, tax increases for municipal construction projects such as sewers and new schools fared better than increases for operating budgets....
According to the Department of Revenue, in the last five years the average single-family property tax bill has increased 40 percent in Braintree, 37 percent in Pembroke, 26 percent in Milton, 25 percent in Abington and 22 percent in Randolph.
The Patriot Ledger
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Override defeats show a distaste for raising taxes
More than 40 people were off the town payroll today because of budget cuts, but considerably fewer jobs have been eliminated than predicted by supporters of a failed override attempt....
"It’s a huge credibility issue, I think," Selectman Russell Bullock said last night. "The perception in the eyes of the community is that the proposed cuts weren’t real." ...
"If these layoffs were just feigned, this is the type of outcome to prevent any other future overrides," he said.
The Patriot Ledger
Tuesday, July 1, 2003
Warnings of big job losses in Pembroke prove overstated
Override supporters accused of breaking trust of voters
An unlikely alliance of liberal Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives could doom a bid by House Speaker Thomas Finneran to give legislative leaders the power to deal out cash stipends to their top lieutenants....
"If the vote happened today, I don't think Finneran has enough votes to override the governor," said state Rep. Douglas Petersen, D-Marblehead, one of Rushing's liberal "gang of 17." ...
Even with the support of some Democrats, Jones said the success of the Republican effort to defeat Finneran's pay raise bill is "too close to call."
"If members are inquiring about a veto override they need for their district, certainly they are being asked to support the pay raise," [House Minority Leader Brad Jones] said. "And if they don't, it's likely their override isn't going to come up. You can expect the pay raise to come up early (on Monday) so the leadership can see who is with them and who is against, before they move on to other overrides."
Jones added that if the pay raise is defeated, he expects the leadership to try and override every other Romney veto as revenge and "to show the governor who's in charge."
The Salem News
Friday, July 4, 2003
Battle set on House pay hikes
Last week State Rep. Tom O’Brien wrote to the Clipper in response to a previous letter penned by Mr. John Taft, who questioned some of his votes. (For the record, Mr. Taft is chairman of the Duxbury Republican town committee and Mr. O’Brien is a Kingston Democrat who represents two Duxbury precincts.)
Mr. O’Brien’s response was well-written and persuasive. Frankly, after reading it we were convinced that his was the wiser course. That was until we read to end of the letter where he offered a ridiculous defense of the legislature’s latest pay-raise shenanigans.
The bill to which Mr. O’Brien refers (which he abstained from voting on) would effect a permanent legal change allowing House and Senate leadership to dictate new committees and bonus pay based on internal rules, instead of formal legislation (as is currently the case). In other words, it puts even more power in the hands of the one person who needs it least – Speaker Tom Finneran.
Mr. O’Brien would have us believe that this bill is simply a housekeeping measure. Of course, it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that he stands to receive a (retroactive!) $7,500 bonus as vice-chairman of one of these new committees.
A Duxbury Clipper editorial
Wednesday, July 2, 2003
Bonus Question
Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who controls virtually every action of the House, has testified under oath that he didn't know how the Legislature's 2001 redistricting plan would affect the racial makeup of his own district, or even which neighborhoods he gained and lost.
In a federal voter-rights lawsuit accusing him and his colleagues of redrawing the election map to protect white incumbents, the powerful Democrat also refused to divulge details about how the new map was drawn, or to hand over documents related to the process....
As a result of the redistricting, Finneran, of Mattapan, dropped three overwhelmingly minority neighborhoods and picked up three that were at least 95 percent white. In the end, his district went from 74 percent minority to 61 percent minority.
Finneran, who declined to be interviewed for this story, has said through a spokesman in the past that the House's redistricting effort was an honest attempt to reflect demographic shifts throughout the Commonwealth, as required by federal law.
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 4, 2003
Voters' suit finds Finneran reticent
Can't give details on redistricting
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
"'I don't recall specifically,' Finneran answered."
What's going on with the the best and brightest
Beacon Hill leadership money can buy? First we have former-senate
president and UMass godfather Billy Bulger taking his lead from
former-first lady Hillary Clinton, presumably unable to recall even how
he arrived at the congressional hearing to testify with a grant of
immunity. Now we have alleged genius House speaker-for-life Tom
Finneran unable to recall under oath virtually who tied his shoelaces
before he left home.
There's a growing epidemic of selective amnesia
spreading among the political elite ever since Hillary got away with her
obfuscation with impunity. The national Centers for Disease Control and
the Office of Homeland Security should be put on alert.
The Beacon Hill Machiavelli just ... doesn't recall.
Yeah, right. If you believe for a moment that anything happens on
Beacon Hill without Finneran's imprimatur -- especially the
redistricting of his district! -- I've got a few bridges and some
prime swampland for sale.
*
*
*
Proposition 2˝ overrides are being exposed for the
scams we've asserted most have become -- and better yet, the
Massachusetts Teachers Association is being more revealed by the day for
its scurrilous tactics and greedy motivation; the teachers union is
finally recognized as an insatiable fraud.
And the deceitful tactics it advocates as the lead
proponent of overrides around the state are being exposed from every
corner and have begun to backfire. All the dire threats that "the
sky is falling" are losing credibility when, as in Pembroke, an
override fails and the doom-and-gloom scenarios are ... revised ... and
don't happen as predicted.
We may one day thank the teachers union's unrepentant
greed for devastating any chance of further local tax hikes. Just as the
Boy Who Cried Wolf learned the hard way, when the wolf finally arrives
nobody is listening.
*
*
*
It appears Monday will be D-Day for Finneran's
Pay-Raise Power-Grab override vote. His plan seems to be to use that
vote as a litmus test for budget override votes. If a rep wants
something to take home to his or her district, he or she will vote to
make Finneran the most powerful figure on Beacon Hill. That's how
Caligula works his "staff," our elected members of the House
of Representatives. They either obsequiously kneel, kiss his ring and do
his bidding -- or they pay the price for independence.
Can you imagine surrendering even more power
to this arrogant megalomaniac?
Finneran's Pay-Raise Power-Grab override vote, by all
accounts, will be very close. You've still got time to make a
difference by contacting your state rep and senator ... though it's
almost run out. If you haven't yet, call and speak now or forever hold
your peace. If you've already called them, call again. Like we warned in
1998 during the ballot campaign over their constitutionally-mandated and
protected automatic pay raises ... if this goes through, it will be
forever and it will only get worse.
Forever vs. a few minutes of your time on the phone
before the vote on Monday. Which will it be?
I hope you don't let them use you as their
excuse -- "None of my constituents called to oppose it, so I voted
with the speaker."
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
Your rep and senator need to know you
oppose the Finneran pay-raise power-grab and will not forget how they vote.
This is a critical turning point in
Massachusetts history, a point that will define our very form of government.
Don't let it pass by without voicing
your opinion. Find
your rep and senator now, and let him or her know where you stand: for
democracy or for a "Finneran Rules" autocracy.
When you call, just tell whoever
answers the phone that you're a constituent and would like the representative or
senator to sustain the governor's veto on the Finneran Power-Grab. If there's a
question, refer them to the CLT
memo that was delivered to their offices on June 25.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, July 5, 2003
A Boston Herald editorial
Taxpayers beware of override tricks
Ever wonder why the campaigns supporting overrides of Proposition 2 in cities and towns across the state are so remarkably similar, even though the ballot questions are supposed to be about local concerns?
Check out the Web site of the Massachusetts Teachers Association for part of the answer. These professional tax proponents have developed a guide, aptly named
"Better Funding/Better Schools. A Roadmap to Overriding Proposition
2˝," to improve the success rate of local override campaigns.
The guide gives tips on everything from a winning message to getting out the vote to convincing local teachers to support the campaign. And it's self-described as providing "good information about what has worked well and what has backfired ..."
Given some of the gems contained in it, the guide itself might just backfire. At the very least, it exposes some override campaigns for the teacher benefit protection plans that they are.
Here are a few of our favorite excerpts:
"The override sought should not violate the "sore thumb" rule, i.e., the amount of money being raised and the services for which it is being raised should not stick out like a sore thumb relative to taxes and services in nearby or comparable communities."
"If you are running a low-profile campaign, you should refrain from issuing press releases or generating a lot of letters to the editor."
In a flyer or letter to local educators, "remind them of the link between local tax revenues, and a community's ability to finance raises, health insurance, professional development ..."
"In addition, it would not be helpful if the opposition obtained copies of literature that only referenced teachers' economic interests ..."
So let's get this straight. Don't be too greedy, keep publicity to a minimum lest voters figure out what you're up to, make sure local teachers are aware of their self-interest, but don't let anyone else figure that out. Because then the jig would be up.
The jig may already be up, with reports showing that permanent override approvals have fallen from a high of 74 percent in fiscal 2002 to just about 50 percent now. Taxpayers are tapped out, and no campaign strategy will change that.
Return to
top
The Patriot Ledger
Thursday, July 3, 2003
Override defeats show a distaste for raising taxes
By Christopher Walker
The election turnout broke a record, and the town meeting a short time later attracted almost double the usual crowd. In no uncertain terms, Abington voters, who were being asked to raise taxes, were telling local leaders to read their lips about the town's cash problems.
"The message was loud and clear: They didn't want any taxes raised. Period," Abington Selectmen Chairman Kevin Donovan said.
Voters in other South Shore towns sent the same messages this spring.
Since Jan. 1, 13 of the 26 communities covered by The Patriot Ledger have considered overriding Proposition 2˝ property tax limits, the highest number in more than a decade.
Eight communities defeated overrides, many by wide margins, and five passed them. As in the past, tax increases for municipal construction projects such as sewers and new schools fared better than increases for operating budgets.
The failure of operating-budget overrides in Pembroke, Randolph, Milton, Braintree and Abington will mean fewer teachers, firefighters and police officers in those towns in the new fiscal year that began Tuesday.
According to the Department of Revenue, in the last five years the average single-family property tax bill has increased 40 percent in Braintree, 37 percent in Pembroke, 26 percent in Milton, 25 percent in Abington and 22 percent in Randolph.
Plymouth voters rejected a $46 million plan to build a third high school, and Hanson turned down a proposed $3 million police station.
Braintree narrowly rejected $16 million in overrides to save jobs and town services. Stoughton said no to $1.6 million to preserve a farm.
Not every tax hike was rejected. Cohasset approved a modest, $350,000 tax increase to balance its budget, and other towns raised taxes for specific projects. Scituate voters approved a $989,000 override to open a new elementary school that had gone unused last year because there was no money to run it.
Holbrook approved a $4.6 million temporary tax increase, or debt exclusion, to improve its water system.
Kingston, Halifax and Plympton approved $47 million in overrides for Silver Lake Regional High School.
But in places where the choice was either substantially higher taxes or scaled-back services, voters refused to dig deeper into their own pockets and raise their taxes.
Few local officials blame voters for their reluctance to raise taxes in tough times. The officials instead cite broader problems with an inflexible public spending system that leaves few alternatives.
The number of local override attempts testifies to the depth of the state's cash problems and how they've quickly trickled down to cities and towns. Local officials say million-dollar increases in state aid during the last decade allowed cities and towns to grow dependent on state cash for maintaining even basic local services.
With that money now dropping sharply, towns are powerless to raise cash except by attempting overrides of Proposition 2˝ .
"A lot of communities expected the increases to go on forever, and that's what has caused some of these budgeting problems," Braintree Selectmen Chairman Timothy Egan said.
Milton Town Clerk and Selectman James Mullen cited a reverse problem: The state issues mandates to local governments without providing the cash to pay for them.
"There's a great deal of unfunded mandates. It's ‘do this, and do that, and you have to pay for it, pal,"' he said.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association estimates that one-third of all cities and towns in the state are considering Proposition 2˝ overrides to balance their budgets. Of more than 40 override votes taken, the victories are coming primarily in affluent communities, Executive Director Geoffrey Beckwith said.
That illustrates another problem: The towns that can least afford the loss of state aid are also the least likely win property tax hikes, Beckwith said. He said state leaders must at least consider other revenue sources, including raising the income tax.
Egan said he doubts there's a connection between affluence and override success, saying people with more money don't want their taxes raised anymore than anyone else.
In Milton, another of the region's wealthier towns, voters last month rejected a $1.48 million tax hike. Milton residents had previously approved 13 of 17 proposed overrides since 1988 for a total of $148 million.
Return to
top
The Patriot Ledger
Tuesday, July 1, 2003
Warnings of big job losses in Pembroke prove overstated
Override supporters accused of breaking trust of voters
By Jim Daly
More than 40 people were off the town payroll today because of budget cuts, but considerably fewer jobs have been eliminated than predicted by supporters of a failed override attempt.
Town officials had said 59 positions – including 21 teachers, three police officers and four firefighters – would be cut if last month’s Proposition 2˝ property tax override did not pass. It failed 3,171-1,898.
Today is the first day of the new fiscal year, and only 41 positions had been eliminated as of yesterday.
"It’s a huge credibility issue, I think," Selectman Russell Bullock said last night. "The perception in the eyes of the community is that the proposed cuts weren’t real."
Bullock said some town departments were trying to find ways to save jobs through a combination of retirements and creative financing.
"If we can keep people at work, then we should," he said.
One issue that looms large in terms of voter trust involves the school department, which projected 44 job losses, but is actually faced with 36.
School Superintendent Patricia Randall last week rehired three teachers who had been laid off. She said yesterday that Bryantville Elementary School Assistant Principal John Fournier, who makes more than $60,000, is also being retained.
According to the town treasurer’s office, three janitors, a school nurse and a teacher’s aide were also recently rehired. All had been projected to be laid off.
Selectman Hilary Wilson said school officials should explain why their projections were off. He said the differences in projected and actual numbers harmed the trust town government has with the public.
Bullock said the schools and other departments should be held accountable for layoff numbers projected before the override.
"If these layoffs were just feigned, this is the type of outcome to prevent any other future overrides," he said.
School committee Chairwoman Eileen Hutchinson said the discrepancy between protected and actual school cuts was due to unexpected developments. She said extra money to rehire three teachers came from the unanticipated retirement of two teachers on the high end of the salary scale. That, along with reduced spending on special education, resulted in fewer job losses, she said.
Prior to the override vote, town officials had projected cutting 15 non-school jobs from the payroll.
So far, only five municipal employees – all clerks – have been laid off. One of them, Debra
Dutra, was recently rehired to work in Randall’s office.
The office of Treasurer-Collector Linda Robbins-Porazzo lost Dutra and another employee due to budget cuts.
Robbins-Porazzo said the cuts have resulted in more waiting time for town hall patrons and more work for the employees who remain.
In the police, fire and public works departments, projected layoffs have yet to take place.
The police department had anticipated losing three patrolmen. The layoffs were delayed due to an upcoming Civil Service hearing involving the proposed demotion of Lt. Michael
Ohrenberger. The demotion, which could make Ohrenberger a sergeant, would save the department enough money to keep an additional officer, Police Chief Gregory Wright said.
The fire department projected to lose four to six firefighters or paramedics, had one position eliminated this spring when Captain Dana Osborne retired.
In the public works department, three layoffs were projected. Public works Commissioner Kevin Crowley said there would be
at least one layoff, and the department hoped to transfer two employees to the water department.
Return to
top
The Salem News
Friday, July 4, 2003
Battle set on House pay hikes
By Shawn Regan, Staff writer
An unlikely alliance of liberal Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives could doom a bid by House Speaker Thomas Finneran to give legislative leaders the power to deal out cash stipends to their top lieutenants.
Both the House and Senate recently passed a pay-raise bill that would allow Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, both Boston Democrats, to create legislative committees and give pay raises to lawmakers without getting approval from the governor.
Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed the measure after the Legislature rejected his plan to reorganize the executive branch of state government. It is one of 372 gubernatorial vetoes the Legislature is scheduled to consider overturning Monday in what is expected to be a marathon session.
All told, the vetoes cut $210 million in spending approved by the House and Senate, or about 1 percent of the state's $23.14 billion budget for 2004.
The pay raise appears to be the only significant Romney veto that has a chance to be sustained, with a number of locally important vetoes expected to be overturned by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.
North of Boston lawmakers will attempt to override a number of vetoes they say would hurt the region ...
It takes a two-thirds vote of both chambers to override a gubernatorial veto -- 107 votes in the House and 27 votes in the Senate. The Senate can only consider overriding a veto if the House does it first.
The pay raise passed the House 100 to 50 last month, with 10 members not voting. But overriding Romney's veto is expected to be much tougher this time, with 13 Republicans who previously voted for the pay raise now expected to switch and support the governor.
Adding to the drama, Romney has threatened legal action to try and stop the pay raise if his veto is overturned, arguing that the state's high court ruled in 1996 that legislative pay must be set by bills passed by both branches, not by internal rules.
Aligned with the Republicans now opposing the measure is a group of 17 self-described progressive Democrats loyal to state Rep. Byron Rushing, D-Boston, a frequent Finneran critic who recently lost a bid to replace him as speaker.
"If the vote happened today, I don't think Finneran has enough votes to override the governor," said state Rep. Douglas Petersen, D-Marblehead, one of Rushing's liberal "gang of 17."
"But keep in mind the speaker is putting a lot of pressure on the members to vote for the pay raise," Petersen added. "And he's still got a few days left of arm-twisting to get the votes he needs."
House Minority Leader Bradley H. Jones Jr., R-North Reading, said he expects 13 of 21 House Republicans who voted for the pay raise last time to switch their vote.
Jones said he is changing his vote because Finneran would not accept the governor's compromise to add a "true" sunset clause that would kill the pay raise at the end of the current legislative session. The sunset clause added by the leadership instead requires the Legislature to revisit the rules governing pay raises at the end of the session -- a provision, Jones said, that "means nothing."
Even with the support of some Democrats, Jones said the success of the Republican effort to defeat Finneran's pay raise bill is "too close to call."
"If members are inquiring about a veto override they need for their district, certainly they are being asked to support the pay raise," Jones said. "And if they don't, it's likely their override isn't going to come up. You can expect the pay raise to come up early (on Monday) so the leadership can see who is with them and who is against, before they move on to other overrides."
Jones added that if the pay raise is defeated, he expects the leadership to try and override every other Romney veto as revenge and "to show the governor who's in charge."
State Rep. Mary Grant, D-Beverly, will join the 13 House Republicans and flip her previous vote for the pay raise.
"I voted for it last time because I'm in favor of the Legislature being able to organize itself and create the committees we need," Grant said. "But I don't want to see any new stipends this year, and it's become clear to me that's what they are planning to do if they get this."
If the pay-raise measure is enacted, Finneran has said he will create one new leadership position by eliminating three committees and creating three others -- House committees on Medicaid and Homeland Security, and a joint committee on Local Affairs and Regional Government. He would scrap the joint committee on Local Affairs, Counties and Federal Financial Assistance.
Committee chairmen and vice chairmen enjoy an extra $7,500 to $15,000 above the legislative base salary of $53,381.
Two of four North of Boston senators say they will not vote to override the governor's veto, while one said he is undecided. Senate Majority Leader Frederick E. Berry of Peabody was out of town due to a death in the family and could not be reached.
"We would be giving leaders of both the House and Senate the kind of autonomy that could be used in dangerous ways," said Senate Minority Whip Bruce E.
Tarr, R-Gloucester. "Considering the cuts we are making statewide and the fact that all but one senator turned down a broad-based ($3,000) pay raise earlier this year, I think the leadership pay raise is a bad idea right now."
Return to
top
The Duxbury Clipper
Wednesday, July 2, 2003
Editorial
Bonus Question
Sorry, Mr. O’Brien, but we can’t let this one lie.
Last week State Rep. Tom O’Brien wrote to the Clipper in response to a previous letter penned by Mr. John Taft, who questioned some of his votes. (For the record, Mr. Taft is chairman of the Duxbury Republican town committee and Mr. O’Brien is a Kingston Democrat who represents two Duxbury precincts.)
Mr. O’Brien’s response was well-written and persuasive. Frankly, after reading it we were convinced that his was the wiser course. That was until we read to end of the letter where he offered a ridiculous defense of the legislature’s latest pay-raise shenanigans.
The bill to which Mr. O’Brien refers (which he abstained from voting on) would effect a permanent legal change allowing House and Senate leadership to dictate new committees and bonus pay based on internal rules, instead of formal legislation (as is currently the case). In other words, it puts even more power in the hands of the one person who needs it least – Speaker Tom Finneran.
Mr. O’Brien would have us believe that this bill is simply a housekeeping measure. Of course, it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that he stands to receive a (retroactive!) $7,500 bonus as vice-chairman of one of these new committees.
With an existing base salary of $53,381, that’s a raise of almost 15 percent – a good-sized increase in a year when there’s a reported $3 billion budget shortfall and not enough money to pay teacher bonuses. (As an interesting aside, according to Common Cause, Massachusetts is already ranked #1 in the nation in the amount of bonus pay awarded to state legislators.)
We are further amused by Mr. O’Brien’s defense that some of his Republican colleagues also supported the pay-raise measure. Ah, yes, the winsome “The other kids did it, too!” defense.
This is another example of the power equilibrium on Beacon Hill – it’s less about Republicans vs. Democrats and more about Insiders vs. Outsiders. That’s why we often see the states most liberal legislators voting in concert with its most conservative.
Such an unlikely bandwagon has led the opposition to this latest power grab. Thankfully Governor Romney vetoed the bill this week; however an override vote is still a distinct possibility.
While he has represented Duxbury only a short time, we have come to know Mr. O’Brien as a hard-working, accessible and diligent representative. This makes his position all the more egregious. Had our former state representative ––He Who Will Not Be Named, as Harry Potter might say –– taken this stance we would be just as disappointed, but far less surprised.
Instead of offering up some soupy and insulting defense, Mr. O’Brien ought to offer an apology to his constituents for a one-time lapse in judgment. And if a veto override vote does occur, instead of abstaining Mr. O’Brien ought to vote NO.
There’s no conflict voting against your own interest – just a greater appreciation and respect from the folks back home.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Friday, July 4, 2003
Voters' suit finds Finneran reticent
Can't give details on redistricting
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, who controls virtually every action of the House, has testified under oath that he didn't know how the Legislature's 2001 redistricting plan would affect the racial makeup of his own district, or even which neighborhoods he gained and lost.
In a federal voter-rights lawsuit accusing him and his colleagues of redrawing the election map to protect white incumbents, the powerful Democrat also refused to divulge details about how the new map was drawn, or to hand over documents related to the process.
"How would you identify the areas that you lost?" an attorney for minority voters in Boston, Richard Benka, asked Finneran during a pretrial deposition this spring.
"Just city neighborhoods," Finneran replied.
"Where were those neighborhoods?" Benka asked.
"I don't recall specifically," Finneran answered.
"Do you have any knowledge or information about the racial or ethnic characteristics of the areas that were removed from your district as a result of the 2001 redistricting?" Benka asked.
"No, I do not," Finneran said.
As a result of the redistricting, Finneran, of Mattapan, dropped three overwhelmingly minority neighborhoods and picked up three that were at least 95 percent white. In the end, his district went from 74 percent minority to 61 percent minority.
Finneran, who declined to be interviewed for this story, has said through a spokesman in the past that the House's redistricting effort was an honest attempt to reflect demographic shifts throughout the Commonwealth, as required by federal law.
But George Pillsbury, policy director for BostonVOTE, which has been active in the redistricting lawsuit, said the claims of ignorance "defy all that we know about Tom Finneran" - and to some extent, any powerful lawmaker.
"Incumbent protection is a driving force behind any redistricting plan, unfortunately, in America today," Pillsbury said. "It's an opportunity for lawmakers to elect their voters, and not the other way around."
Voter rights groups pointed to the testimony of a Finneran lieutenant as proof that the public was also shut out of the mapping process.
Thomas M. Petrolati, the state representative tapped by Finneran to oversee the Legislature's redistricting effort, took no notes at public hearings, answered no mail or phone calls, met with no interest groups, and spoke only with other Beacon Hill lawmakers, according to his April testimony.
The Ludlow Democrat, who chaired the House Redistricting Committee, also testified that he did not know that Suffolk County, which is dominated by Boston, has a large population of Hispanics and blacks.
"You don't know that?" an incredulous lawyer asked Petrolati, according to the deposition.
"You asked me do I know that?" Petrolati responded.
"Yes," the lawyer said.
"I don't," said Petrolati, who did not return a call seeking comment yesterday.
Like Finneran, Petrolati has also refused to comply with the plaintiff's discovery demands that he provide documents and information about his conversations and deliberations.
The two lawmakers say they cannot be compelled to answer questions, even during litigation, because they are protected by "legislative privilege," an immunity granted to members of Congress - and extended by the courts to state legislators - to insulate them against unwarranted intrusions from another branch of government.
But lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include the Black Political Task Force and Oiste?, a Latino political activist group, argue that Finneran and his colleagues enjoy no such blanket immunity. In court papers filed in the case, which is set to go to trial before a special three-judge panel Nov. 10, the lawyers assert that state lawmakers have no immunity in federal redistricting cases, and that what they do have is protection from liability - not from producing documents and testimony.
"The absolute legislative privilege which [the lawmakers] seek to apply has no basis in law," said lawyer Ken Sansone, who represents Latino voters in Chelsea.
Lawyers for Finneran and Petrolati declined to comment, but Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional law scholar at Harvard Law School, sided with the legislators.
"It is not my sense that Finneran is stretching the privilege," Tribe said, in an e-mail interview. The US Constitution affords lawmakers fairly sweeping protection from legal intrusions into their decision-making process, he said.
Still, Tribe said, Finneran and Petrolati are hardly making themselves look like devoted public servants.
Opponents of the redistricting plan, which was unveiled in October 2001, filed their lawsuits primarily in response to the redrawing of two districts - Finneran's, which encompasses parts of Mattapan, Milton, and Dorchester, and that of Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty, which covers Chelsea and part of Charlestown.
O'Flaherty's district, opponents argued, should have included much of the burgeoning Hispanic population in neighboring East Boston, which would have given that community hope for electing a minority leader. Instead, Hispanic residents were split among several districts, dilluting their power.
State lawmakers conduct redistricting once a decade to reflect population shifts revealed in the latest US Census. The 2000 census showed that, for the first time, a majority of Boston's residents are minorities.
Finneran's critics accuse him of masterminding the redistricting plan with the aid of a longtime friend, lawyer Larry DiCara, who helped draw the maps. Opponents say Finneran and DiCara went out of their way to protect certain white incumbents by redrawing districts to divide minority neighborhoods and centers of potential voter opposition.
But in his March deposition, Finneran pleaded ignorance about many basics involved in the redistricting effort. Asked if he knew which precincts were removed from his district, Finneran said he did not know: "In any redistricting, there are shifts that occur."
Finneran also testified that he did not see the plan until after it was made public. He refused to say whether he had spoken with DiCara or Petrolati about his district while they were developing the plan.
Finneran testified that he was largely passive about the redistricting process, and made no effort to discern how the new plan might affect his chances for reelection.
Benka, the plaintiffs' lawyer, asked Finneran, "Were you interested in what the Redistricting Committee's plan did to your district?
Finneran responded "Yes." But when Benka asked if Finneran "determined in some way what the Redistricting Committee's plan did to your district," Finneran replied: "No."
Return to
top
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|