Politician versus Statesman

My first political memory is both vague and vivid: when Adlai Stevenson lost the presidential election to Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, my mom cried-- and I, of course, being five years old and completely in sync with my mother's emotions, cried also. Thus I was imprinted early with the importance of politics.

When I was a kid my dad always made a great deal about the distinction between a politician and a statesman, and I was thinking a lot about those distinctions yesterday. I just looked up the definitions to refresh my mind.

• Statesman: a person who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues.
• Politician: a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles.

Yesterday Springfield City Councilor Bill Foley announced that after 28 years, he will not be seeking re-election this year.
Bill is an affable guy. I cannot remember him taking a controversial position on anything, ever. I do remember that he has always been a foe of ward representation. However, according to a Republican article yesterday, the fact that this year will be the first year in 50 years that we will be electing city councilors from each ward as well as at large has nothing to do with his not running. In a direct sense, this is probably true-- Bill's always been a top vote getter. But he joins four other incumbents who seem to show no interest in serving on city council under the new system.

Yesterday was also the day that I and two others met with State Senator Stephen Buoniconti to talk about a bill he submitted to the Legislature, An Act to promote responsible and effective transitional assistance. I will have a lot more to say about this meeting, and this legislation, in a later post.

Statesman or politician? Intent has everything to do with this distinction.

Don't let Mass. elected officials scapegoat poor people!

Looks like some politicians just can't pass up the opportunity to score a few points with the voting public even if it means eliminating a very tiny program that helps working families on public assistance. (Yes, it is all too easy in these low-wage days to have a job and still be eligible for public assistance.)

Thanks to the Drudge Report, a $400,000 program that has provided cars, a year's worth of auto insurance and a Triple A membership for 65 families who live in areas without public transportation may very well be scaled back or even eliminated by the Massachusetts Senate.

Gov. Patrick had planned to add a whopping $30,000 to the program this year.

We have a $5.4 billion state deficit (46 other states have budget deficits also) and this program is a target?

“Folks are calling for reform everywhere I go,” said Sen. Stephen J. Buoniconti (D-West Springfield). “We need to start taking a look at the welfare packages we give to folks, including the program in your article.” Boston Herald.

Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, wants to eliminate the AAA benefit, saying it flies in the face of common sense.

Oh, yeah?

Let's say you're a Springfield resident whose car breaks down on a city street and before you can get back to it, your car is ticketed by the Springfield police and towed by CJ's Towing, which holds the Springfield towing contract. You will pay an initial $250 fee for the ticket and towing, and then $20 a day for storage. When this happens to poor people, there's a good chance they'll never see their car again. (Hell, it's happened to me.) Compare this to the $63 a year cost of AAA.

I can guarantee you there's not a single Massachusetts legislator without towing insurance.

Brewer is also bothered by the fact that recipients who lose their jobs still get to keep the car, although all other benefits under the program cease. Won't that make it harder to get another job? How about if we limit it to people who have lost their jobs for cause?

Like it or not, we're definitely going to have to find a way to increase revenue in Massachusetts. But is there still waste in the budget? For sure (although NOT $5.4 billion dollars' worth). At times like these, I fantasize about being president in the movie Dave and bringing in my accountant friend to go through the budget line by line. As I recall, Dave did it in order to save funding for a homeless shelter.

There's a lot of pain for regular people in this year's proposed budget, and some of it isn't necessary. If you're a Massachusetts resident, call your senator and tell him or her not to scapegoat poor people. You can find senators' numbers here.

Photo from Patrick Docken's photostream at Flickr.

Legislature passes ward representation bill

I received a call from Mary Reilly, one of Sen. Buoniconti's Boston aides, early this afternoon-- the Legislature is DONE with home rule legislation for ward representation-- with a whole 30 hours to spare! Now the Governor must sign it before the end of tomorrow. Mary Reilly said the bill was actually on the Governor's desk and that Sen. Buoniconti was headed for the Governor's office to leave a personal request.

Meanwhile, I suppose, anything can happen-- I'd say we're 75% of the way there, with the deadline now less than 24 hours away. Just called the Governor's office-- talked to whoever answered the phone, Brendan, which I think is as close as an ordinary citizen ever gets to the gov. Brendan said the Governor is "aware" of the legislation (should be, I know of at least 40 phone calls that were made to his office) but seeing as the gov has not yet expressed a public opinion either way, Brendan couldn't say what he's going to do. Guess that's the typical political response, and that I shouldn't necessarily take it as a negative.

Wish I could have been a fly on the wall of some of the rooms where our legislators must have talked about ward rep-- then again, there's the possibility they've scarcely talked about it AT ALL (with a couple exceptions) because you'd never guess ward rep was a priority for anyone other than the citizens of this city, who've waited long enough.

Never been much of a "back room" person. We don't know how to play that game at Arise for Social Justice, and wouldn't play it even if we knew how. I still believe that voting makes a difference, at least on a local level.

Ward rep won 58% of the vote in the 1997 ballot initiative, but because the question was brought by CITIZENS instead of the City Council itself, we had an absurd, impossible barrier to the question becoming law-- ONE-THIRD of all the residents in the city had to vote in the affirmative, and that one-third had to be a majority of those who voted. Of course we haven't had that kind of turn-out in years, although the ward rep question had a greater number of supporters than any single city councilor. The question would have been FIRST if it had been a city councilor.

We have the RIGHT to vote on this issue. I know that I and others will be working very hard to turn out the vote Nov. 6 if ward rep gets on the ballot.

If I hear more soon, I'll post it.

Doomsday Clock for Ward Representation

The games continue. Today the House passed the ward representation legislation, but mysteriously, so late in the day that the Senate had already adjourned.

I got this information today from Candace Lopes at Sen. Buoniconti's office. Sen. Buoniconti is committed enough to ward representation that he called Senate leadership about meeting in Session on Monday, where, I'm told, it will pass easily.

So now the question is: Where will Gov. Patrick be between the time the Senate acts on Monday, and Tuesday end of day by which the bill MUST become law to be on our November 6 ballot.

I haven't yet used this blog to ask people to take political action, but now I must. Massachusetts readers: please call Gov. Patrick's office tomorrow and Monday and urge him to make himself available to sign this bill, H4071. (Don't know if the number changes after the Senate passes it; probably, but this should do.) Let him know it's about allowing ward representation to be voted on by Springfield citizens. The Governor's office number is 617-725-4005. I don't know any name there except for Ann Walker, his Legislative Director. You could ask for her or anybody else who can get in touch with the Governor.

Whenever something as apparently inexplicable as the Legislature's delay in acting on this Home Rule petition takes place, especially when it is so contrary to the will of the people, there's a useful question to be asked: who benefits?

We know incumbent city councilors are less secure in their seats when there are five-- not nine-- at-large seats for them to hold.

But today, something else occurred to me. Under the current at-large system, state representatives are the only political force in any given ward-- there is no other governmental structure in which leadership can emerge. With ward representation in place, a ward councilor would be building his or her own political contacts and power base, and could eventually challenge a state representative for the district. That makes ward rep a threat.

Much to think about.
Call the Governor!

The new Doomsday Clock for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists designed by Pentagram.

Ward Representation - will we even have a chance to vote for it?

What a frustrating day yesterday was. I returned a call from Candace Lopes, Sen. Buoniconti's aide, and I knew was bad news even before I called.

No, the Senate had not voted on the home rule legislation for ward representation-- in fact, the House hadn't even finished voting. And even after the legislation is passed, it still has to be signed by the Governor-- all before what I believe to be the deadline for getting a question on the ballot-- next Monday, October 1. Candace said the rumor was that a House member from Western Mass-- no identity known-- was holding the legislation up.

I called Rep. Ben Swan, a longtime ward rep supporter, who said he hoped it would finish being voted on this Thursday, but that it really wasn't up to him, it was up to the House leadership-- that means Speaker of the House Salvatore DiMasi. So I called his office and talked (of course) to an aide.

Then I called the Governor's office to make sure he was going to be in town to sign the legislation, should it pass both houses of the Legislature. Of course that's like trying to talk to God, but I did speak to his legislative director who said that getting the Governor to sign was not that simple-- that it often took 30 days or more while the Governor did "due diligence" on the legislation.

During the day other ward rep supporters called their state representatives. The responses ranged from pretty clueless to informed and ready to vote favorably; everyone denied being "the one" to hold the bill up.

Then I called Mayor Ryan's office, for the fourth time since August, to ask him the same thing-- PLEASE be in touch with the Western Mass. legislators and tell them to move the home rule petition forward. Later in the day I was told by a mayor's aide that Mayor Ryan was, that very day, writing a letter to the reps-- too little, too late for a mayor who is supposed to be a ward rep supporter (as is his mayoral opposition, Domenic Sarno, at least for the last couple years).

Finally I called Mike Plaisance, reporter at the Springfield Republican, to fill him in on what was (not) happening. He called me later and said he'd been told by the city's Election office that the question could go on the Springfield ballot as late as October 19. Now that's not what I was told by the Election office, (and not one of the city councilors, state reps or city lawyers that I've talked to over the last several months have challenged that date-- maybe they just don't know) so my job today is to clarify what the real deadline is.

If it's October 19, terrific. Of course that gives us grassroots folks even less time to campaign among the city's registered voters. However, even that date probably doesn't guarantee that the Legislature will finish doing it's job.

And they wonder why people are cynical about voting and politics.

The last time?

If all goes well this week, Springfield will have experienced its LAST low-turnout primary. Less than 7% of Springfield's voters bothered to vote yesterday.

According to City Attorney Ed Pakula, Sen. Buoniconti told him that the House was due to vote on the home rule legislation allowing ward representation to be on November's ballot on Tuesday, with the Senate due to vote tomorrow.

Buoniconti, who squelched Councilor Ferrerra's effort to do away with this year's primary, is quoted in the Republican, saying, "It's a sad day for the city when it's such a low turnout. Obviously, there's a major disconnect when people feel they don't have to participate, and it's not just in Springfield," he said.

Ward representation will change all this.

Get out and VOTE!

I frequently find it hard to explain to people why their vote matters, because too much of the time, I don't believe it does. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't believe in Democracy (whatever that may be). But we've had the last two Presidential elections stolen right from under us and there was little dissent from the citizens of this country. It was almost like people were embarressed to make a fuss.

Local elections still feel different-- difficult to impact but still within the range of possibilities. In Springfield, MA, what started out as a probably well-meaning attempt to reform a cumbersome, bicameral form of ward representation fifty years ago has become a tool for keeping the decision-making in this city in the hands of a very few individuals. People with new blood and fresh ideas are locked out of this at large system. Becoming an elected official is a near-superhuman task.

Oddly enough, even those wards from which the 89% of all city councilors have come in the last ten years-- Wards Five, Six and Seven-- really have no direct representation on the city council. (Ward Seven, by the way, whose residents are the whitest with the highest median income in the city, has 51% of all councilors.) Springfield is like a ship where most people are crowded into one end of steerage, destabilizing the ship even for those lucky few at the captain's wheel.

Legislative update: I called Sen. Buoniconti's office today-- possibly the House will vote Tuesday and the Senate Thursday on the Home Rule legislation allowing ward representation to be placed in this year's ballot. Then the legislation moves to Governor Patrick's desk, where, if he doesn't sign it within a week, it becomes law. That would bring the date it becomes law to September 28th. We have an October 1 deadline for the question to go on the ballot. Can they push it any closer? Cross your fingers and say your prayers.

Ward Representation moves closer to the Springfield ballot

The Home Rule legislation which will allow a question on ward representation to be placed on this November's ballot has passed the House of Representatives and is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow in the Senate's Rules Committee, according to Candace Lopes, aide to Sen. Stephen Buoniconti, when I spoke to her yesterday.

The legislation will have plenty of time to pass the full Senate to make it on our city's November's ballot.

When the City Council finally passed an 8 & 5 version of ward representation last October, it was with the threat of our-- Arise, the NAACP and Oiste's-- federal lawsuit going to trial in just a few months.

I watched the proceedings on community access TV with a great cynicism. I knew that it was the lawsuit that had finally forced the City Council's hand, that they'd begun to see ward representation as an irresistible force. Even then they passed as weak a version as they could get away with, and didn't even pass it outright -- they voted to put the question on November's ballot. Ten years ago our coalition worked the streets and collected enough signatures to get the 8 & 3 version of ward representation on the ballot, and it won 58% of the vote! It did not become law because one-third of all the registered voters would have had to vote for it-- and not that many turned out for the whole election.

Not once during the evening's proceeding was there even a mention of the twelve solid years of community organizing that had gotten us to this point-- and of course the council did not call themselves out on their twelve years of foot-dragging, broken promises and outright lies. There were a few councilors along the way who were exceptions-- but they were never in the majority. (Oh-- and Tim Rooke, who never once lied about his opposition to ward representation.)

Our lawsuit was stayed by Judge Ponser pending the outcome of the Home Rule legislation and the November vote. I want to stop and say a heartfelt thanks here to the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Goodwin Proctor, who took on our lawsuit pro bono and who have been passionately committed and intelligent in their work with us. They mined the collective memory of community organizers to compile many lifetimes of racial injustice, police brutality, economic discrimination and thwarted expectations. Much of this was never heard in trial.

Twelve years of organizing-- petitioning, two lawsuits, lobbying the councilors, building community support-- has now come down to a binding vote for eight ward councilors and five at large for the City Council, and four ward reps and two at large for the School Committee (with the mayor as the deciding vote).

We, the plaintiffs, have to decide whether we will actively support the question. At this point we are not of one mind. We have to talk to each other. We're tired, bitter, feeling betrayed. And yet.

The Arise board of directors met last night and while we postponed an official vote until we know for sure that people will get to vote on ward rep in November, my sense is that we will throw ourselves into rebuilding a coalition and getting this law passed. This time, it only has to pass by a majority.

One built-in shortcoming of our lawsuit is that it has focused the public's attention on the racial inequity of the current at-large system, to the exclusion of all the other excellent reasons we need ward representation. I'm going to write more about them in another post. But I have to say, one more time, for the record:
Forty-six years of an at large system
Five Blacks and one Latino elected
in a city now a majority of color.
Enough is enough..