~Massachusetts Government Scandals & Political Corruption~» Boston Globe

Michael E. McLaughlin Chelsea Housing Authority Chief Scams State Auditors & Walks with $360,000 a Year

admin — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:28:13 +0000

Auditors noted, then ignored, McLaughlin pay

AG investigating repeated failure to act on an outrage that was right in plain view

(Kayana Szymczak for The Boston Globe)

Michael E. McLaughlin, former Executive Director of Chelsea Housing Authority, stood in front of the Chelsea Housing Authority’s Scrivano apartment development in October 2011.

Article Courtesy of: Andrea Estes and Sean P. Murphy – Boston.com

State auditors knew by 2005 that former Chelsea Housing Authority chief Michael E. McLaughlin was concealing his true salary from state officials and urged him to seek official approval for more than $40,000 in hidden income, according to interviews and records.

McLaughlin resisted, joking to auditors that “all my neighbors are rich and I have to keep up with them,’’ according to a person who heard the remark. But after McLaughlin said he would think about reporting his full income, records show the team from former auditor A. Joseph DeNucci’s office dropped the issue.

During the next five years, however, auditors discovered in the course of two additional examinations that McLaughlin was still concealing his true salary – and by ever-increasing amounts. Both times they did nothing.

By the time the Globe revealed on Oct. 30 that McLaughlin had become perhaps the highest paid public housing official in the United States, his $360,000 salary was a stunning $200,000 more than the amount he declared on state reports. McLaughlin resigned four days later, but not before one of the 2010 auditors invited him to lunch to cheer him up, according to a housing authority employee.

Now, Attorney General Martha Coakley has convened a grand jury looking into whether McLaughlin and others defrauded the state, calling at least two former state auditors to testify, according to two people with direct knowledge. Meanwhile, state Auditor Suzanne Bump, DeNucci’s successor, last week forced the supervisor of the Chelsea audits to resign because of what her office called his mishandling of the agency reviews.

“Mike’s salary was right there in the payroll records for anyone to see,’’ said one housing authority employee who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. “The auditors and accountants came and went, year after year . . . but nothing ever came out. Mike had a way of managing things so his salary just didn’t come out.’’

On Friday, Bump’s office declined to comment, but a spokesman confirmed that “after reviewing all audits of the Chelsea Housing Authority since 2005, she provided all audit materials to the attorney general.’’

The state auditors’ repeated failure to blow the whistle on McLaughlin’s admitted efforts to hide his extraordinary pay is part of a comprehensive failure of the financial overseers who were supposed to safeguard the $15 million in subsidies to Chelsea public housing from the state and federal governments.

At least two accountants – one working for the authority, the other filing independent reports to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development – were paid thousands of dollars a year to compile data and ensure that the Chelsea Housing Authority’s financial statements were accurate. They would have had access to payroll records that revealed McLaughlin’s income, but they never noted a problem.

Martin Scafidi, a certified public accountant who has audited the Chelsea Housing Authority for HUD since 2003, said he did not know McLaughlin’s true salary until it came out in the Globe. Scafidi said he did all the analyses he was supposed to, though he did not say whether he saw the payroll records.

McLaughlin “betrayed everyone,’’ said Scafidi, who was paid $10,500 for his 35-page audit and report on Chelsea last year. “He’s just a bad guy.’’

Former state auditor DeNucci said he, too, was unaware of the controversy about McLaughlin’s salary until the Globe story.

“We had good people doing’’ the audits, said DeNucci, who retired in 2011 after 24 years as auditor. DeNucci said the salary issue “never got back to me,’’ and he trusted his subordinates to handle the Chelsea audits.

Housing authority employees say the gregarious, politically savvy McLaughlin actively cultivated relationships with the auditors, so much so that one auditor, part of the 2010 team, asked McLaughlin to lunch after the scandal over McLaughlin’s salary became public.

In addition, McLaughlin was a friend of one of DeNucci’s most trusted aides, Robert Powilatis. The two had served on the board of a housing advocacy group together and Powilatis had donated to a political fund-raiser for Lieutenant Governor Timothy P. Murray organized by McLaughlin in 2009.

When state auditors were at the Chelsea Housing Authority’s office in October 2010, phone records show that McLaughlin and Powilatis called each other four times, though Powilatis said they never discussed the audit.

Powilatis, now retired, said he learned of McLaughlin’s pay from media coverage and played no role in the Chelsea audits. But he said any auditor or accountant reviewing the authority’s books should have recognized the paycheck discrepancy almost immediately and reported it.

“It was an outlier or a red-flag and it would be brought to light,’’ he said of McLaughlin’s outsized salary. “You go in and pick that up in five minutes.’’

But one former auditor’s office employee said some auditors may have felt they had no right to question McLaughlin’s salary, which had been approved by the authority’s board, unless it was so high that it represented a misuse of state funds.

McLaughlin, now facing multiple investigations, declined comment. In the past McLaughlin has defended his decision to dramatically understate his true salary to the state Department of Community and Housing Development, lightheartedly calling it “the rebel in me.’’

McLaughlin, now 66, also set himself up to collect the biggest state pension in Massachusetts history, based on his income, although the Chelsea retirement board has frozen his retirement application pending an investigation into whether he deserves an annual pension of $278,000.

One employee said it served McLaughlin’s interest to conceal his income until he could secure his pension, noting that McLaughlin became visibly upset several years ago when the state auditors asked for a copy of his employment contract. But he later reassured the employee, “I took care of it’’ and nothing more was said.

State audits are supposed to be in-depth, independent reviews of government agency finances, seeking out both mistakes and evidence of misuse of public funds. The Chelsea auditors spent weeks reviewing the books at the housing authority’s Locke Street headquarters where they could easily find McLaughlin’s $183,624 annual pay for 2005 by looking at the agency’s payroll and McLaughlin’s income tax filings.

They could also see that McLaughlin was reporting to the state an income of only $139,050. One DeNucci employee recalled that McLaughlin’s high salary was “the talk of the [auditor’s] office.’’

During the 2005 audit, the team told McLaughlin that the discrepancy was one of their main findings, according to people with direct knowledge of the discussion. McLaughlin tried to make light of the issue, these people say, but also asserted that he was not legally obliged to report his full salary to the state since the state provided only a portion of the authority’s funds.

Nonetheless, the auditors urged McLaughlin to report his full salary as state rules require and McLaughlin said he would consider it, these people say. The auditors made no reference to McLaughlin’s excessive income in their final report.

When the auditors returned in 2008, they found that McLaughlin was hiding even more income – $135,818 by the Globe’s calculation – and they again let the issue slide. By 2010, the gap had grown to $199,966. Again, they did nothing.

Accountants say that it is a major breach of professional standards to allow a financial misstatement to get worse without taking action after the problem has been identified.

Investigators for the attorney general quickly focused on potential lapses by the state auditors as they looked into how McLaughlin got away with his salary deception for so many years. Last week, state Auditor Bump’s office told an audit supervisor that he had to resign or be fired for his oversight of the Chelsea audits, according a person with direct knowledge of the situation. The supervisor resigned.

But the state auditors were not the only analysts who had access to the authority’s records. John D. Marotto, a Woburn certified public accountant who began preparing annual financial reports for the housing authority before McLaughlin arrived in 2000, declined to say whether he knew McLaughlin’s real salary.

During the two days after the Globe revealed that McLaughlin was making $360,000, McLaughlin called Marotto five times, including one conversation that lasted 35 minutes, McLaughlin’s phone records show.

Marotto declined to answer questions, issuing a terse statement that said: “I compile the information that is provided to me by the Housing Authority in the proper format for reporting purposes.’’

Likewise, accountant Scafidi, who was hired on a no-bid contract to provide an independent review of housing authority books for HUD, failed to identify the salary discrepancy for eight years.

Scafidi’s firm, who was paid by the authority, said his team typically spent two to three weeks a year inside the authority’s offices reviewing the books.

The report Scafidi filed last year certified that authority financial records were accurate even though McLaughlin had understated his salary by nearly $200,000.

“We did the work we were supposed do,’’ said Scafidi without going into details. “We report what we see. It will all come out after the investigation.’’

Officials at HUD repeatedly used Scafidi’s favorable reviews as one factor in awarding the Chelsea Housing Authority its highest performance rating year after year, which McLaughlin was quick to tout.

Looking back, federal officials acknowledge that they did not provide adequate oversight of the Chelsea Housing Authority, which gets $10 million in federal funds annually.

“We are very concerned that no one detected his salary on the local or the HUD level,’’ said HUD spokesman Jereon Brown

State housing head Aaron Gornstein said if his agency had discovered McLaughlin’s true salary, it would have ordered him to reduce it drastically or it would have withheld state funding.

“McLaughlin’s salary was absolutely unacceptable,’’ Gornstein said.

Scott Allen of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@globe.com, Sean P. Murphy at smurphy@globe.com.

Article Courtesy of: Andrea Estes and Sean P. Murphy – Boston.com

Joe “The Bull” Lally

admin — Fri, 20 May 2011 17:12:59 +0000

Joe Lally fends off lawyers

By Peter Gelzinis | Friday, May 20, 2011 | http://www.bostonherald.com

Photo by Patrick Whittemore

As 4 p.m. neared, U.S. District Court Judge Mark L. Wolf looked at Sal DiMasi’s lawyer, Billy Cintolo, and then looked at the clock.

“Mr. Cintolo, how much longer do you anticipate?” Wolf asked.

“I’m tired, judge,” Billy sighed, “it’s been a long day.”

Billy was the last of three defense lawyers to take on the feds’ unflappable star witness, ex-Cognos software salesman Joe Lally, in a kind of marathon sumo wrestling match.

And none of these skilled lawyers pinned Lally yesterday.

“This guy could sell ice to the Eskimos,” one courtroom observer said. And judging from his two days on the witness stand, it’s clear Joe Lally could hustle the Eskimos on a deal for ice.

Yesterday was spent dredging up the huge flaws of this Willy Loman on steroids — a beefy guy with outsized appetites for gambling, the high life and … multi-million-dollar software deals with state agencies across the country.

Lally made a ton of money doing it. And he lost a ton of money to the Mashantucket Pequot tribe at Foxwoods, along with various bookies who took his sports bets and cashed Joe’s huge checks in offshore banks.

The highlight of yesterday’s theater came when Tom Drechsler, defending Lally’s former pal and uber lobbyist, Richard “Dickie” McDonough, kept lashing out about all those checks to the bookies.

Photo: Josh Reynolds for the BOSTON GLOBE

In the middle of Drechsler’s tirade, Lally pointed out that he was introduced to one of those bookmakers by his client, Dickie McDonough.

The courtroom erupted in laughter and Drechsler, ever the spitfire, replied: “Oh, and I suppose you’re going to tell us that Dick McDonough told you what kind of car to drive.”

“Actually,” Lally said, “he did.”

That was probably the $75,000 Mercedes that Lally said he had to forfeit back to Herb Chambers.

For all of his intensity, Tommy Drechsler did not challenge Lally about the veracity of the incredible scene he described on Wednesday. The Cognos deal had collapsed and a paranoid Dickie McDonough insisted on a mutual frisk for hidden microphones in the basement of Lally’s home.

Drechsler left that alone.

At the end of yesterday’s lunch break, Drechsler looked just like Billy Cintolo. “I’m tired,” he said in the outside corridor.

The lawyers for Sal DiMasi, his accountant, Richard Vitale, and Dickie McDonough all tried to pick apart the terms of the deal Lally made with the feds.

But they couldn’t erase the fact that before this flawed huckster became a “cooperating witness” against them, he had invited Sal and Dickie to his second wedding.

And they came. The feds have the wedding video.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1339282

Lawyer shells theory DiMasi was broke
/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1338743

Judge: Post was (up)load of Bull
/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1337683

DiMasi witness may be lie-ability to feds
/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1336127

John O’brien – Timothy Cahill – Deval Patrick – Political Patronage

admin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:13:22 +0000

Courtesy of: masslive.com

Probation Commissioner John O’Brien suspended as Mass. Treasurer Timothy Cahill explains decision to hire O’Brien’s wife, daughter

Published: Monday, May 24, 2010, 3:45 PM Updated: Monday, May 24, 2010, 4:03 PM

The Associated Press

This is a 4:02 p.m. update of a story posted at 10:53 this morning.

BOSTON – Massachusetts Probation Commissioner John O’Brien was suspended Monday over concerns about the hiring and promotion of probation officers.

In a joint statement issued Monday, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall and Chief Justice for Administration and Management Robert Mulligan said they were deeply concerned with media reports on management practices within the Probation Department.

They said O’Brien has been placed on administrative leave, effective immediately.

O’Brien’s hiring practices have been the subject of front-page stories in The Boston Globe.

The justices said they were concerned not only with the administration of the department, but with how the media reports may affect the public’s perception of the integrity of the judicial branch.

This action came on the heels of independent gubernatorial candidate Timothy P. Cahill’s statements Monday that patronage is a part of politics, but politics played no role in his decision to hire the wife and daughter of a state official who has been suspended amid allegations of rampant patronage at his own agency.

The state treasurer said he knows Probation Commissioner John O’Brien, and O’Brien has supported his political career in their hometown of Quincy. Yet he said that didn’t influence his decision to hire O’Brien’s wife, Laurie, and one of the couple’s daughters.

“There’s no personal relationship,” Cahill said of John O’Brien. “He’s not hanging out at my house or anything like that. He’s a political supporter, or has been for a while, but that didn’t influence the decisions I made about his members of his family.

“We had openings for positions. They applied for those positions. I’ve known Laurie O’Brien for a long time, because she’s a Quincy resident,” Cahill said.

Gov. Deval L. Patrick heightened attention on the issue by branding the Probation Department a “rogue agency” and urging the Legislature to pass a department-realignment bill he filed in January.

Cahill offered a defense of political patronage when asked about descriptions of seemingly highly qualified applicants being passed over for probation jobs in favor of those related to politicians.

“Does that not happen in government all the time?” he asked. “Obviously, it is part of the political process. It’s an unfortunate part when it’s been brought to this level.”

Cahill noted none of his family members work for O’Brien.

Patrick, a Democrat seeking re-election, and Republican gubernatorial candidate Charles D. Baker said Attorney General Martha M. Coakley should investigate. Marshall and Mulligan appointed former Big Dig investigator Paul Ware to conduct an investigation on their behalf.

Cahill said an investigation is not needed. Rather, he supports returning oversight for the department from the legislative branch to the judiciary.

“The Legislature really deserves the blame for this,” Cahill said. “They shouldn’t have made the move when they made it. They made it simply because they wanted to control the jobs.”

He said if oversight is returned to the judicial branch, then it “could determine whether Commissioner O’Brien should stay or should leave, and they can reorganize the place around making it work for probation, making it work for public safety.”

Patrick told reporters the Probation Department is a “rogue agency.”

“What I thought was a problem may be even a bigger problem, and I want to encourage the Legislature to take up this bill,” the governor said.

His bill proposes combining the Probation and Parole departments under the executive branch, which Patrick says will create a modern agency allowing people to transition from prison life back into society. It would also give oversight to the governor instead of the Legislature.

Cahill said that would likely just shift the source of patronage, which Patrick dismissed with a quip.

“You mean, will people still ask for jobs?” the governor asked with a chuckle as he entered a student forum at Suffolk University’s Rappaport Center. “Yeah, I’m sure people would still ask for jobs.”

Nonetheless, Patrick said patronage should not just be accepted.

“I don’t think that’s enough of an explanation, and it’s certainly not one that’s going to satisfy me or anybody else in the general public,” he said.

Also Monday, all seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court signed an order calling for “a prompt and thorough administrative inquiry into alleged improprieties with respect to the hiring and promotion of employees within the Probation Department as well as other practices and management decisions within the Probation Department.”

The court appointed Paul Ware, an attorney with the Boston law firm of Goodwin Procter, to conduct the inquiry and report back to the court within 90 days.

Ware had previously been tapped by Attorney General Martha Coakley to oversee the criminal investigation into the fatal July 2006 Big Dig ceiling tunnel collapse.

The justices appointed Ronald Corbett, Executive Director of the Supreme Judicial Court and the former Deputy Commissioner of Probation, as acting administrator of the Probation Department to replace O’Brien.

Meanwhile, the treasurer picked up the endorsements of the patrolman’s and superior officer police unions in Quincy. He said after a month of negative ads against him by the Republican Governors Association, “It’s nice to know that people are going to stand with you.”

Lt. Timothy Sorgi, president of the Quincy Police Superior Officer’s Association, said in a statement: “Tim Cahill is a longtime friend of law enforcement and is committed to making sure that our men and women wearing the uniform have the resources and support that they need.”

Boston Probation Department Scandal – Commissionor Christopher J. Bulger Corruption

admin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:08:50 +0000

Special counsel’s report puts another Bulger under microscope

Top O’Brien aide suspended, may face disbarment

By Stephanie Ebbert Globe Staff / November 20, 2010

Patronage in the Probation Dept.

Christopher J. Bulger, deputy commissioner and legal counsel of the state Probation Department, was suspended with pay this week after a report detailing systemic corruption in the department accused him of “dishonest or incompetent oversight’’ of hiring.

The report of an independent counsel tapped to root out patronage in the department cited Bulger’s “misplaced loyalty’’ to his boss, Commissioner John J. O’Brien, and said that, after the commissioner was suspended, Bulger was keeping him apprised of the status of the investigation two to three times a week.

“It is clear that Bulger’s foremost loyalty even today lies with Commissioner O’Brien, not the Probation Department,’’ wrote independent counsel Paul F. Ware Jr., who called for Bulger to be suspended and reviewed by the Board of Bar Overseers for possible disbarment.

William J. Cintolo, the lawyer who represented Bulger during the investigation, said he had not yet read the report and was not able to comment on it. Bulger did not agree to an interview.

The son of former Senate president William M. Bulger was among those implicated in the investigation, in his case, in allegedly turning a blind eye to systematic hiring fraud in the Probation Department. In his testimony, Bulger denied knowledge of specific favoritism, saying he assumed the interview process was rigged to favor the politically connected, but that he also assumed patronage happens everywhere.

The second youngest of the former Senate president’s nine children, Christopher Bulger, 41, of Hanson joined the Probation Department as a lawyer in 1998 and became a deputy commissioner and legal counsel in 2008, according to the report. Before that, he worked as an assistant Norfolk district attorney.

He is only the latest member of his famous family to take his turn in the uncomfortable spotlight. His father was forced out of his job as president of the University of Massachusetts in 2003 by Governor Mitt Romney after standing by his fugitive mobster brother, James “Whitey’’ Bulger. Sought in connection with 19 killings and one of the FBI’s 10 most wanted, Whitey Bulger has eluded authorities since he fled shortly before being indicted on racketeering charges in January 1995.

In 2001 testimony before a federal grand jury, William M. Bulger acknowledged that he had shared a prearranged telephone call with his brother in 1995 and said he felt no obligation to help bring him to justice. “I do have an honest loyalty to my brother, and I care about him,’’ William Bulger had said in his testimony, according to a transcript previously obtained by the Globe. “It’s my hope that I’m never helpful to anyone against him.’’

Another brother, John P. Bulger, lost his state pension in 2003 after pleading guilty to perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about contacts with his fugitive brother. John Bulger was a retired clerk magistrate at Boston Juvenile Court and sued unsuccessfully to reclaim his pension. His lawyer argued before the Supreme Judicial Court that he had not violated his oath as a clerk magistrate but lied to grand juries out of “family loyalty.’’

Christopher Bulger, 41, has publicly demonstrated his own fierce family allegiance. In 2002, when his father was subpoenaed to testify before a congressional committee investigating the FBI’s relationship with Whitey Bulger, Christopher Bulger lashed out against US Representative Stephen F. Lynch of South Boston, a member of the committee, for not defending his father.

In South Boston Online, Christopher Bulger called Lynch “simply, unabashedly opportunistic.’’ The public spat was viewed in part as an eruption between two family clans: Lynch had beaten Christopher’s brother, William M. Bulger Jr., to win their father’s seat in the state Senate after the elder Bulger stepped down in 1996.

In his testimony before the special counsel, Christopher Bulger seemed to infuriate the independent counsel. The report says Bulger was “consistently evasive and untruthful in responding to questions under oath.’’

“He made repeated attempts to deflect the questioning,’’ the report says. “Many of his answers were blatantly false in the view of independent counsel.’’ The report suggests the probability that Bulger knew of the extent of fraud for years but tried to maintain “plausible deniability.’’

The report shows that as legal counsel, Bulger played a key role in preserving the job of one patronage hire, Ashley Losapio, who had been giving information to criminals. She received a two-week suspension and a transfer to a different court division, but was not fired. While acknowledging that the department’s hands may have been tied because of union issues, Ware wrote, “It is inconceivable that a responsible private sector company would continue the employment of an employee who knowingly used company computers to assist her criminal friends.’’

Bulger also acknowledged regularly updating O’Brien about the status of the investigation. In testimony under oath in October, Bulger told investigators that he briefed him two or three times a week and that he would call O’Brien that very afternoon to brief him “unless I’m told not to,’’ according to a transcript obtained by the Globe.

In one exchange, detailed in testimony obtained by the Globe, the investigators apparently grew frustrated with Bulger as he denied ever seeing a list of names of potential hires, though he had encouraged an employee to provide it to the investigators.

“Mr. Bulger, please. You’re legal counsel to the Probation Department,’’ the questioner said, according to the report. “There is an investigation going on which you have said you treat as a criminal investigation. Your employee comes to you and says: ‘Here’s a list of recommenders for particular candidates. Do I take this to independent counsel? And you said yes without looking at the list?’ ’’

“Yes,’’ Bulger answered. “Yes.’’

Stephanie Ebbert can be reached at ebbert@globe.com.

Tom Finneran “Dummies UP” During Probation Department Probe

admin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:01:39 +0000

Finneran was silent when queried on agency patronage!!!

I PLEAD THE FIFTH…

Thomas M. Finneran pushed through a 2001 change in law that gave John J. O’Brien personal control over Probation Department hiring and promotion.

(Wendy Maeda/Globe Staff File 2007)

By Scott Allen Globe Staff / November 20, 2010

Patronage in the Probation Dept.

The longtime probation commissioner — John J. O’Brien, who now faces firing and criminal investigation — is a Finneran protégé and former jogging buddy.

It was Finneran, more than anyone else, who pushed through the 2001 change in law that gave O’Brien personal control over hiring and promotion in the 2,000-employee agency.

Yet when he got the chance to explain how probation could have become an employment agency for politicians’ friends, families, and supporters, the normally loquacious Finneran became a stone.

Under questioning from independent counsel Paul F. Ware Jr. at Ware’s law office in Boston’s Financial District, Finneran took his constitutional right to remain silent to an extreme.

“What’s your current home address?’’ asked Ware, a former federal prosecutor used to smoking out reluctant witnesses.

“Based upon advice from counsel, I’m not going to answer that,’’ replied Finneran, who has had trouble in the past with sworn testimony. He resigned as speaker in 2004 amid a perjury investigation based on his testimony in a lawsuit. The charges were later dismissed, but he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice.

Ware asked if Richard Hayes, the lawyer who accompanied Finneran to the Sept. 21 meeting, was, in fact, Finneran’s lawyer.

“I’m going to invoke my right to remain silent,’’ came the reply.

Ware said Hayes would have to leave if he was not, in fact, Finneran’s attorney. Even that did not shake Finneran and Hayes from their script.

Finneran was invoking his constitutional right to remain silent, while the lawyer said he was not allowed to speak to Ware because the Supreme Judicial Court had said lawyers could sit in on their client’s testimony but not participate. Ware had to step out of the room to learn from Hayes that he was working for the former speaker.

Eventually, Ware gave up on getting meaningful answers, but he kept asking questions anyway:

“Did you pressure Mr. O’Brien in any way to make jobs available in exchange for increases in the budget?’’

“Was any gratuity or payment to your knowledge ever given to Mr. O’Brien in exchange for his hiring individuals recommended by the Legislature?’’

Is there “any other information that you may feel exonerates you?’’

No comment. No comment. No comment.

Ware said yesterday that questioning Finneran was frustrating because the former speaker knows so much.

Finneran is one of the few people who knows that the roots of probation’s current patronage scandal go back to 1997, when the late chief justice for administration, John J. Irwin Jr., lowered the education requirements for probation commissioner so that O’Brien, who has only a bachelor’s degree, would qualify.

“Speaker Finneran was there at the creation,’’ Ware said. “I had hoped to elicit the truth from Speaker Finneran, and instead I was stonewalled.’’

But Finneran regained his voice the day after the release of Ware’s report. He defended himself on his morning radio show on WRKO-AM.

Scott Allen can reached at allen@globe.com

Dianne Wilkerson – No-show Job

admin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 16:24:58 +0000

Wilkerson hit with another allegation

With sentencing near, prosecutors cite no-show job

Wilkerson pleaded guilty to attempted extortion.

By Jonathan Saltzman Globe Staff / November 20, 2010

With the help of two influential businessmen, one the developer of a major project in her district, former state senator Dianne Wilkerson received a no-show job at a local college that paid $15,000, federal prosecutors say.

The new allegation, which was immediately denied by Wilkerson’s lawyer, was presented yesterday in a sentencing memorandum filed by prosecutors. The government recommended that Wilkerson be sentenced next month to four years in prison for taking $23,500 in bribes in the FBI sting that led to her arrest in 2008. She pleaded guilty in June to eight counts of attempted extortion.

The proposed sentence is two months longer than federal probation officials recommended but is warranted because of Wilkerson’s history of ethical lapses and illegal conduct, including a 1997 conviction for tax evasion, according to the office of US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz.

“As outlined below, between Wilkerson’s conviction in 1997 and her plea in this case, Wilkerson repeatedly demonstrated that she believed that she was above the law,’’ said the 17-page memorandum.

Dianne Wilkerson (AP Photo/Kevin Martin, File)

But Wilkerson’s lawyer, Max D. Stern of Boston, recommended that his client be sentenced to substantially less than the three years and two months suggested as a minimum period of incarceration in federal sentencing guidelines.

Stern, who said he will be more specific at Wilkerson’s sentencing, said she exercised “extraordinarily poor judgment’’ by taking the bribes, but never sought to enrich herself. He cited her years of public service and commitment to the poor and oppressed. He also denied that Wilkerson received a no-show job at Curry College.

“It was real,’’ he wrote. Wilkerson planned to moderate a lecture series on politics and the law, he wrote, but the college eliminated the position after she became a “public relations liability.’’ Wilkerson became a liability following a suit against her by the state attorney general’s office for alleged campaign finance violations, according to Stern.

The government’s sentencing memorandum details a long history of misconduct and financial problems for Wilkerson, many of them previously reported. But in a new allegation, prosecutors say entrepreneurs with business in Wilkerson’s district and with state government helped her in 2005 to engage in “another set of unethical and ultimately unlawful financial transactions.’’

Through the efforts of the men, identified only as A.W. and J.K., “Wilkerson obtained a no-show job at a local college,’’ said the memorandum.

The men urged the college to give Wilkerson a $15,000 contract because she outspent what she earned each year by $60,000, according to prosecutors.

Although the memorandum did not identify the men or the college, a spokesman for Arthur Winn, founder of WinnCompanies, who retired as chief executive in 2009, yesterday said the developer “facilitated an interview for a job’’ at Curry College.

“Beyond that,’’ said the spokesman, Alan Eisner, “Mr. Winn had no involvement and received nothing in return.’’

At the time Winn helped Wilkerson, she had become the legislative champion of one of his major Boston development projects, the failed $800 million Columbus Center venture.

The man identified by prosecutors as J.K. is John W. Keith, chief executive officer of Keith Companies and a trustee of Curry College. He confirmed in a brief interview that he testified before a grand jury that he helped Wilkerson obtain a position at Curry.

Keith’s lawyer, George C. McMahon of Quincy, said yesterday that the teaching position dealt with government affairs and paid $25,000, but he vigorously denied that it was intended to be a no-show job. “She showed up for a couple of lectures, but after that she didn’t show up and she was fired,’’ he said.

The allegation is not the first time Winn’s name has come up in the Wilkerson scandal. Winn acknowledged last year that he gave $10,000 to Wilkerson in 2004 to help her pay tax debts but said it had nothing to do with wanting assistance in securing public funds for Columbus Center. In September, Martin Raffol, a former top executive of the residential arm of WinnCompanies, pleaded guilty to illegally funneling $12,000 in campaign contributions to four Massachusetts congressmen in a federal case that was an offshoot of the Wilkerson corruption investigation.

Wilkerson is to be sentenced the week of Dec. 6. Her codefendant, Boston city councilor Chuck Turner, is to be sentenced Jan. 25 on one count of attempted extortion and three counts of lying to FBI agents in connection with his conviction in October for taking a $1,000 bribe.

Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe.com.

Chuck Turner – Boston Councilor CONVICTED!

admin — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:25:51 +0000

Boston Councilor Chuck Turner convicted on all counts in corruption case

Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner was convicted today in a federal court in Boston on charges that he pocketed a $1,000 bribe in his district office in 2007 and later lied about it to federal agents who were interviewing him.

A US District Court jury delivered its verdict this afternoon, just a few hours into its first full day of deliberations, finding Turner guilty of attempted extortion and providing false statements to FBI agents.

The verdict came on the 13th day of a dramatic public corruption trial that featured undercover video of the moment the alleged bribe took place and the high-risk testimony and cross-examination of Turner, a long-time community activist and veteran city councilor, who steadfastly maintained his innocence.

A defiant and combative Turner, surrounded by reporters outside the courthouse, said, “I’m not the first person who’s innocent who’s gonna be sent to jail.”

“Life is life,” he said. “They made their decision. It’s a decision. As I said, I’m an organizer. I was born to be an organizer. If they’re going to send me to jail, I’ll organize in jail.”

With Turner’s felony conviction, the City Council is required by its new rules to conduct a hearing and could expel him with a two-thirds vote. The hearing could be held behind closed doors or, if Turner wishes, in public in the council chamber.

City Council President Michael Ross said ater meeting with Turner this evening that he intended to call for a hearing within the next two weeks “in order for the council to take appropriate action.”

US Attorney Carmen Ortiz said after the verdict that Turner had “made choices of his own free will.”

“He’s a public official who betrayed the people he was elected to serve,” she said. “What people lose sight of is the fact that public corruption erodes the confidence that the public has in the system.”

The attempted extortion charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, while the false statements charges carry a maximum of five years each. Ortiz would not disclose what sentence prosecutors would recommend, but said that under federal sentencing guidelines Turner could face some time in prison.

US District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock set a sentencing hearing for Jan. 25.

The underlying crime was a relatively simple one. Prosecutors alleged that Turner accepted a payoff for helping Boston businessman Ronald Wilburn obtain a coveted liquor license. Wilburn was secretly cooperating with the FBI and videotaped the exchange.

By the accounts of both prosecutors and the defense, Turner was a mere afterthought in the FBI sting. The primary target was state Senator Dianne Wilkerson, who pleaded guilty earlier this year. She was caught on videotape accepting five bribes totaling $6,500 from Wilburn in connection with the same liquor license and $17,000 from undercover FBI agents seeking help with a commercial development in Roxbury.

But when Turner responded to an e-mail that Wilkerson sent councilors in June 2007 about Wilburn’s inability to obtain a license, the councilor scheduled a public hearing. Based on what Wilburn testified were rumors that Turner accepted payoffs, authorities decided to see whether the councilor would accept a bribe, as Wilkerson had already done three times.

The prosecution faced several obstacles at trial. For one thing, the surveillance videotape that Wilburn made on Aug. 3, 2007, inside the councilor’s Roxbury district office from a briefcase rigged with a camera was of relatively poor quality. It was impossible for spectators in court to see cash change hands.

When prosecutors slowed it down and clicked through the video frame-by-frame, however, spectators could see what appeared to be a greenish lump changing hands.

The prosecution’s other obstacle was Wilburn himself. A few months after the arrests of Wilkerson and Turner in the autumn of 2008, the government’s cooperating witness told the Globe he was no longer cooperating.

In the February 2009 article, he criticized how the government treated him in the undercover investigation and said he was upset that authorities had arrested only two individuals, both of them black politicians.

Wilburn said he became a cooperating witness in the belief that the government was investigating what he described as more pervasive corruption within the Boston Licensing Board and its process for awarding liquor licenses.

But after Wilburn initially refused to testify, Judge Woodlock threatened him with jail, and Wilburn relented.

During three days on the stand, he sometimes had trouble remembering dates and gave varying accounts of how he thrust a wad of cash into Turner’s hand. Wilburn and Assistant US Attorney John T. McNeil shouted at each other in a dramatic confrontation.

And defense lawyer Barry P. Wilson, of Boston, portrayed Wilburn as a ne’er-do-well who hung out with criminals and became a cooperating witness in the Wilkerson-Turner investigation because he desperately needed the $29,099 that the FBI paid him.

But Wilburn did not stray from the core allegation against Turner and said he gave the councilor all the cash that an FBI agent had handed him moments earlier — a wad that the agent had testified totaled $1,000.

Several legal specialists who watched the trial said they thought Wilson might have planted enough reasonable doubt to prompt a deadlock on the jury, leading to a mistrial. But reasonable doubt evaporated, they said, after Turner rejected the advice of his lawyers and took the stand in his own defense — the only witness called by his legal team.

During two days on the stand, Turner looked at a photograph of his handshake with Wilburn and testified that the businessman evidently handed him “something” but insisted that he did not remember receiving cash. Indeed, he said he did not remember meeting Wilburn three times that summer and was not sure whether he had ever encountered him.

“I don’t remember,” he repeatedly replied to McNeil’s rapid-fire cross-examination.

He further testified that he never looked down at his hand during the handshake because it would have been “disrespectful.” He called the exchange a “preacher’s handshake” and a “minister’s handshake,” and said his decorum sprang from a Biblical admonition against undue focus on money, although he did not concede he received cash.

McNeil used Turner’s words against him in the prosecutor’s closing argument Thursday, saying “there was nothing godly” about the handshake and that the councilor had in reality participated in the “oldest handshake in American politics, the sly slip of cash.”

Wilson, for his part, insisted that Turner never did anything but his job. If his client took money, he said, it was $200 at the most, and Turner never did any favors for Wilburn in exchange. He theorized that Wilburn pocketed $800 in FBI cash.

In recent history, no sitting Boston city councilor has been convicted of a crime, according to city officials and political observers.

The closest was Gerald F. O’Leary of Mattapan, a former state representative who served on the Boston City Council from 1968 to 1975, when he lost his seat. A few years later as an elected member of the School Committee, O’Leary tried to extort $650,000 from a bus company hired to implement the city’s school desegregation program. He resigned, pleaded guilty, and served 13 months in federal prison.

“The jury has made its verdict in this case and while I am deeply saddened for my colleague and his family, I am in discussion with corporation counsel and will respond in greater detail soon,” Ross said.

“I’ve known Councilor Turner for many years,” said At-Large City Councilor Felix G. Arroyo, who worked in Turner’s office from January 2000 to July 2004. “He was accused and convicted of something that is out of character with the person I know. My heart goes out to him and his family. ”

“Today is a very sad and unfortunate day for the city of Boston. Councilor Turner has represented the people of his district well for over a decade. I remain shocked at the actions Councilor Turner has been found guilty of today and will continue to work hard promoting a spirit of public trust and confidence in our elected officials and government agencies,” Mayor Thomas M. Menino said in a statement.

If Turner resigns or is kicked off the Council, a special election would be held to fill his seat representing District 7, an area in the heart of Boston that includes Roxbury, Lower Roxbury, and parts of the Fenway, South End, and Dorchester.

The conviction will also force Turner to forfeit his city pension, according to state law. He can request a hearing before the city pension board and is entitled to a refund of the money he paid into the system over the last decade.

State Senator Marian Walsh

admin — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:50:24 +0000

Walsh pulls out amid uproar

Senator will not pursue $120,000-a-year state post

By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff | April 1, 2009

State Senator Marian Walsh abandoned her appointment yesterday to a $120,000-a-year position at a state authority, a decision that follows two tumultuous weeks for Governor Deval Patrick and was made amid what Walsh described as a “tsunami” of public outrage.

“I feel I have become the issue,” said Walsh, appearing at Patrick’s side after meeting privately with the governor in his office.

Walsh said she reached the decision to decline the job as assistant executive director at the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority on her own, with no push from the governor or his aides. She said she called Patrick’s chief of staff, Doug Rubin, on Monday night and informed him of the choice.

“This is my decision,” said Walsh, a six-term West Roxbury Democrat and one of Patrick’s earliest political supporters.

“This was not going any place that was healthy. I feel this is the best outcome,” she said. “I don’t want to be a distraction. I want to be a leader.”

Patrick’s push to get Walsh hired at the authority would have faced another potential hurdle, and fur ther media scrutiny and public anger, when the agency’s board meets April 17 to confirm the details of her employment.

Patrick said he had “mixed feelings” about the lawmaker’s decision and said, “I wish we had handled it differently.”

The governor has endured intense criticism from the public and political foes alike, and the administration’s repeated attempts at damage control have only added to the negative fallout.

Walsh said last week that she would accept $120,000 a year for the job, instead of the originally planned $175,000, a concession that spurred more anger and criticism. The administration absorbed more criticism over the last three days after a Globe story, quoting internal e-mails, showed Walsh’s appointment had been carefully orchestrated by Patrick’s top aides – despite the administration’s denials.

“I am relieved because we’ve been hammered,” Patrick said yesterday, speaking to reporters. “I also feel disappointed about the harm that has come to the senator, who is a wonderful and capable person and, I am absolutely convinced, was the right person for this assignment.”

He then put his arm around Walsh to demonstrate his support for her. “It’s been painful for me, the senator, for a whole lot of people.”

After the announcement, Patrick escorted Walsh back to the Senate, where a debate was taking place on pension reform.

The assistant executive director job at the authority had been vacant for 12 years, and Patrick and Walsh were never able to put forth an argument that convinced critics that it needed to be filled now, at a time when the state and Massachusetts residents are reeling from the recession.

Walsh insisted yesterday that she had wanted the position in order to work on the governor’s plans for reorganizing the authority and other quasi-public authorities by, among other things, “changing the culture so we can be more open.”

“There’s a whole theme here, which is why the reorganization was so central to having more economic development that is more fruitful in the near future and not waiting,” Walsh said.

But the way the appointment was handled belied her call for open government. The position had not been advertised and no search firm had been hired to compile a list of candidates. It was also not listed on an agenda for the March 12 meeting where it was unanimously approved.

Walsh’s appointment was immediately slammed by opponents as a behind-the-scenes patronage move by Patrick to force the board of an independent authority to hire a political ally with very little notice.

The state’s Republican Party said yesterday that the episode undercut Patrick’s claim to be a reformer.

“Senator Walsh has done the right thing by refusing the appointment,” said Jennifer Nassour, GOP chairwoman. “This absurd process has taught us, once again, that we cannot rely on the Patrick administration to seek real, meaningful reform on Beacon Hill.”

Patrick continued yesterday to press the issue of reform, however. He insisted that Walsh was the right person to make his case that the authority’s operations should merge some of its operations with the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, contending that their duplicate efforts cost taxpayers “millions of dollars.”

He warned the authority that he would intervene again if it did not implement the changes he is seeking.

“If they don’t, we will be right back at it, inserting a change agent in there,” Patrick said.

The authority, however, released a statement rebutting the governor’s portrayal that it is inefficient. The agency issues government bonds to raise money for hospital and education construction projects in Massachusetts.

“A true model of efficiency, last year HEFA’s dedicated team worked to provide more than $4.4 billion in low-cost financing for important projects by nonprofit organizations across Massachusetts – becoming the largest issuer of tax-exempt bonds in the state and sixth largest in the nation,” the statement said.

Tom Finneran

admin — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:03:57 +0000

Not a fan, felonious Tom Finneran? Well pardon me!

By Howie Carr | Saturday, January 10, 2009 | http://www.bostonherald.com

Photo by Nancy Lane

Are you talkin’ to me, Felon Finneran?

I quote now from the letter that four bust-out ex-governors of Massachusetts have written to President Bush, begging them to pardon former House speaker Tommy Taxes Finneran, a man so crooked he needs a corkscrew to get into his pants in the morning.

“He has suffered daily taunts and ridicule of those who believe that every elected official is the equivalent of a common thief.”

That’s me they’re talking about. When it comes to Felon Finneran, I’m in charge of daily taunts and ridicule. But despite what the Four Stooges wrote, I don’t believe every elected official is a thief. Finneran, on the other hand, was the House speaker – a job title that lately has a higher recidivism rate than godfather of the Gambino Crime Family.

As for Tommy Taxes being a “common thief” – I would never say that. Common thieves who do the crime do the time. Finneran committed multiple counts of perjury in the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals, but was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, and didn’t do an hour, let alone a day, in durance vile.

And he still refuses to take responsibility for his sordid life of crime. So far, he’s Alibi Ike.

First excuse: he lied under oath because he was in a hurry to drive his wife to Mass General.

Second excuse: he’d been “gulping” Advil. No joke – Tommy Taxes claimed he was “Advil-addled.”

New excuse: I’ve ruined everything for him. Yeah, and tonight I’m going to make it snow.

The Four Stooges said Felon Finneran has been “severely punished.” Really? He’s still making big money for his wretched radio show, which we call “Sweet Sixteen,” because that’s generally about where it finishes in the ratings. The Felon usually runs neck and neck with “The River,” and sometimes he even edges the Manchester N.H. soft-rock station. Sometimes. His show is so compelling it now goes off the air at 9 instead of 10, and they’re trying to prop him up with a co-host.

Finneran should be breakin’ rocks in the hot sun. He fought the law and the law won. Although I still remember the day he was “sentenced,” and how Judge Rick Stearns was almost apologizing for having to ask him the questions every convicted felon has to answer.

Are you on drugs this morning, wiseguy? You do know you can’t own a firearm anymore, maggot. But no, it was all “Mistah Speakah” this and “I know this is a silly question but . . .” I was there in the courtroom hoping to make a victim-impact statement. See, I was at the courthouse the day Felon Finneran told his string of incredible whoppers about his racist gerrymandering scheme in the city of Boston.

I was shocked, shocked, I tell you. I tried not to let it destroy my faith in the integrity of the Massachusetts Legislature. But I can’t get over it. Then last year, the Felon speculated to Gov. Patrick that I should be taken for a one-way ride in the trunk of the governor’s Coupe Deval.

You can take the felon out of the State House, but you can’t take the State House out of the felon. President Bush, don’t enough people hate you already? You don’t need your own Marc Rich.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1144332

Tom Finneran Felon Finneran

Former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, arriving at his Mattapan home Monday. (Globe Staff Photo / Justine Hunt)
The Boston Globe

Finneran’s gathering storm

Ex-speaker’s strongest traits may have hastened his fall

By Don Aucoin, Globe Staff | June 9, 2005

It was a spring night in 2001, and the hottest question on Beacon Hill was whether the state budget proposal about to be released by the House Ways and Means Committee would contain adequate funds for the Clean Elections Law.

The law to provide public financing of campaigns had been overwhelmingly approved by voters several years earlier, but House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran had made no secret of his hostility to it, and that had spelled doom for many a measure in the State House over the years.

That made Finneran’s response all the more surprising when a reporter asked how much money would be in the Ways and Means budget for Clean Elections. ”I literally have no idea,” Finneran said. He went on to explain that he had been so busy with other legislative matters that he had left it in the hands of Ways and Means chairman John Rogers.

The notion of a hands-off approach on something Finneran cared about so deeply ran counter to everything that was known about the controlling, detail-oriented man who ran the House. But for the eight years Finneran presided as a speaker of unchallenged power, he seldom felt the need to agonize over his words or his image. Indeed, he was every inch the happy warrior, a sharp-tongued figure who freely expressed his opinions.

Yet in the aftermath of his indictment Monday on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, some wonder whether the very traits that propelled Finneran’s rise to power — a self-confidence bordering on the cocksure, a reflexive refusal to yield on points large or small, an eager appetite for political combat — may have worked together to hasten his fall.

”Hubris,” said Pamela Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, speculating on why Finneran denied any involvement in the redistricting process. ”There would have been no consequences to him had he told the truth: ‘Yes, I met with lawmakers and talked about this; yes, I met with the chairman of the committee.’ There would have been no repercussions. People would have said, ‘Look, there’s Finneran controlling the process again, but that would been, ‘Yawn, yawn, what’s new?’ ”

Finneran has vigorously maintained his innocence. Moreover, he has done so with the unambiguous force that characterized his eight years as House speaker, issuing a statement saying, ”My response to the charges brought against me today is NOT GUILTY,” and telling reporters: ”I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.”

If that is true, that would mean Finneran is less bothered by the indictment than are some of his admirers. Former House speaker David Bartley contended that the indictment is ”just outrageous,” and that Finneran is called arrogant simply for exerting strong leadership and for being unyielding in his beliefs.

Such support is a testament to the charisma and brainpower Finneran brought to the post of House speaker, along with an iron-fisted approach that made dissidents an endangered species. Critics say Finneran’s belief that he was smarter than most — an opinion honed and to an extent affirmed in the State House — contributed to his current legal predicament. In this view, the commanding — critics called it arrogant — demeanor that defined his leadership in the House simply boomeranged on the witness stand.

”He was just daring the attorneys to challenge him, to doubt him,” remarked Representative James J. Marzilli, a Democrat from Arlington who was often at loggerheads with Finneran during the decade-plus they served together in the House. ”You carry that outside this chamber, this institution, and people are a lot less willing to live by the rules he’s trying to force upon them.”

His will was so fierce, his talents so outsized, that Finneran grew used to getting his way on Beacon Hill. Often, his word literally was law. Now a jury will decide whether he broke the law with a few words of emphatic denial when he was asked, under oath, whether he knew the contents of a legislative redistricting plan before it was made public.

Lou DiNatale, director of the Center for Economic and Civic Opinion at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, said it was clear from the former speaker’s testimony that he found it ”outrageous he had to testify before a federal jury over something that speakers have done over time immemorial in every state in the country . . . to protect his party members, Democrats, and his leadership. He made a mistake. He assumed this wasn’t going to be as explosive a public issue as it became.”

Whatever the outcome, the indictment has refocused the spotlight on a figure as compelling as he is contradictory. Finneran is a student of history who loves Edward Gibbon’s ”The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” and Winston Churchill’s ”The Gathering Storm,” but he didn’t seem to see the storm gathering around him or to apprehend that his own pride and power might lead to a fall. In interviews with admirers and detractors of the former speaker, it was striking how often the twin themes of ambition and tragedy were sounded.

”Tom Finneran thought he was going to be either mayor of Boston or a United States senator,” said John McDonough, a former legislator and now executive director of Health Care for All, a consumer advocacy group. ”He clearly saw the speakership not as a terminal position but as a launching pad for something bigger. Given his ambitions, there’s a note of tragedy in it, that someone so gifted and talented was not able to capitalize on his position to achieve that bigger goal.”

Barbara Anderson, head of Citizens for Limited Taxation, considered Finneran to have ”a very thin skin stretched over a very big ego” from the day in 1991 when he ignored her outstretched hand and stalked away from her after the two did battle over Proposition 2 1/2, the tax-limiting measure that was her brainchild. Nonetheless, Anderson said, she now views Finneran as ”a tragic figure who had tremendous potential for leadership but instead he got lost in his own hubris.”

Over time, Finneran became known for what he said as much as for what he did. In the middle of the 1998 debate over how much public financing should be given to New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft to build a new stadium, Finneran at a dinner in Peabody dismissed the idea of a tax break for the project with a vulgarity.

In 1998, at a post-primary unity breakfast after Scott Harshbarger had won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, the facade of unity crumbled in a hurry when Finneran floated the notion that Harshbarger might drift toward ”the loony left,” a blow to a nominee who hoped and needed to appeal to moderate voters.

But for all of his swagger, the depictions of Finneran as a cartoon tyrant miss the mark, insist many who served with him, including some who lined up against him on issues or on leadership style. Most describe a man who was unfailingly cordial, who invariably recalled the names of members’ spouses and children, and who would blink back tears while discussing the challenges facing the mentally retarded.

Representative Michael Festa, a Melrose Democrat who emerged as one of Finneran’s leading critics, said, ”It’s a rare member of the House that would say they didn’t like Tom Finneran.”

Even though Festa often spoke out against Finneran’s tight control of the House, the two enjoyed a friendly relationship based on a shared love of gardening, and Festa had Finneran and his wife as a guest at his house several times. ”The man is sufficiently complex for everyone to understand he’s not that one-dimensional as a person,” Festa said.

Yet the image that came through to the outside world sometimes lacked those other dimensions. Having entered the Legislature in his late 20s, Finneran perhaps inevitably leaned on the instincts and style of a State House insider. But that very style may have worked against him on the witness stand, in the view of DiNatale, who believes that the indictment is unfair.

”Finneran got popped for the wink and the nod,” DiNatale contended. ”Because the culture of the [State House] building is ‘I know and you don’t know what’s really going on,’ the wink and the nod is the dominant form of being in the know. . . . You can play these winking games with the press, you can even play them with the Legislature. You can’t play them under oath.”

Rick Klein and Jonathan Saltzman of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

Legislators Pay Raise MA

admin — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:11:48 +0000

Some state lawmakers reject pay raise

January 8, 2009 02:08 PM

By John C. Drake, Globe Staff

State lawmakers are lining up today to reject the 5.5 percent automatic pay raise that Governor Deval Patrick set in motion, saying that with local communities facing drastic budget cuts and families facing job losses, they could not pad their own pockets at taxpayer expense.

Representative Viriato deMacedo

Representative Viriato deMacedo, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, said he would donate the raise of $3,203 to a Plymouth food pantry, which lost $150,000 in funding in the last round of budget cuts.”The pressure on them is that much greater, and they have a lot more people visiting them,” deMacedo said today of the food pantry. “It is an opportunity for me to assist the people in my community who have been hardest hit in this economic downturn.”

DeMacedo, who said he also donated his 2003 raise because it came during an economic downturn, was not the only lawmaker refusing to take the money. A spokeswoman for House Minority Leader Bradley Jones said he would not accept the pay hike. Representatives Karyn Polito, a Republican from Shrewsbury, and Democrat Garrett Bradley of Hingham are also planning to reject the raise, according to State House News Service.

Representative Harriet L. Stanley, a West Newbury Democrat, said she, too, would donate her raise to charity.

“I’m going to make sure the money stays in the seven communities I represent,” Stanley said. “Times are tough out there. They are really tough. And I’m just shocked that any index would give us a 5.5 percent increase. I thought we might actually take a cut.”

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi defended the increase today in a statement, saying it was the product of a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1998 designed to remove legislative pay decisions from the political process. Lawmakers receive a pay raise or cut every two years that is equal to the fluctuation in the state’s median household income as determined by the governor.

“This year, it will increase modestly,” DiMasi said of legislative pay. “Next term, we have already been told to expect a pay cut.”

Early Wednesday evening, Patrick sent a letter to state Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill asserting that the state’s median income increased 5.5 percent, setting in motion a pay hike of that amount. Lawmakers will see their base pay increase from $58,237 to $61,440.

The state Republican Party blasted the increase in pay, with GOP spokesman Barney Keller saying in a statement that “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to calculate … that the amount of the raise should be exactly zero.”

Patrick sidestepped any comment on the pay raise on WTKK-FM’s “Ask the Governor” show this afternoon, saying he didn’t want to be “high-handed” in his treatment of lawmakers.

Asked what he would tell a lawmaker who wanted to know whether to accept the pay raise, he said, “My answer to him or her is to him or her and not to the general public.”

He said he could see both sides of the issue, noting that he and Lieutenant Governor Timothy P. Murray had said “not now” to a proposed pay raise in June. “I also appreciate that legislators don’t make very much money,” Patrick said.

Michael Levenson, Martin Finucane, and Andrew Ryan of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

75 comments so far…

wow – I’m impressed …

Posted by cm January 8, 09 02:29 PM

“I also appreciate that legislators don’t make very much money,” Patrick said.

All they do is represent people, why do they need to make twice as much as the people they claim to represent? Tie the pay to the average income.

Posted by CarltonFisk January 8, 09 02:33 PM

Can we see a list of lawmakers that rejected the raise and the ones that took the raise, so we can contact our Reps and Senators to reprimand them about it?

Posted by Mikey “Insane” Monkeypants January 8, 09 02:39 PM

Can we see a list of lawmakers that rejected the raise and the ones that took the raise, so we can contact our Reps and Senators to reprimand them about it?

Posted by Mikey “Insane” Monkeypants January 8, 09 02:40 PM

Why should they get 5.5% when most people–if they are lucky–are getting 3%??? Is it because they are that much “better” than the average worker in this state?

Posted by Kittie Shroeder January 8, 09 02:42 PM

** Asked what he would tell a lawmaker who wanted to know whether to accept the pay raise, he said, “My answer to him or her is to him or her and not to the general public.” **
Everything HE does, he has to answer to the public. Shame on him for not asking the law makers whether they want to raise, which will make him look good to the general public…

Posted by Ryan January 8, 09 02:43 PM

as we prepare for job cuts to teachers, firefighters, police officers due to cuts in local aid, as state mental health workers are laid off, we are told that the state legislators are getting a raise, the governor refurnishes his limo, nice…time to do the right thing – turn down the raise this year by legislation.

Posted by Dave January 8, 09 02:49 PM

Just goes to show you, the Democratic Party is the party of the selfish and greedy.

Posted by myco1 January 8, 09 02:49 PM

“I also appreciate that legislators don’t make very much money,” Patrick said.
By what standards? What abot the per diem? What about extra $$$ for committee work? What about envelopes stuffed with cash?

Posted by ThomB January 8, 09 02:53 PM

WOW….Everywhere else in the world the average raise ( if any ) is 1-3 percent usually averaged at 2 … AND THAT’S FOR PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WORK..But of course DiMasi would stick by the law on this one…too bad he is not as good sticking to the law elswhere. Why they would get anything now with massive layoffs and cutbacks everywhere is a trip…………only in Massachusetts !!!! I say in view of the declining economy if they must get a raise and that’s another subject, then it SHOULD be lowered accordingly.

Posted by whendoesitend January 8, 09 02:56 PM

Dimasi, you are a disgrace. I thought Bulger & Finneran were the last of the corrupt leadership, but you seem to want to take the flag. Leave it to you to try & justify a raise in these economic times when people whom have worked hard for a living actually putting in 40 hours or more per week have lost their jobs, & are facing the threat of losing their homes as well. Meanwhile you and the members of the State House of Reps have barely ever worked more than 10 hours a week for the constituents, never mind even considering doing something meaningful to work on the economic problems facing the taxpayers of this state. What a bunch of cowards we have elected, that dared not stand up to you when it came time to vote for the House Leader. Do the Taxpayers of this state a big favor & resign before the entire state goes to hell under your corrupt leadership

Posted by Dave January 8, 09 02:59 PM

Kudos to them! It’s about time you see a politician or group of politicians that do not want to line their pockets and give to the community! I hope this inspires more politicians to do the same!!

Posted by Melissa January 8, 09 02:59 PM

This isn’t clear. Donating a pay raise to charity is not rejecting a pay raise.

Posted by Sean January 8, 09 03:01 PM

don’t make much money? is their job any more challenging or important than anyone else’s? no. we are all equal. at least they make enough to pay rent in mass. enough so they don’t have to work two, three jobs to make ends meet.

Posted by sarah zappa January 8, 09 03:08 PM

PAY RAISES NOW IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO EVERY LAID OFF WORKER IN THE STATE.IT WILL BE REMEMBERED IN THE POLES.

Posted by RON MCDONALD January 8, 09 03:14 PM

They don’t make very much money? Is this guy so out of touch that he actually thinks that $58,000, plus a stipend for being a committe chair or in leadership, and a per diem is not a lot of money?? I cannot believe these people are this politically tone deaf. Today I heard that 100 mental health workers are being laid off. But, the state legislature will receive a pay raise. This is surreal.

Posted by Brian Flaherty January 8, 09 03:15 PM

And you wonder why MA towns and cities are bankrupt?!! Thank you, Mr. Cadillac….

Posted by R. B. Williams January 8, 09 03:17 PM

What is wrong with these people? Raise the tolls, get a raise, Hey is it me or has anyone noticed that great press the House has been getting these days?
I would think mumbles the Mayor might take a stand, like the song says ”

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi defended the increase today in a statement:
He must feel great to get reelected and not have the common sense to say
How the people of Massachusetss are hurting, now let’s hurt them some more.

Gred Greed Greed

Posted by JG January 8, 09 03:26 PM

Politicians doing good things? Am I in Bizarro Land?

Posted by DI$CO January 8, 09 03:27 PM

Congratulations to these folks. I’d like to see more of this at the top levels.

Posted by N.Spivey January 8, 09 03:28 PM

ok, help me out here….so they “reject” the raise, but then will “donate” it to a charity. so are they “rejecting” it or “donating” it, which is it?
because the last time i checked my accounting degree, the person who “donates” it gets credit for it against their taxes. i would not have a problem “donating” $3000 if you gave me $3000 to “donate”.

Posted by doug January 8, 09 03:29 PM

donating to charity is not the same as refusing the raise, since if they donate it to charity, it will still count towards their pension and towards future salary (are they donating that raise forever and future % raises based on the salary with the raise, even if they give it to charity. While it is cute that a few are giving the increase away (this year) it is disingenuous and deceitful to say they are refusing the raise if they are in fact donating the money to their favorite charity.

Posted by john January 8, 09 03:31 PM

I think this is silly for some lawmakers to make this into a public issue. WE THE VOTERS AGREED TO THIS! And if you don’t want to take it now, donate it like some are, but keep it quiet. What’s the use of being charitable if you’re only doing it to gain points or favor? Thats gamesmanship, not charity.

Posted by krystyn January 8, 09 03:32 PM

House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi defended the increase today in a statement, saying it was the product of a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1998 designed. Of Course he defended the pay increase, Dimasi is a CROOK.

Posted by HATETHEDEMS January 8, 09 03:32 PM

I can’t understand how this even got this far, Patrick should be ashamed of himself and this auto pay raise stunt. People are struggling with this tanking economy, real estate taxes are up this year (even though values are sinking) local benefits are just about gone, unemployment is up and all we hear about it this auto pay raise and the floor cheering iton. Wwhat a slap in the face to the people of MA.

Posted by Jim D. January 8, 09 03:32 PM

If the Republicans were smart… they would all forfeit their “raises.”

Posted by oscarbozach January 8, 09 03:35 PM

People are getting raises in the MA state government when there are tons of people getting laid off everyday?? You have got to be kidding me!! How about stuffing it!! My husband got laid off on Tuesday and went to the unemployment office on Tuesday the man working there pointed to a sign which read ” we can not take anymore claims due to the high volume until after 1 pm” My husband went back this morning and was there just after 8 am. The line must have had about 200 people in it and they only allowed 30!!! What is going on?? You are luck to have a job never mind getting a pay raise. I will not vote for anyone that acpets the pay raise!!

Posted by Joe Smo January 8, 09 03:41 PM

Democrats are such phonie’s , their job is a partime job and deval saying they dont make much just like he said anyone who is cynical is dumb . It looks like he’s the dumb one and a liars also, property tax relief remember that.

Posted by redzone300 January 8, 09 03:47 PM

This looks noble, but we put automatic raises in there for a reason. They used to get no raises for a long time, then had to take a huge increase to make up for years of stagnant wages. Having regular raises, tied to an index, so we wouldn’t have to discuss this issue again.

In reality, these raises are nothing compared to the larger overall issues. But now we’re going to have a few weeks of posturing and back and forth and ‘lets change this law’ and all kinds of other distractions about a process we put in place to avoid future distractions. sigh

Posted by John Mc January 8, 09 03:47 PM

“My answer to him or her is to him or her and not to the general public.” – that’s some quote by the governor. Unforutantely Deval Patrick is devoid of political courage, so much so that he won’t even state an opinion. Perhaps if the legislators refused this pay increase then some of the 100 mental health case managers would not have to be laid off by the state.

Posted by Dotman33 January 8, 09 03:50 PM

5.5 is pretty high. If there was no layoffs going on within the state or country the going rate is 2.5% Why did Deval go so high? I applaud those politicians that are giving the money back to their communities and am not surprised with our beloved House Speaker DiMasi

Posted by Joe January 8, 09 03:51 PM

woo hoo we do have some decent ppl in the goverment

Posted by donna simmons January 8, 09 03:51 PM

Deval Patrick should be ashamed of himself putting this increase in salary in motion, for the do nothing legislature. With all of the cuts being made in the budget and the suffering of people in this state, he has the audacity to set up a pay raise. Perhaps we should all remember this the next time he runs for public office.

Posted by L146 January 8, 09 03:53 PM

So, the state is facing budget crunches, yet more pay raises?? I’m not following the logic.

Posted by Bob Beltran January 8, 09 04:00 PM

“I also appreciate that legislators don’t make very much money,” Patrick said.
Are you kidding me!? $58k a year is not very much money? I wonder how many hours they actually put in. My wife and I work 60 hour work weeks and with the overtime we don’t even make that much a piece. We own a home in the burbs and are paying crazy property and state income taxes. Our health insurance premiums go up every year and the benefits go down. Tell the lawmakers to make do with what they get just like everyone else that has to actually work for a living. Deval is used to hanging around millionaires and is out of touch.

Posted by Tommy T January 8, 09 04:02 PM

“House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi defended the increase today in a statement, saying it was the product of a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1998 designed to remove legislative pay decisions from the political process.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How about putting it to the voters AGAIN, Speaker DiMasi? I’d bet those voters would disagree with it and repeal that “constitutional amendment” you claim we approved!

Yeah, can’t see that happening anytime soon!

Posted by Linda January 8, 09 04:06 PM

I am not sure who provided infonation to say salaries went up last year but that should be looked into with great detail. I think if that data was manipulated then
we should have some dismisals.

It was ridiculous to hand out raises when the state is short 5 billion dollars
and laying off people.

Posted by ghadi January 8, 09 04:06 PM

Operative word – SOME

Posted by justducky January 8, 09 04:08 PM

This raise should settle the debate once and for all on whether or not elected officals in Mass (or anywhere for that mater) really give a crap about anything or if they just keep inundating us wuith LIP SERVICE and then do whatever they want. DISGUSTING GREED in a time of reform…..Pathetic

Posted by david January 8, 09 04:10 PM

Where do they get the stats that state’s median income increased 5.5%? Did magic fairies deliver that on a golden scroll?

Posted by politicsasusual January 8, 09 04:14 PM

THE MONEY IS TAKEN OUT OF OUR TAXES…..AND WHERE MOST COMPANIES AREN’T GETTING RAISES, WHY SHOULD THEY? I AM APPALLED AT THE GREED…AND AT LEAST HAPPY THAT SOME LAWMAKERS HAVE THE GOOD JUDGEMENT TO REJECT THIS YEAR.

“House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi defended the increase today in a statement, saying it was the product of a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1998 designed to remove legislative pay decisions from the political process. Lawmakers receive a pay raise or cut every two years that is equal to the fluctuation in the state’s median household income as determined by the governor. ”

WHY DOES HE KEEP GETTING ELECTED?…..THIS IS NOT 1998…AND THESE ARE TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES….WHAT A JERK.

Posted by CAR January 8, 09 04:15 PM

“I also appreciate that legislators don’t make very much money,” Patrick said. I would say that $61,440 is pretty good money…….for a part time job, which is what being a state legislator is. They all have real jobs they spend most of their time working at. A pay raise? I don’t think so.

Posted by BillyRay January 8, 09 04:24 PM

How big of Patrick since he now must be enjoying days off in his 10,000 sq ft (2nd) home in the Berkshires while he proposes to cut $200,000.00 out of the budget for Tufts Dental which gives fantastic services to severely disabled people. Real leadership.

Thanks to those who see that forgoing the raise or donating it to those in need is a very nice thing to do in these tough times.

Posted by jack January 8, 09 04:25 PM

Good ole Sal Dimasi.. Mr Entitlment.

Posted by Paul January 8, 09 04:29 PM

I would really be interested in seeing this formula that Governor Patrick came up with that calculates the state’s median income increased by 5.5 percent. Barney Keller said it best, “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to calculate … that the amount of the raise should be exactly zero.” I commend those that have donated their raises to charity in these times of economic hardship.

Posted by Katie hankard January 8, 09 04:41 PM

…hah… they don’t make very much money…… I make about 2/3 of what they made before the increase and I have to suffer through a 4% pay decrease…

Posted by kf January 8, 09 04:42 PM

These pay increases should not even be on the table, I knew this would happen that’s why a yes vote on question one was needed. Same old crap in this state.

Posted by Red January 8, 09 04:45 PM

These pay increases should not even be on the table, I knew this would happen that’s why a yes vote on question one was needed. Same old crap in this state.

Posted by Red January 8, 09 04:46 PM

“My answer to him or her is to him or her and not to the general public.”

ARE YOU KIDDING DEVOLVE?? YOU work FOR the General PUBLIC!!!!
Can we get this quote in your JOKE of a book “Leadership” ????
Why didnt Obama take him away from us???

Please ..2010 cant come soon enough!!!!

Posted by Agentfostergrant January 8, 09 04:53 PM

Good for them. And Deval’s “Legislator’s dont make much” comment on WTKK today is just a blatant lie. Most of them are attorneys and accountants that do this for part-time work.

Anybody for impeaching Deval? We need this guy out of MA – and out of government.

Posted by impeachdeval January 8, 09 05:04 PM

Deval “appreciates that legislators don’t make very much money?” I made 20% less than they made before their pay increase, and that was before my 20% pay cut due to the economy and I have a bachelors degree and work in a professional office! WTF!

Posted by Smahtguy January 8, 09 05:10 PM

While laudable on the surface, it seems to me that if the lawmakers are rejecting a raise triggered by a rise in median income, then they are in fact politicizing the pay raise by rejecting it. Nobody’s tax bill is going to change one cent on account of these “selfless” legislators. They’re taking a short break from padding their pockets and greasing their friends’ palms for show.

If they want to impress me in these trying economic times, they can quit wasting half the state’s budget while looking for clever, progressive ways to waste even more (*cough* Public Health Council *cough*).

Posted by Troy C January 8, 09 05:11 PM

DiMasi defended the raises, wow, that is shocking…..

Posted by Jenn January 8, 09 05:18 PM

great mr demacedo will donate his raise…. which gives him a tax break…and of course their pension still gets an increase…so big deal.

Posted by steveh January 8, 09 05:20 PM

The point is that the lawmakers’ incomes are tied to the state economy rather than the political process and that is wise ! This year they get a raise and next year very likely not. Just like the rest of us. If some want to donate that extra to charity that’s great and if not, it is their pay.

Posted by EC January 8, 09 05:21 PM

When they take this money and donate to charity, the politician still wins and we lose. The pension gets bumped up and the politician gets the write off.

Posted by Steve January 8, 09 05:25 PM

Can they legally do this?
Here’s why I ask:
Here in Illinois, a county official made a public spectable about rejecting her pay raise, and then publicly demanded that other county elected officials do the same.
After the media circus, it was quietly leaked that she, by law, cannot refuse the raise – more to the point cannot change her base pay – in the year prior to or following an election (something like that, anyway).
Turns out that she knew before she made her public spectacle that she could not refuse her raise.
So, Globe reporters, I ask: Can the state lawmakers legally refuse the raise?

Posted by Chris in Illinois January 8, 09 05:26 PM

shame on Massachusetts. Politician’s greed is unquenchable. You WILL be found out and you WILL be VOTED out.

Posted by Deval Patrick the hat trick January 8, 09 05:35 PM

MASS. VOTERS GET EXACTLY WHAT THEY DESERVE AND HERE IT COMES!

Posted by w4846 January 8, 09 05:46 PM

Thank you, with much respect and honor to our Mass. constituents who truly have our best interest in mind. Here are representatives that truly are invested in their communities and districts and state of Mass.: Representatives Viriato deMacedo (R), Karyn Polito (R) Shrewsbury, House Minority Leader (R) Bradley Jones, Garrett Bradley (D) Hingham, and Harriet L. Stanley(D) W Newbury.

Posted by karen W January 8, 09 05:47 PM

I don’t know of anyone in the private sector who has received a raise during this time of economic crisis, I do know many who have lost their homes and jobs though. I for one am struggling to pay my bills and feed my family as I watch the government stick their greedy hands into my paycheck every week and pay for ridiculous items such as a $46,000 Cadillac or $10,000 curtains. I’d be curious to add up the total of the 5.5% pay increase and see how many mouths could be fed…

Posted by Kelli January 8, 09 05:58 PM

Massachusetts is a disgrace. These people who take this are pigs and those who do not vote them out are as stupid as they get. Or, is everyone in the State on the take? Have they no clue? Look at the other states, just in New England they are 50% higher already. This is THE problem, they think this is a real job they are a disgrace,

Posted by Scott January 8, 09 06:09 PM

Did anyone see the President-Elect’s comments today when he said “Government at every level will have to tighten its belt….”. (if you didn’t, its in another front page Globe article). He must have been talking about the other 49 states. Why do our pols think they are exempt from this?
Our elected officials are too busy working for themselves or on their re-elections. Unfortunately our own state’s ethics laws are too weak and outdated to keep up with everything that’s going on. We already have taxation without representation – its time for another tea party!!!

Posted by bogie January 8, 09 06:23 PM

When the next election comes around, let your representative know how you feel about him/ her taking a 5.5 % increase while you may have been looking at a cut. Send them down the road, to look for a REAL job.

Posted by Bruce Warner January 8, 09 06:38 PM

No matter I still say DUMP THE INCUMBENTS. Clean out the House and Senate. Time for a big time do over!

Posted by XENOPHON January 8, 09 06:45 PM

Last resident to move out of MA, remember to turn off the lights- or better yet, switch the billing to the MA legislators…..

Posted by R. B. Williams January 8, 09 07:15 PM

I think Sal DiMasi is a disgrace, but running a close second is Republican Party spokesman Barney Keller. The voters approved a constitutional amendment tying legislators’ raises to the median income. A constitutional amendment has to pass two successive legislative sessions and gain a gubernatorial signature. In 1996 the governor was a Republican, Bill Weld. In 1998, the governor was also a Republican, Paul Cellucci. If you’re going to attack the Legislature on this one, you should attack all the legislators during the 1996 and 1998 sessions — and the two Republican governors! You’re a fraud, Barney, just like DiMasi. The two of you have more in common than you know!

Posted by TellTheTruth January 8, 09 07:29 PM

Isn’t that nice, another pay raise for a bunch of useless and corrupted public officials. Don’t any of you think that they don’t make much $$$, they ALL have a perk somewhere such as a chairmanship etc. That all adds into their pay but no one is talking about it.
What did I hear the other day that politicians can ask for a raise in their pension if they don’t get re-elected, another perk! Try that if you lose your job to the recession which all these useless individuals created.
TERM LIMITATIONS is the only solution to their very lucrative positions in government and I don’t mean just at the state level!

Posted by concerned individual January 8, 09 07:35 PM

Most of you seem to be missing something. This was approved by voters in 1998, NOT something legislators voted on themselves. That said, they make plenty for what is largely a part-time job. I know at least one state senator (Scott Brown) and one state Rep. (Ross) who have other full time jobs–Ross has a funeral home, and Brown is a lawyer and a Reservist (or National Guard). I am sure others have similar positions. They should give the money to the towns in the districts they represent.

Posted by mhc90 January 8, 09 09:20 PM

5.5% is a modest raise? What world does Sal live in?

Posted by ME January 8, 09 09:30 PM

“I also appreciate that legislators don’t make very much money,” Patrick said. Before their 5.5% pay increase they make 20% more than I do, and that is before my 20% pay cut I got a month ago….I have a bachelors degree and work for a profesional company! Government is supposed to make the world a better place, not get rich! WTF!

Posted by smahtguy January 8, 09 10:10 PM

I’ve got a great idea — why don’t we get rid of at least half of the state representatives in Massachusetts. We don’t need 160 reps. for a state with only 6 million people. California, with a population of 33 million, only has 80 state reps. We could save a lot of money by getting rid of at least 80 of those state reps — at least $8 million. Then we can slash the salaries of the remaining 80 by at least 50%. We could easily save $10 million by doing these two things.

Posted by Joe Buck January 8, 09 10:26 PM

You (the Massachusetts voters) voted back in 1998 to allow the legislators pay to be raised by this amount.

Why are you so angry about something you voted on? You sound like contradictory morons.

Stop voting like idiots and maybe this state won’t be such a laughing stock!

Posted by Mikey “Insane” Monkeypants January 8, 09 11:25 PM

I don’t get what everyone’s problem is. Seriously, their wages are tied to the house median income, they get raises AND cuts according to the median income. So if they get a 5.5% increase now (to reflect the economy a year ago), then next pay change they will have a double digit decrease. They don’t set their own pay rates, the state of the economy does (albeit on a time delay)

Posted by dt January 9, 09 12:29 AM

I know that Senator Brown has donated similar increases in the past to charities in his District and has already disclosed that thia increase is going to the ARC groups, food panties and Councils of Aging in his District. Good for him.

~Massachusetts Government Scandals & Political Corruption~» Boston Globe

Michael E. McLaughlin Chelsea Housing Authority Chief Scams State Auditors & Walks with $360,000 a Year

Auditors noted, then ignored, McLaughlin pay

AG investigating repeated failure to act on an outrage that was right in plain view

Joe “The Bull” Lally

Joe Lally fends off lawyers

John O’brien – Timothy Cahill – Deval Patrick – Political Patronage

Probation Commissioner John O’Brien suspended as Mass. Treasurer Timothy Cahill explains decision to hire O’Brien’s wife, daughter

Published: Monday, May 24, 2010, 3:45 PM Updated: Monday, May 24, 2010, 4:03 PM

Boston Probation Department Scandal – Commissionor Christopher J. Bulger Corruption

Special counsel’s report puts another Bulger under microscope

Top O’Brien aide suspended, may face disbarment

Related

Patronage in the Probation Dept.

Tom Finneran “Dummies UP” During Probation Department Probe

Finneran was silent when queried on agency patronage!!!

I PLEAD THE FIFTH…

Thomas M. Finneran pushed through a 2001 change in law that gave John J. O’Brien personal control over Probation Department hiring and promotion.

Related

Patronage in the Probation Dept.

Dianne Wilkerson – No-show Job

Wilkerson hit with another allegation

With sentencing near, prosecutors cite no-show job

Wilkerson pleaded guilty to attempted extortion.

Chuck Turner – Boston Councilor CONVICTED!

Boston Councilor Chuck Turner convicted on all counts in corruption case

State Senator Marian Walsh

Walsh pulls out amid uproar

Senator will not pursue $120,000-a-year state post

Tom Finneran

Not a fan, felonious Tom Finneran? Well pardon me!

Tom Finneran Felon Finneran

Finneran’s gathering storm

Ex-speaker’s strongest traits may have hastened his fall

Legislators Pay Raise MA

Some state lawmakers reject pay raise