CLT
UPDATE
Saturday, November 15, 2003
"Winny" to the rescue,
again!
That dread disease, Beacon Hill amnesia, has struck down yet another legislative leader.
Last June, it was Billy Bulger, the former Senate president, suddenly unable to recall the simplest details, like the name of his gangster brother's mob.
Yesterday, at the federal courthouse, the cruel malady claimed another victim - Tommy Finneran, the House speaker. Like Bulger, Tommy Taxes suddenly lost his memory after performing a simple task.
He raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth.
After being put under oath, Tommy Taxes' memory utterly failed him. He said "I don't recall" four times. He had "no recollection" three times. "I don't know" - three times. Sometimes, it was "not that I recall" or "I have no idea."
The Boston Herald
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Redistricting testimony tars Tommy Taxes
by Howie Carr
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran took the stand in federal court yesterday, claiming he had nothing to do with creating the House's controversial redistricting plan - even asserting that he did not know the name of the district he represents.
The Boston Herald
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Finneran forgets in court:
Speaker says little on districts
After a series of statements in which Finneran said he merely has the power to recommend committee assignments and House staff hiring, including Petrolati, Judge Bruce Selya interrupted and said, "In the years since you've been speaker, has your recommendation ever been overruled?"
"Not specifically overruled, no, your honor," Finneran answered.
"It's fair to say that when you recommend these committee chairmen, these recommendations have been uniformly ratified" by the House Democratic Caucus? Selya asked.
"That's correct," Finneran replied.
The Boston Globe
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Speaker denies key redistricting role
The powerful House leader, who has gained a reputation for tightly controlling the flow of legislation through the chamber, said he could not even testify with certainty that he represents the 12th Suffolk District, which lost a large portion of its minority population during redistricting.
"All I know is that I represent parts of Mattapan, Dorchester and Milton," Finneran said during a trial about the legality of the plan, which eliminated a minority district in Boston despite significant growth in the city's minority population. "If you tell me it's the 12th, I'll accept that."
Associated Press
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Finneran queried on redistricting
Sen. Lees said the FID cards went from $25 to $100. This sunsets this at the end of this year....
Sen. Creem said in philosophy the minority leader is on target. We ought not have raised all these fees. We should have considered the tax rate but that didn't happen....
I am concerned that fees are so high. If we protect gun owners, we should protect consumers. I ask that we leave the fee schedule until we can jointly agree on a wise tax plan so that everybody shares rather than picking fees. I know the minority leader will join me on a bill to raise taxes because he knows that's the right thing....
Sen. Brewer said ... Fees were quadrupled. The applications are not being processed. Half of the cities and towns say it's in excess of five months for renewals.
Senate debate - November 13, 2003
Excerpted from the State House News Service
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
"That dread disease, Beacon Hill amnesia, has struck down yet another legislative
leader," the Boston Herald's Howie Carr wrote in today's column.
Isn't it incredible how epidemic this disease has
become, how quickly it's spreading, how many are being cut down in
their prime? And cynically we think our elected politicians don't
sacrifice for us!
But I've found a name for that "dread
disease." It's term is Pol-ynesia, and Mr. Speaker likely
contracted it during his recent South Seas vacation in Hawaii. I
wonder if Madame Hillary Clinton or Mr. William Bulger visited that
South Seas paradise shortly before presenting their own sworn
testimony of I don't knows and I can't recalls? Succumbing to the
dreaded Pol-ynesia while giving testimony before congressional
committees and courts of law would certainly explain those memory
lapses.
Hawaii may need to be quarantined, at least to
politicians who are about to swear to speak the truth.
Maybe we should start circulating a Pol-ynesia
quilt, hold a Labor Day telethon, or at least fund a state task force
to study this epidemic new political disease.
And how about Howie Carr's courthouse observation:
"When I arrived, I sat down beside Tommy Taxes as he perused a small tome, the Penguin Lives biography of Winston Churchill by John Keegan. He seemed nervous as he read the book. Perhaps he understood that he was ... at risk."
This was Finneran's security blanket, his teddy
bear, his totem, as he prepared for his inquisition. He's always
modeled himself as today's Winston Churchill, a statesman bucking
popular opinion and the odds. Barbara first recognized and wrote about
this megalomaniacal attitude back on Feb. 5, 2001 in her column "More King George III than Winston Churchill."
*
*
*
If there was ever any doubt that last year's fee
increases were an illegal substitute for tax increases, it was
dispelled in Thursday's senate debate, when state Sen. Brian Lees
offered an amendment that would have sunsetted 38 various firearms
license fee increases.
It reminded me of the George Bernard Shaw tale about
his proposition to a duchess:
"Courteously he asked her, if for 5,000 pounds she would consent to sleep with him. Demurring for a short time, she eventually answered that for such a large amount she would consider it. Then Shaw asked her pointedly, if for only 5 pounds she would sleep with him. Indignantly she responded,
'No, what do you think I am?' To which Shaw is said to have replied,
'Madame, we have identified what you are; we are now merely negotiating the
price.'"
"We ought not have raised all these
fees," extolled state Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem (D-Newton). "We should have considered the tax rate but that didn't
happen.... I ask that we leave the fee schedule until we can jointly agree on a wise tax plan so that everybody shares rather than picking fees."
Was that $650 million in "fee" increases
a substitute for tax hikes, thus making them illegal "fees"?
Sen. Creem just provided the unequivocal answer and a determinate
factor before any court: legislative intent.
CLT continues to research and consider a court
challenge or challenges as the justification and chance of success
mounts.
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
The Boston Herald
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Redistricting testimony tars Tommy Taxes
by Howie Carr
That dread disease, Beacon Hill amnesia, has struck down yet another legislative leader.
Last June, it was Billy Bulger, the former Senate president, suddenly unable to recall the simplest details, like the name of his gangster brother's mob.
Yesterday, at the federal courthouse, the cruel malady claimed another victim - Tommy Finneran, the House speaker. Like Bulger, Tommy Taxes suddenly lost his memory after performing a simple task.
He raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth.
After being put under oath, Tommy Taxes' memory utterly failed him. He said "I don't recall" four times. He had "no recollection" three times. "I don't know" - three times. Sometimes, it was "not that I recall" or "I have no idea."
He was "testifying" in a case in which he stands accused of gerrymandering House districts in Boston to protect his mostly white incumbents, including some of his dimmest longtime cronies.
Tommy's defense came right out of Sgt. Schultz's playbook. He knew nothing. Oh sure, his underlings had cut three black precincts in Codman Square out of his district and then replaced them with lily-white Milton districts.
But Tommy Taxes didn't follow the redistricting, which is very believable. After all, he doesn't even know the number of his district.
"I don't do districts by number," he told one of the lawyers, Richard Belin.
"Are you testifying," Belin said, "you don't know you're in the 12th?"
"Yes," said Tommy Taxes. "That is my testimony."
It's sad, but we've seen the ravages of this disease before. Remember when Billy Bulger claimed he didn't know Steve Flemmi was a gangster?
When I arrived, I sat down beside Tommy Taxes as he perused a small tome, the Penguin Lives biography of Winston Churchill by John Keegan. He seemed nervous as he read the book. Perhaps he understood that he was ... at risk. Some professor was testifying when I remembered that one of the other allegedly gerrymandered districts is represented by Gene O'Flaherty of Chelsea.
I scribbled a question for Tommy on my legal pad: "Does your niece still work for O'Flaherty?"
I tapped him on the shoulder, and he looked over, frowned, and then nodded. "Yes," he said. It may have been his last direct answer of the day.
After the judges broke for lunch, his lawyer told him to dummy up, and for once, Tommy Taxes had to follow somebody else's orders. He told reporters he could say nothing. "What would Winston Churchill do?" I asked him.
He smiled and kept walking. I asked him why he couldn't say anything. "I'm sorry to disappoint you," he said.
Disappointed? Not that I recall, Mister Speaker.
Howie Carr's radio show can be heard every weekday afternoon on WRKO AM 680, WHYN AM 560, WGAN AM 560, WEIM AM 1280 and WXTK 95.1 FM.
Return to
top
The Boston Herald
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Finneran forgets in court: Speaker says little on districts
by Elisabeth J. Beardsley
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran took the stand in federal court yesterday, claiming he had nothing to do with creating the House's controversial redistricting plan - even asserting that he did not know the name of the district he represents.
Finneran's testimony came as the first week wound down in a trial over a lawsuit by minority and voters' rights groups, accusing Finneran and his lieutenants of unconstitutionally drawing the legislative lines to marginalize blacks and Latinos while protecting white incumbents.
During cross-examination, Finneran testified that the first time he laid eyes on the House's redistricting map was when it was released in October 2001 to the entire House.
Defying his reputation for micromanaging lawmakers' every move, Finneran insisted he never talked with his handpicked redistricting chief, Rep. Thomas Petrolati, about either the changes to his own district or the redistricting plan as a whole.
"I am very, very cautious of my role as speaker of the House," Finneran said, adding that he wanted to "lead by example."
Finneran's assertion that he never spoke to Petrolati (D-Ludlow) about his district contradict statements earlier this week by Petrolati, who testified that he spoke to every member of the House about the pending changes to their district lines.
Plaintiffs allege the House redistricting plan "whitewashed" Finneran's Mattapan-based district by dropping several predominantly black precincts and replacing them with white precincts from Milton.
As lawyers peppered him with questions about what he knew and when he knew it, Finneran repeatedly answered, "I don't recall," "I don't remember," and "I don't know."
At one point, Finneran indicated he wasn't aware that his district is called the 12th Suffolk - prompting plaintiffs' attorney Richard Belin to incredulously ask, "Are you testifying that you don't know you're in the 12th today?"
"Yes sir, that is my testimony," Finneran said. "If you tell me I'm in the 12th, I'll accept that statement."
Finneran also claimed he couldn't remember what he was told about the intentions of his former lieutenant ex-Rep. Kevin Fitzgerald - who threw the entire House plan into disarray by repeatedly changing his mind about whether to run for re-election.
The speaker also said he couldn't remember whether he'd read either Petrolati's letter laying out the plan, or news reports about the plan - evoking surprise from U.S. Appeals Court Judge Bruce Selya, who's leading the three-judge panel overseeing the lawsuit.
Return to
top
The Boston Globe
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Speaker denies key redistricting role
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
Thomas M. Finneran, the powerful speaker of the Massachusetts House, testified in federal court yesterday that he didn't try to find out how a 2001 redistricting plan would affect his own district until after it was completed and that he first viewed the plan when it was unveiled to the public.
Taking the stand in a case that accuses him and other House leaders of sidelining minority voters to protect State House incumbents, Finneran told a three-judge panel that he recommends lawmakers for key committee assignments, that House members have no reason to fear retribution for speaking out against pet bills, and that he does not know his district is called the 12th Suffolk.
"I don't do districts by number," Finneran told plaintiff's lawyer Richard Belin. "If you tell me it's the 12th, I'll accept your statement." The statement ran counter to the reputation of Finneran, who is known on Beacon Hill as a skillful micromanager who controls the fate of even prosaic House matters, deciding which legislation makes the floor for a vote, which lawmakers get plum office assignments, and which are sent off to the margins.One statement appeared to contradict the speaker himself. On www.tomfinneran.com, his recently unveiled "online office," Finneran's signature appears below an open letter that begins, "Dear Friends, It is an honor and a privilege to serve as your elected State Representative from the 12th Suffolk District." Finneran's testimony yesterday expanded on themes in a deposition of the speaker earlier this year, when he said he could not recall which neighborhoods he lost and gained in redistricting or what their demographic makeup was.
On the stand, Finneran repeatedly stated that his role, especially with regard to redistricting, was minimal, saying that he spoke only to the redistricting committee chairman, Representative Thomas M. Petrolati, from "time to time" and that he never discussed his own district, just those of other lawmakers.
When told by opposing counsel that Petrolati had testified earlier this week that he spoke with every House lawmaker with regard to their districts, Finneran repeated his assertion, saying, "I am very, very cautious about my role as speaker of the House."
Finneran testified that he did not know whether the lawyer appointed to consult on redistricting, high school friend Lawrence DiCara, helped "draw the lines" of the new district map.
But he did say that he insisted that DiCara make a "good-faith effort" to increase minority opportunities to increase their representation in the House.
After a series of statements in which Finneran said he merely has the power to recommend committee assignments and House staff hiring, including Petrolati, Judge Bruce Selya interrupted and said, "In the years since you've been speaker, has your recommendation ever been overruled?"
"Not specifically overruled, no, your honor," Finneran answered.
"It's fair to say that when you recommend these committee chairmen, these recommendations have been uniformly ratified" by the House Democratic Caucus? Selya asked.
"That's correct," Finneran replied.
Testifying for about 80 minutes in two sessions yesterday, Finneran, a lawyer with his own practice, seemed calm and collected in a crisp navy blue suit and red tie. He repeatedly said he could not recall whether certain conversations took place or incidents occurred.
At one point, Belin handed Finneran a 2001 Globe story about the redistricting plan and Finneran said he had no recollection of the piece, which described House leaders as being proud of the redistricting plan.
"I don't always get to read the newspapers, but I try," Finneran said.
Selya again questioned Finneran's assertion. "It strikes me as unusual" that a House speaker would not read news accounts of major issues before the Legislature, the judge said.
Finneran replied, "Sometimes, it's physically impossible."
Observers in the South Boston courtroom, most of whom are affiliated with the voters' rights groups in Boston and Chelsea that filed the lawsuit, said they found some of Finneran's testimony difficult to believe. "I think he was very disingenuous when characterizing the heavy hand that he has in the running of the House," said Eric Weltman, 36, a longtime liberal activist who ran an "Overthrow Finneran" campaign earlier this year.
Rose Arruda, 38, a Roxbury resident and community organizer for Boston VOTE, said: "He was very noncommittal. It's hard for me to believe such a seasoned politician has such little recollection of such pivotal moments over the last few years."
Yesterday was the third, and probably final, day of testimony in the trial, which began Monday. Lawyers are scheduled to deliver their closing arguments Dec. 12. But the end of the trial could be delayed if the judges decide that Finneran and Petrolati are not entitled to "legislative privilege," which shields legislators from disclosing discussions or paperwork involved in law making.
On the stand, Finneran defended the final House redistricting plan, which resulted in the loss of one minority-dominated district in Boston, even after the city's black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American population had for the first time become collectively larger than that of whites. Finneran's district shed several minority neighborhoods, dropping from 74.1 percent minorities of voting age to 60.6 percent.
Globe correspondent Brendan McCarthy contributed to this report.
Return to
top
Associated Press
Saturday, November 15, 2003
Finneran queried on redistricting
By Jennifer Peter
House Speaker Thomas Finneran testified in federal court yesterday that he had no role in devising a 2001 legislative redistricting plan, beyond recommending committee members, and was not aware of its contents until it was submitted to the rest of the House.
The powerful House leader, who has gained a reputation for tightly controlling the flow of legislation through the chamber, said he could not even testify with certainty that he represents the 12th Suffolk District, which lost a large portion of its minority population during redistricting.
"All I know is that I represent parts of Mattapan, Dorchester and Milton," Finneran said during a trial about the legality of the plan, which eliminated a minority district in Boston despite significant growth in the city's minority population. "If you tell me it's the 12th, I'll accept that."
He said that his district's number has been changed several times.
The lawsuit, filed by minority and voting rights activists, claims that the way several districts in Boston and neighboring Chelsea were drawn was illegal and unconstitutional.
While Boston's minority population surpassed 50 percent for the first time in the 2000 Census, the Legislature -- led by Finneran -- drew 12 majority white districts and only five majority-minority districts in the city.
A group of activists and individuals, including the Black Political Task Force, Boston VOTE and a statewide Latino organization, filed two lawsuits last year claiming the redistricting plan violated the federal Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
Finneran, a Democrat from the city's Mattapan section, was one of the Boston lawmakers who ended the process with fewer minority precincts and more majority white precincts in his district, fortifying his ability to remain in office, according to the plaintiffs. His district, however, still has a majority of minority voters.
Yesterday's testimony was somewhat of a role-reversal for a man considered the most powerful political leader in the state. Accustomed to being treated with deference and dictating the rules of debate, Finneran was required to wait in the audience throughout the morning as the attorneys questioned and cross-examined expert witnesses.
During about two hours of often-testy testimony, Finneran frequently said he could not remember details of the plan, how it was devised or why the districts were drawn the way they were.
He denied stripping committee positions from key black lawmakers who have challenged his leadership and, when questioned, said there was "no reason whatsoever" for lawmakers to fear voting against him.
Contrary to his public reputation, Finneran portrayed himself as just an advisor on key positions, such as committee chairmanships, and said that all of his recommendations had to be ratified by the rest of the caucus.
U.S. Appeals Court Judge Bruce Senya, however, questioned his attempt to portray the House as a democracy.
"In the years since you've been speaker, have your recommendations ever been overruled or not accepted by the caucus?" Senya said.
"Not specifically overruled, no," Finneran said.
"It's fair to say that when you recommend these committee chairmanships, these recommendations have been uniformly ratified?" Senya asked.
"That's correct," Finneran said.
The speaker's most frequent responses on the stand were "not that I recall" or "I don't recall."
Finneran said he supported the creation of more minority districts in Boston and had asked House members and lawyers to work toward that goal when the process began.
The plan originally put forth included a new majority-minority district, but that was changed during floor debate. Finneran said he did not review or approve the amendment ahead of time.
Under questioning, Finneran acknowledged he did not publicly argue against it, but said he had private concerns about the new district being excluded.
Observers who support the lawsuit said they were disappointed by the speaker's testimony.
"It was just frustrating to hear that so many pivotal moments of the whole redistricting process were forgettable," said Rose Arruda, community organizer for Boston VOTE.
Finneran's appearance ended a week of testimony in the case. The panel of three judges is scheduled to hear final arguments Feb. 12.
Return to
top
Proposed amendment by Sen. Brian Lees (R-East Longmeadow):
38 firearm fees effective for fiscal 2005
Senate debate - November 13, 2003
Excerpted from the State House News Service
CONVENES: The Senate convened today at 1:04 pm with Sen. Stanley Rosenberg in the chair, and the pledge of allegiance was recited.
[ ... ]
Firearms fees sunset: Lees amendment 38 firearm fees effective for fiscal 2005.
Sen. Lees said the FID cards went from $25 to $100. This sunsets this at the end of this year. It's a good amendment. Some have paid, some haven't so I don't want to take the money off the table. People that own guns that go for FID cards - hitting them with a higher percentage than anyone else in the budget is wrong. Sen. Lees requested a roll call and there was support.
He said I understand where Sen. Murray is coming from I am trying to balance a budget. I am not taking anything off the table for 2004. It can be in the budget for next year but we can have a debate on it. I would be willing to go to $50, but $100 is out of line. I know she knows it's a good point. This is one of those glitches.
Sen. Murray said this does more than just change the fee structure. The governor raised these fees in House One. It would eliminate the interstate fingerprint check we have in place. This does not pass muster as proper public safety. The governor proposed inclusion of the check. We swept the fund out with the minor funds. And we could not get the cash flow we had counted on.
Sen. Creem said in philosophy the minority leader is on target. We ought not have raised all these fees. We should have considered the tax rate but that didn't happen. It was the executive department that started raising fees and we have raised them as well. To say one fee should sunset doesn't make sense. People get charged a fee to continue litigating at the end of the year. You know how much it costs for a marriage license or application for divorce. I am concerned that fees are so high. If we protect gun owners, we should protect consumers. I ask that we leave the fee schedule until we can jointly agree on a wise tax plan so that everybody shares rather than picking fees. I know the minority leader will join me on a bill to raise taxes because he knows that's the right thing.
Sen. Brewer said I hope the amendment is adopted. There may be drafting issues. A statement about Second Amendment rights needs to be made. Fees were quadrupled. The applications are not being processed. Half of the cities and towns say it's in excess of five months for renewals. We quadrupled the fees and took away any grace period. It had been five months, six months, 90 days, now it is zero. This is a system that is clearly broken, make no mistake about it.
BY A ROLL CALL VOTE OF 18-20, AMENDMENT REJECTED
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
|