Showing posts with label boston city council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boston city council. Show all posts

Monday, September 21, 2009

Globe Decides Boston Has Only Two Councilors-At-Large -- Not Four

For people who read the Boston Globe online, they often miss out little sidebar text that contain nuggets of useful information.

Or misinformation.

From a sidebar on the front page of Sunday's Globe:
Boston city
councilor

CANDIDATES:

13 challengers and
two incumbents for
two at-large seats
No. No. No.

It should have read: "13 challengers and two incumbents for four at-large seats." (Would the Globe have written "Three challengers and one incumbent for zero district 9 seats"? No way.)

Metro Editor Brian McGrory has already admitted that he could hardly care less about the Boston City Council. But at least his guys at the Globe should get their facts straight on the rare occasion that they show a little bit of interest in the city council.

When and where will the Globe's correction run? My prediction: nowhere.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Information on District 9 City Council Candidates

The preliminary municipal election is scheduled for Tuesday, September 22nd. Polls open at 7 am and close at 8 pm. The Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor race is being contested with four candidates; the two top vote-getters will face off during the November municipal election.

Also on the ballot:
  • Mayor of Boston, where incumbent Thomas Menino faces three challengers, City Councilors-At-Large Michael Flaherty and Sam Yoon, and developer Kevin McCrea; and
  • Four City Councilors-At-Large, where incumbents John Connolly and Stephen Murphy face 13 challengers, with the top eight vote-getters moving on to the November municipal election.

District 9 City Councilor Candidate Information

All four candidates for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor have websites that include positions on some issues:
Boston Neighborhood News ran interview shows -- one with Abigail Furey and Alex Selvig, the other with Mark Ciommo and Benjamin Narodick -- some of which can be found on YouTube. The following candidates have YouTube channels set up:
The first candidates forum (9/15/09 at WGBH) is summarized here.

Second candidates forum (9/17/09 at Elks) is summarized here and tweeted here. Emails discussed here and here. Online video is here (alternatively, the same video content is here).

The Allston-Brighton TAB has covered the candidates in the following stories:
The Boston Globe has not covered the race to date. The following are searches on the names of the candidates to the Globe's archives (Narodick has no hits):
The Boston Herald continues its tradition of not covering the District 9 City Council race as well as virtually ignoring all Allston-Brighton neighborhood issues -- unless they can put a picture of a Harvard rat on the front page.

Campaign finance reports are summarized here, and individual reports posted at Harry Mattison's blog:
Some of the candidates have published Op-Ed columns and letters-to-the-editor in local newspapers during 2009:
And here at the Brighton Centered Blog you can find a story about any of the candidates using the tag's at the end of the articles or these links:
All the blog posts can also be found by using the "election2009" tag here at Brighton Centered.


Corrections and/or additions? Email me at pahre@comcast.net

Image of question mark in Esbjerg by alexanderdrachman provided through a Creative Commons license.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council Candidates Forum

Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council Candidates Forum

Sponsored by the Brighton Allston Improvement Association


Thursday, September 17th
6:30 pm --- Informal Meet-and-Greet with the Candidates
7:00 - 8:30 pm --- Candidates Forum
Moderated by: Michael Pahre


Brighton Elks Lodge
326 Washington Street, Brighton, MA 02135
Limited parking available at rear of the building


Light refreshments will be served for a meet-and-greet with the
candidates beginning at 6:30 pm. Attendees may submit questions for the
candidates prior to the 7:00 pm start. Due to time constraints not all
questions submitted will be selected. No campaign signs inside the
venue, please.

The preliminary election to narrow the field from four to two candidates
will take place on Tuesday, September 22nd. This election will shape
the future of our neighborhood and this is your opportunity to meet the
candidates running for Allston-Brighton's City Council seat. Please come
and hear where the candidates stand on current neighborhood issues as well
as their vision for our community.


Candidates for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor (links to their webpages):





View Larger Map

Monday, May 26, 2008

City Council Looking Into Bisphenol A in Baby Bottles

The Boston City Council will be holding hearings Thursday afternoon on the potential health impacts of the chemical compound Bisphenol A (BPA, C15H16O2) that is used in the manufacture of many baby bottles. Councilor-At-Large John Connolly, chair of the council's Committee on Environment and Health, called for the hearing.

BPA is commonly used to manufacture hard plastics that are also transparent, such as the water bottles made by Nalgene, as well as the linings in canned and bottled foods and drinks. The chemical has been linked to concerns over various neural and behavioral problems particularly in young children. The National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health recently issued a draft report on BPA concluding that:
there is some concern for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures. The NTP also has some concern for bisphenol A exposure in these populations based on effects in the prostate gland, mammary gland, and an earlier age for puberty in females. [emphasis in original]
Why would the Boston City Council take up the case of possibly banning the sale of baby bottles made with BPA since such issues are usually in the domain of the federal government's Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Product Safety Commission?

Because the federal government has been way behind the curve on this topic -- avoiding or delaying regulatory action on BPA, possibly in part due to influence exerted by the chemical manufacturing industry.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a two-part investigative report in November 2007 on the health impacts of BPA and how agencies in the federal government were failing to act to regulate its manufacture or use. Their report found that "the federal government's assurances that [BPA] is safe are based on outdated U.S. government studies and research heavily funded by the chemical industry." Bill Moyer's Journal this week carried a story about the Journal Sentinel's coverage which you can watch online (or also on demand with Comcast).

Steven Hentges of the American Chemical Council -- the chemical industry's trade association that also runs a Political Action Committee that spent $2.39 million in federal lobbying in 2007 and $85,000 in Massachusetts state lobbying in 2007 -- will be speaking at the hearing. (Hentges is not a registered lobbyist either with the state or federal governments.)

After Canada banned the import and sale of plastic baby bottles containing BPA, Hentges criticized such bans as not being based on science. Oddly, the American Chemistry Council even issued a press release after Canada's ban quoting Hentges claiming that “the weight of scientific evidence, as assessed by Health Canada and other agencies around the world, provides reassurance that consumers can continue to safely use products made from bisphenol A." Turning a government's move to ban a product into a statement that the product is safe sounds like more spin than a Tasmanian Devil.

Also speaking at the hearing will be Mia Davis, National Grassroots Coordinator with the Clean Water Fund and co-author of the book "Baby's Toxic Bottle," and Dr. Michael Shannon, Chair of the Division of Emergency Medicine at The Children’s Hospital of Boston.

How do you know if a particular hard plastic product contains BPA? There is no way to know, since disclosure of its presence is not required to be reported. That's part of the problem. Nonetheless, apparently only plastics falling under categories 3 and 7 (the recycling numbers on the bottom of the bottle) potentially contain BPA.

San Francisco banned baby bottles containing BPA in December 2006, but never enforce their ban and later rescinded it. Canada banned them in April 2008, and Senator Charles Schumer has introduced legislation to ban them in the U. S. Ten states have legislation currently pending for their own bans on the bottles. Nalgene and Fisher Scientific have announced that they will stop producing the bottles, and Wal-mart and Toys-R-Us/Babies-R-Us are phasing out carrying bottles made with BPA.


Scientific Consensus Reached

The NIH convened a panel of experts in November 2006 to assess the literature relating to "concerns about the potential for a relationship between BPA and negative trends in human health that have occurred in recent decades." The panel issued a series six papers in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, including the consensus statement of the participants (vom Saal et al. 2007, Reproductive Toxicology, 24, 131-138, "Chapel Hill bisphenol A expert panel consensus statement"):
...Human exposure to BPA is within the range that is predicted to be biologically active in over 95% of people sampled. The wide range of adverse effects of low doses of BPA in laboratory animals exposed both during development and in adulthood is a great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans. Recent trends in human diseases relate to adverse effects observed in experimental animals exposed to low doses of BPA. Specific examples include: the increase in prostate and breast cancer, uro-genital abnormalities in male babies, a decline in semen quality in men, early onset of puberty in girls, metabolic disorders including insulin resistant (type 2) diabetes and obesity, and neurobehavioral problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

There is extensive evidence that outcomes may not become apparent until long after BPA exposure during development has occurred... These developmental effects are irreversible and can occur due to low dose exposure during brief sensitive periods in development, even though no BPA may be detected when the damage or disease is expressed. [emphasis added]
Note that the consensus statement of the 38 scientists convened for this panel addressed the health impacts of low doses of BPA, particularly emphasizing the evidence for long-term, irreversible effects initiated due to exposure during early childhood development. This is the apparent reason why recent concerns have focused on baby bottles, rather than linings for food and soda cans.


City Council Hearing

Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008

Time: 3:00 pm

Location: Iannella Chamber, 5th Floor of Boston City Hall


Other people will be allowed to testify at the hearing.


Image of Nalgene bottle by ryanmack provided through a Creative Commons license.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Familiar Face Consulting for Councilor Ciommo

The agenda for today's City Council meeting had a slew of "temporary" (i.e., fiscal year-end) appointments for staff members of the various councilors. Buried amongst those announcements, however, was one that caught my eye:
0608 Order for the appointment of temporary employee Kevin Carragee in City Council.
Brighton residents know Carragee well as an Oak Square resident who, along with his wife, have played a crucial role in forming the Presentation School Foundation and purchasing those school buildings from the Archdiocese of Boston. He's active in the community and is on the faculty at Suffolk University.

Why would Carragee be taking a job working for a city councilor -- presumably Allston-Brighton District 9 Councilor Mark Ciommo?

He's got a perfectly good job already, and Ciommo probably can't afford him on the small staffing budget a city councilor has at his disposable.

Councilor Ciommo confirmed that Carragee will be working with his office, but only for 20 or so total hours over the next month or two as a consultant to improve the communications and delivery of constituent services in Ciommo's office. Carragee's faculty position is in the Department of Communcation and Journalism, after all, so this kind of consulting work is right up his alley.

Mystery solved.


Image of OLP Grammar School from Brighton Allston Historical Society.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

BC Reportedly Renews Bid to Buy 2000 Comm Ave Apartment Building for $68 Million

Boston College is reportedly once again secretly trying to purchase the apartment building at 2000 Commonwealth Avenue, according to a report in GlobeSt.com today, for a price in the neighborhood $68 million.

BC previously tried unsuccessfully to purchase the building in 1992-3. Paul Barrett, then-director of the BRA, was opposed to BC buying the property and turning the building into a dormitory (archive fee). That is pretty strong opposition coming from Barrett -- particularly since he not only graduated from BC in 1978, but also captained the BC hockey team (archive fee).

The current building was constructed in 1985 by developer Jerry Rappaport over neighborhood objections due to its 16-story height being out of character for the Comm Ave corridor and nearby Chestnut Hill Reservoir. Mayor Raymond Flynn vowed to help Brighton residents to block the construction project, but the City Council intervened (archive fee) -- under the pro-developer push of District Councilors James Kelley and Thomas Menino (archive fee) -- to grant the developer a building height exemption above the allowed 70 feet. Allston-Brighton District Councilor Brian McLaughlin was one of only three votes against the exemption; Councilor Charles Yancey was another.

Rappaport sold the property in 1997 (archive fee) to Smith Property Holdings (current address in Colorado) for $27.5 million.

Before the current building was constructed, four construction workers were killed in 1971 (archive fee) on the same site when the roof fell in and the building, 75% completed, collapsed.


Off-Campus Student Dormitory

In recent years, much of the building has been occupied by undergraduate students of Boston College, with one BC official mentioning an approximately 40% student occupancy rate. Online reports of the student behavior in the building are highly negative, such as, "If you like to party all night and don't plan on sleeping for your entire stay here then move on in. Otherwise, stay away."

Despite such stories, Father William Leahy, S. J., President of BC, has stated that he believes the students in tall, off-campus apartment buildings, like 2000 Comm Ave, "rarely encounter the same kind of problems" (archive fee) as found in 1- or 2-family houses occupied by students. His argument appears to be unsupported. Yet BC has repeatedly insisted that on-campus students actually behave worse in tall dormitory buildings, and therefore BC has pushed for dormitories not to exceed four stories.

If BC were to purchase 2000 Comm Ave -- thereby likely turning it into on-campus undergraduate housing -- would they chop off all the stories above the fourth floor to ensure that their students occupying the building would behave well? Or were their arguments all along simply a ruse?


Via UniversalHub.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Picture ThisNOW: New City Councilors Sworn In, Then Cropped Out

BostonNOW isn't having a good week.

First, their printed paper being distributed mid-morning today has a cover title, "Obama's big day / High turnout among independents could be his key in N.H." Oops. Senator Hillary Clinton beat Senator Barack Obama in yesterday's New Hampshire Democratic primary, but that final result appears to have come in too late for BostonNOW's publication deadline. The print edition distributed later in the morning appears to have a different cover -- fortunately about Senator John McCain's big day, not former Governor Mitt Romney's.

The Obama-gaffe was preceded by a story in yesterday's BostonNOW about the swearing-in ceremony for the Boston City Councilors at Faneuil Hall Monday. Noting that the Council "welcomed two new members: John Connolly and Mark Ciommo of Allston-Brighton," BostonNOW ran an accompanying photo -- then proceeded to crop both new councilors out of the photo. Maybe this is a freshman councilor hazing stunt by the media?

In the photo -- or, more properly, out-of-the-photo -- Councilor Connolly is in the front-row off-camera to the right; Councilor Ciommo is in the back-row, also off-camera to the right. The Boston Globe ran a picture with all the councilors on page B1 of Tuesday's paper.

Let's hope the two new City Councilors get treated better when assigning them office space.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Bulk Mailing Permits: Not Much Evidence There

The Boston Herald has been focusing on the apparent link between Councilor-At-Large-elect John Connolly's campaign mailings and the anonymous attack mailings sent the week before the election that he has denied sending -- but which share the same bulk mailing permit number (out of North Reading) as at least some other bulk mailings sent by the Connolly campaign.

How unique is such a match for the bulk mailing permit?

I've been shoving some of the mailings I received during the campaign into a yellow envelope, so this gives me the opportunity to pull them out to inspect the bulk mailing permit numbers. I got two other packrats in town to help out. We all braved the silverfish while reporting for this story. The numbers in parentheses gives the number of unique mailings the three of us received from that candidate. (There might be some duplicates among us.)

#231 (No. Reading, MA or zipcode 01864): Alex Selvig (6); Mark Ciommo (1); Rosie Hanlon (2)
#315 (Brockton, MA): Greg Glennon (3)
#396 (Boston, MA): Steven Tolman/Kevin Honan/Michael Moran [not campaign literature] (1); Steve Murphy (1)
#755 (Boston, MA): Mark Ciommo (4)
#52955 (Boston, MA): Steve Murphy (4)
#54162 (Boston, MA): Tim Schofield (1); John Connolly (5)
#54302 (Boston, MA): Sam Yoon (1)

I'm not sure if permit #231 is the same one out of North Reading on the anonymous mailing the Herald referred to, but it looks like a reasonable inference.

Does the bulk mailing "evidence" mean that Selvig, Ciommo, and/or Hanlon are the real culprits who sent the anonymous mailing(s) with the North Reading bulk mailing permits? Or that the bulk mailing permit line of evidence just isn't a unique piece of evidence all by itself? I'll bet on the latter.

The Herald's linking of Connolly to the remaining anonymous mailings via the evidence of bulk mailing permit numbers is not a unique match: many mailings from various campaigns may use the same permit numbers. Instead, the Herald's reporting should be focusing on the other factors that they are really using to assess a possible link between Connolly and the mailings: motive, means, and opportunity. That's where the discussion should be focused.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

"Ironic Plea" from the Boston Globe Editorial Board

Adam Reilly has a hard-hitting story in the Boston Phoenix this week about the mainstream media's virtual failure to cover the Boston City Council campaign and election:
...in the run-up to elections, the Globe had helped foster the very apathy [the Globe's editorial] was now lamenting — ignoring some campaigns, skimping on candidate profiles, and generally signaling that the election didn’t matter much.
Reilly calls the Globe's editorial an "ironic plea."  Is this the making of a news room vs. editorial page divide like that in the Wall Street Journal?

Reilly got Brian McGrory, the news editor, on-the-record about his paper's lack of coverage:
“What you saw this year isn’t really Boston politics,” argues McGrory. “We had an incredibly lackluster campaign, with a field of candidates who weren’t campaigning all that hard. This cannot be in any way confused with what would happen in a mayoral election in which we had two candidates offering sharply divergent views on how to run the city.

“The council hasn’t exactly distinguished itself with accomplishments over the last 16 years or so, since [Menino] has been in office,” he continues. “If the council proved to be a major policymaking body — if they had incredible enthusiasm for the campaign — we would have covered that very enthusiastically.”
Those words are pretty similar to what McGrory wrote in 2003 as a metro columnist in the Globe, thereby indicating that it was an affirmative managerial decision not to cover the race.

Reilly lectures McGrory by describing six news stories that the Globe could have run during the election, were he to think slightly deeper about the race:
1) Does Flaherty have the guts to challenge Menino for the mayoralty in 2009?
2) Steve Murphy’s cultivation of Governor Deval Patrick and dalliances with employment in the Patrick administration.
3) What Yoon learned, and didn’t, during a bumpy first term on the Council.
4) What’s lost when Boston doesn’t have an at-large female councilor?
5) Why don’t more African-Americans run for the Council?
6) Who are Greg Glennon and Mark Ciommo, the two candidates for the District Nine seat? (The District Nine councilor represents Allston-Brighton, and could have inordinate influence on Harvard University’s future expansion; Ciommo won the race.)
As I showed previously, in 2007 the Boston Globe ran no news stories about the District 9 candidates, while they ran two such news stories during the 2002 campaign.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Federal Postal Regulations May Have Been Violated in Anonymous Mailings

Boston City Councilor-At-Large-elect John Connolly was again in the news over the weekend related to the anonymous mailings sent out the week before the November 6th election. Connolly has admitted to sending out two of the anonymous mailings that attacked Councilor Stephen Murphy, but did not claim responsibility for any other anonymous mailings that were sent out -- although one or more of them have printed bulk mailing permits as other Connolly flyers.

Last weekend, the Boston Herald looked into the the legalities surrounding some of these anonymous mailings related to their use of fictitious return addresses. While the State Legislature passed a law in 2006 allowing anonymous mailings in Massachusetts, there are additional federal postal regulations that must be followed. The Herald reports:
...sending bulk mailings with bogus return addresses could be a violation of federal postal regulations if there was “intent to defraud,” according to Doug Bem, a spokesman for the United States Postal Inspection Service.
The article gave no indication if there was an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The legal condition of "intent to defraud" is probably the big hurdle that any such investigation would have to address. As long as no one steps forward to take responsibility for these mailings, then it would seem like the "intent to defraud" hole is, in effect, being dug deeper by the day.

I noted in a previous post that one of the anonymous mailings that no one has stepped forward to take responsibility for could also pose a problem for whomever sent it, because it mentions voting against a particular candidate for public office; such mailings must be declared to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, yet there is no record of the "South Boston Association" on file at the OCPF's online database.

Connolly's problems just continue to mount. He has chosen not to apologize either for the anonymous nature of the mailings or their content. He will become a colleague with Councilor Murphy, who may not offer forgiveness to someone who hasn't apologized. He appears to be linked to a mailing -- although he denies it, according to the Herald -- that has yet to be fully disclosed under state campaign finance rules. And now he appears to be linked to a mailing -- although he also denies it -- that could be in violation of federal postal regulations.

Connolly's a lawyer. He's got some skills there he may need to use in the days and weeks to come.

Election Urban Legends: Checking Out the Facts

Rain Caused the Low Voter Turnout

Boston's 13.6% turnout was far less than the 23-32% turnout in all previous municipal elections without a mayoral race since 1985. Inclement weather can certainly reduce the turnout for elections, and November 6, 2007 had a good amount of it: half an inch of moderate rain coming down during the day. The rain stopped by 3:00 pm, and the Sun began showing by 3:30 or 4:00 pm.

Did this rain cause the low turnout? Last time I checked, Quincy, Brockton, and Fall River all have weather highly-correlated with Boston; those cities still had around 50% turnout among registered voters for their mayoral elections. You can't tell me that half the people stayed home in Boston, Quincy, Brockton, and Fall River because of the weather... unless the latter three can expect voting rates of 100% -- or more -- when the Sun is shining. Yeah, right.

More likely: voter turnout was depressed a bit by bad weather, but mostly by the blizzard-like-whiteout of horrendously inadequate coverage of the race and issues by the city-wide papers, the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. Those newspapers could have written their campaign coverage via computer program: IF (not cover the campaign && rainy weather) THEN (write column about low voter turnout on election day and a news story the day after). I wonder if all their news coverage could be coded up like this.

Memo to Globe and Herald city news desks: you got the election you asked for. Brian McGrory is my candidate for local news editor of the year, since he appears to have been the most powerful influence in the election via his reporters' non-coverage in the race.


Allston-Brighton Residents Don't Vote

A staple of Boston election politicking is that Allston-Brighton residents don't vote. You can explain it in many different ways, primarily through the transient nature of much of the A-B population, but the bottom line result keeps coming up. A-B Wards 21 and 22 (which includes Ward 21, Precincts 1 and 2 which are not part of District 9) voted in the 2005 municipal election at 23.6% of registered voters, while the city as a whole voted at 35.6%. In the 2005 preliminary municipal election, Wards 21 and 22 voted at 11.5% while the city voted at 15.1%. Conventional Wisdom of city politics dictates that city-wide candidates shouldn't spend much time campaigning in A-B -- or delivering constituent services -- because the residents don't vote enough to make it worthwhile.

In the 2007 election, we have all learned a lesson: Allston-Brighton electoral interest is resurgent. For the first time in recent memory, voters in Wards 21 and 22 turned out at a rate of 12.6% -- a rate nearly matching the city-wide average of 13.6%.

Why? The open A-B District 9 City Council seat likely motivated voters here to turnout for their favorite between Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon. This local race also brought to the fore important neighborhood issues on many voters' minds, particularly those of institutional expansion and the exodus of families from the area. The A-B turnout has its silver lining: A-B residents are showing that they want their neighborhood issues dealt with during the next two years. The City Council and Mayor are bound to take note.


Councilor Michael Flaherty So Encouraged by 2007 Finish That He Will Run for Mayor in 2009

Hold your horses! In 2005, Councilor Flaherty got 49,220 votes to take first-place in the Councilor-At-Large race, thereby beating second-place finisher Councilor Felix Arroyo by more than 5,600 votes. This time, Councilor Flaherty got only 25,847 votes, beating second-place finisher Councilor Stephen Murphy by only 2,206 votes. The difference between first and fourth place in 2007 was only 3,867 votes: the first four candidates ran pretty much neck-and-neck.

On a positive note for him, Councilor Flaherty managed to get a vote off of 55.9% of ballots cast in 2007, up from 50.7% in 2005, in a Councilor-At-Large race that allows voters to cast up to four votes. Nonetheless, in 2005, Mayor Thomas Menino got a vote out of 65.9% of the ballots cast (including blank ballots) in a Mayoral race where voters do not have the opportunity to cast more than one vote. Without a massive voter revolt over the horizon, it's hard to reconcile Menino's and Flaherty's numbers to make it look like the latter would have any chance in a head-to-head competition.

While Councilor Flaherty was bringing in the big bucks for his fundraising in an election year, Mayor Menino decided to do a little bit of his own fundraising in an off-year. During September and October, Mayor Menino raised $229,890; in the same reporting period, Councilor Flaherty only brought in $147,480. Does Councilor Flaherty have piles of his own money to throw into his own race like Maura Hennigan did in her failed 2005 Mayoral bid?

Councilor Flaherty needed to win big on November 6th to make his Mayoral aspirations look credible, but he only won marginally, not overwhelmingly. And the Mayor flexed his fundraising muscles to make it clear.


Bullet Voting in West Roxbury

John Connolly's campaign sent out two anonymous mailings attacking Councilor Stephen Murphy in the last week before the municipal election. There were three additional, anonymous mailings that were sent out around the same time (according to the Boston Globe's summary), but which nobody has stepped out to take responsibility for. Two of those were sent to voters in the Parkway neighborhood (i.e., West Roxbury) lobbying for "bullet votes" for a local candidate, presumably Connolly; one of those mailings also included the bulk mailing permit number previously used by Connolly's campaign.

Did Connolly's lobbying for West Roxbury bullet votes swing the election to him?

Ward 20 includes West Roxbury as well as some of Roslindale; Connolly was born in Roslindale but currently resides in West Roxbury. Ward 20 historically turns out to vote at rates well above the city-wide average: in the 2005 municipal election, the Ward voted at 48.4%, compared to the city-wide rate of 35.6%; in the 2007 municipal election, they turned out at 23.8% compared with city-wide 13.6%. In 2007, Ward 20 was therefore disproportionately voting at a higher rate even than is usual even for them. This is exactly the behavior expected in a low turnout election, where neighborhoods with white/elderly/wealthy residents turnout at higher rates than minority/young/poor neighborhoods.

What did this disproportionately high turnout in Ward 20 mean to the Connolly vs. Councilor Felix Arroyo race for the fourth Councilor-At-Large seat? If Ward 20 had voted at 18.5% in 2007 (matching their usual higher turnout) instead of 23.8%, Connolly would have lost only 635 votes out of his 3421 margin of victory over Arroyo. Ward 20's disproportionately high turnout in 2007 was not nearly enough, by itself, to elect Connolly.

Did these Ward 20 voters engage in bullet voting? City-wide in 2007 there was an average of 2.7 votes (out of an allowed four votes) for City Councilor-At-Large; in Ward 20, the average was 2.5 votes per ballot. Compare this to the 2005 municipal election which had 2.9 city-wide votes per ballot, versus 3.0 votes per ballot in Ward 20. While city-wide voters did a little bit more bullet-voting in 2007 than in 2005, West Roxbury and Roslindale voters did substantially more bullet voting in 2007 than in 2005.

Did this bullet-voting make the difference? We don't know for sure, because you would need to know how each and every ballot voted. But we can take two cases: an extreme case, where all the bullet votes took a vote away from Arroyo (unlikely); and an average (and likelier) case, where all the bullet votes took a vote away from one of the other four candidates, taken at random. In the extreme case, all of Ward 20's 0.5 fewer votes per ballot in 2007 than in 2005 removed 3142 votes from Arroyo, almost all of the margin between him and Connolly. In the more likely case, only 3142/4 = 786 votes were taken away from Arroyo, not nearly enough to produce the difference between Connolly and Arroyo.

OK, so the numbers back up that West Roxbury and Roslindale utilized the bullet vote more in this election than previously. But are they the masters of the bullet vote? No! Ward 6 (South Boston, Councilor Flaherty's ward of birth) averaged 2.3 votes per ballot, Wards 1 (East Boston), 7 (South Boston, Councilor Flaherty's home ward), and 22 (Allston-Brighton) all averaged 2.5 votes per ballot, similar rates of bullet voting to the West Roxbury/Roslindale recent converts.

What do we make of all this? Yes, Ward 20 (West Roxbury/Roslindale) voted at a disproportionately high rate and used significantly more bullet voting than in previous elections, but neither effect was sufficient to explain how Connolly beat Arroyo for fourth place. The combination of the two effects only explains around 40% of their margin differentiating the two.

Look elsewhere for bigger causes of Connolly's defeat of Arroyo, such as: Arroyo's failure to raise money; Arroyo's failure to get-out-the-vote; the mainstream media's failure to cover the race resulting in low voter turnout; etc. Those will likely be fingered as the real factors leading to Arroyo's ouster at the polls in 2007.

Why Ciommo Won and Arroyo Lost in the 2007 Municipal Election

Just before the polls closed last Tuesday night, I posted my predictions for the City Council race. I was pretty much spot-on for the Allston-Brighton District 9 seat (albeit missing the turnout numbers by a lot), but got the wrong odd-man-out in the Councilor-At-Large seat. Here is some analysis of what I thought happened on election day.


Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor

I predicted that Mark Ciommo would beat Greg Glennon by at least 900 votes and by at least 57-43% (possibly as high as 60-40%). My prediction couldn't have been closer: Ciommo won by 948 votes by 59.8-39.8%. The full precinct results can be found here.

That said, I screwed up on two points -- one moderate mistake (Wallingford Road) and one a big mistake (voter turnout) -- which magically cancelled each other out to make it look like I hit the lottery.

Turnout. I guessed 6500 voters would turn out, which was at the low end of previous municipal elections. It was far worse at 4745, which was barely over the 4521 votes in the preliminary municipal election.

Why was I so wrong? Not because of the weather. I think that the rank-and-file voters got so little information from the mainstream media (Allston-Brighton TAB excepted), that there was little motivation to vote. I also heard from many voters in the preliminary election who were dissatisfied with the two choices in the final election; I suspect many of them just stayed home, unwilling to be forced to choose.


Wallingford Road.
Glennon carried Ward 21, Precinct 13, full of elderly Russian Jewish voters at the Wallingford Road housing project, over Ciommo 303-142 in the preliminary election. I predicted that he would add to that lead by +200 votes, but the forces of arm-twisting pushed it the other way: Ciommo won 333-242, giving Ciommo a net +252 votes. I blew the vote difference by 452. Oops.

But this is a really, really big story in the neighborhood. Tim Schofield told host Joe Heisler on the Talk of the Neighborhood show that the Russians mostly listen to former State Representative Brian Golden and Mayor Menino; to that I add a likely third party, the Mark Alford-Pat Galvin-(and-his-brother) trifecta. Golden, Alford, and Pat Galvin all supported Glennon -- and Ciommo holds progressive social positions incompatible the conservative Russian voters, at least in the conventional wisdom -- so this means that the Mayoral power in A-B is now at the point that it trumps all else in specific cases of arm-twisting (like Wallingford in this election).

The other big feature of the Wallingford Road vote is that it actually didn't matter in the election. Ciommo could have won without a single vote from the Russians. In looking back on this year's election, the message we should all take away is that the Russian vote can impact a preliminary (or three-way) election in an important way by determining the second-place finisher, but their strength cannot dominate over the powerful base of a long-time resident.


Oak Square battleground.
I predicted that several precincts in the Oak Square neighborhood would represent battlegrounds between the long-term Brighton residents (Ciommo's base) and socially conservative Irish Catholics (Golden's base, and hence Glennon's). Many people in the neighborhood have one foot firmly in each camp, so predicting how they would swing was the parlor game of the election.

Ciommo carried the combined Ward 22, Precincts 7, 11, and 13 in the preliminary, with Glennon and Schofield in a virtual tie for second. Schofield's voters generally swung heavily for Ciommo, regardless of his endorsement, but this was the one neighborhood where that pattern might have been broken.

In the final election, Ciommo won 22/7, 22/10, and 22/11 heavily, and barely nudged Glennon 102-98 in more conservative 22/13. I predicted, "if Ciommo carries 7, 10, and 11 with big margins, then it's lights out." That it was.

My model was that Schofield's supporters went 80-20% for Ciommo, Selvig's 65-35%, and Hanlon's 50-50%. Using that model on Ward 22, Precinct 7, for example, my prediction was Ciommo over Glennon by 137 to 61 votes; the actual result was 131-67, off by six, but within the margin of error of 14 votes (for 198 cast).


Ward 21 Progressive Precincts. I predicted that you should forget-about-it without a strongly identified progressive in the case (like Schofield). Ward 21, Precinct 8 actually doubled their turnout over the preliminary election -- from 1.6 to 3.2%. In the end, the progressive precincts still didn't show up.


Summary. The bosses of Ward 22 were able to get Councilor Jerry McDermott elected in 2002 (he is the cousin to the Galvins, after all), even though McDermott claimed after the election that he was not the Mayor's candidate. (Ciommo told me earlier in the year that he disputes that characterization of the 2002 race, however, since the Mayor did not formally endorse a candidate.) In 2007, however, the Ward 22 bosses no longer appear to be able to throw an Allston-Brighton election to their favorite candidate -- although they can get him a second-place finish and into the finals.

Councilor-elect Ciommo enjoyed powerful support from middle-aged men who chose to stay in Brighton to raise their families here. He won out over the younger, more transient constituencies -- like former Representative Golden and lame duck Councilor McDermott -- who leave town with their young families.

Long-time Brighton residents and the Mayor's influence ended up winning over the ward bosses and families in transition through the neighborhood.


Boston City Councilor-At-Large Race

While many in the city thought that the race for the fourth seat among the Boston City Councilors-At-Large was between Councilor Stephen Murphy and challenger John Connolly, there were many soothsayers predicting Councilor Felix Arroyo to be the odd man out.

I called the race a toss-up until the last moment, when I thought that Connolly's strategic blunder of sending out the anonymous attack mailings would cost him enough votes to lose out on fourth place. I was obviously wrong, and the Arroyo predictions were right.

Why did Arroyo lose? The pundits have rained in with some pretty convincing reasons: low voter turnout working against minority candidates; Arroyo raised little money, while Connolly raised around ten times as much; Arroyo didn't campaign very hard or send out many mailings, while Connolly campaigned like crazy (and sent out quite a few flyers!); Arroyo's record on attendance at City Council meetings and hearings; etc. None of the reasons seems enough by itself, but, taken together, they seem plenty to explain why he got around 15% fewer votes than Connolly.

This year's City Council election is an important one for data mining purposes in the future, because it shows clearly how low voter turnout impacts voting from ward-to-ward. Connolly's West Roxbury Ward 20, for example, voted disproportionately higher than the rest of the city.


The election numbers, plus analysis on a ward-by-ward basis, for the Councilor-At-Large race can be found at Matt O'Malley's website.  He ran, albeit unsuccessfully, in 2005 for Councilor-at-Large, so he knows the ins and outs of all the different neighborhoods and their voting trends.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Precinct Results in the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council Election November 6, 2007




WardPrecinctGreg GlennonMark Ciommo
213924
2141628
2151627
21635120
2171838
2181630
2194364
211059103
21115154
2112125146
2113241333
21142018
21151232
2116120
55
221126206
22299150
22386169
224114118
2256458
2264690
22767131
228106136
2297992
221074211
221148153
2212101149
221398102
Total...18892837


EDIT: Note that the results published in the Allston-Brighton TAB for Ward 21, Precinct 16 (Glennon 55, Ciommo 0) are incorrect.

EDIT (11/12/07): The TAB has fixed those errors online.

Friday, November 09, 2007

Boston Globe: Covering the District 9 Race in 2002, But Not in 2007

It is straight-forward to see how the Boston Globe's coverage of the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council race has changed from past coverage.

2002. In the special municipal election of 2002 to replace District 9 City Councilor Brian Honan after his sudden death, the Boston Globe ran two stories about the race, the candidates, and some of the issues:
These stories were followed by an endorsement of Jerry McDermott for the special municipal election, a short story on election day for the special municipal election, and a full story the day after the election saying who won:
2007. In the municipal election of 2007 to fill the seat being vacated by District 9 City Councilor Jerry McDermott, who chose not to run for re-election, the Globe ran the following news stories prior to the preliminary municipal election:

[none]

The editorial page ran an endorsement of Tim Schofield on 9/19/07, but no news stories. Nor did they run a story on the preliminary municipal election day saying it was happening or who was running. The Globe followed with a short blurb the day after the preliminary municipal election (page B2, 97 words) saying who ran and who made it into the final election, an editorial endorsing Mark Ciommo in the municipal election (along with an editorial reminder of that endorsement on election day), a single sentence on election day stating who was running, and then a single sentence the day after the election stating who won.


Comparing 2002 and 2007. What was different between the Globe's coverage of the District 9 races in 2002 and 2007?
  • In 2002, the news desk ran two stories about the race prior to the election -- one in the City Weekly, and one in the City/Region on the front page (B1). In 2007, the news desk ran no stories prior to the election.
  • In 2007, not even a single sentence on preliminary election day to tell you that it was election day today in Allston-Brighton, while in 2002 they did.
  • Information on the candidates and some of their positions on the issues was given prior to the 2002 election, but not prior to the 2007 election (with the exception of the summaries in the editorial endorsements).
  • In 2002, a full story about the election the day after, which included descriptions of some of the major issues in the race (university expansion, housing, bars).

Is this what we can expect in 2007 from the local reporters working under the direction of City/Region editor Brian McGrory? Yes, McGrory, the former Metro columnist who, earlier this year, referred to the "backwater known as the Boston City Council." Yeah, the same guy who, last year, referred to them as the "lapdog City Council."

Sounds like McGrory didn't care for the City Council when he was a columnist, and hence doesn't want to bother covering them as editor.

Am I being harsh and judgmental in making that statement? Am I being unfair in hypothesizing about what city issues McGrory might want to cover? Actually, no. In 2003, McGrory provided a description of exactly what he believed not to be worth the price of the ink:
Exactly one decade ago, after covering Thomas M. Menino's first election as mayor, I set a lofty journalistic goal. My goal was to never spill a drop of ink writing about the Boston City Council, because no reader with even the hint of a normal life could possibly care about the collection of political mis creants and misfits who make up that perenially underachieving group. [italics added]
No, I'm not making this up. This guy's in charge of the local news desk since May. With such leadership at the helm, it's no surprise the City Councilor-At-Large campaign barely got mentioned in the Boston Globe, and the District 9 City Councilor campaign not at all. It was the logical extension of a goal he set back in 1993.

The Boston Globe's editorial page thinks that we should consider re-vamping the election of Boston City Councilors in the wake of this week's election. No, no, no. What we need to do is make the job of Boston Globe City/Region Editor an elected position. And then let's see if he'll cover the race.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Municipal Elections Results for November 6, 2007

Final unofficial results of the District 9 City Council election on November 6, 2007, with all precincts reporting:

DIST. 9 CITY COUNCILOR



Total
Number of Precincts
27
Precincts Reporting
27100.0 %
Vote For
1
Total Votes
4745
Number of Uncast Votes
160

MARK S. CIOMMO
283759.79%
GREGORY J. GLENNON
188939.81%
Write-in Votes
190.40%








CITY COUNCILOR-AT-LARGE



Total
Number of Precincts
254
Precincts Reporting
254100.0 %
Vote For
4
Total Votes
125614
Number of Uncast Votes
59186

MICHAEL F. FLAHERTY
2584720.58%
STEPHEN J. MURPHY
2364118.82%
SAM YOON
2321018.48%
JOHN R. CONNOLLY
2198017.50%
FELIX D. ARROYO
1855914.77%
MARTIN J. HOGAN
40033.19%
MATTHEW GEARY
30252.41%
WILLIAM P. ESTRADA
24321.94%
DAVID JAMES WYATT
23771.89%
Write-in Votes
5400.43%

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Ciommo and Connolly In, Arroyo Out

In today's municipal election, Mark Ciommo has defeated Greg Glennon for the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council race by 948 votes, corresponding to 59.8-39.8%. Turnout was significantly lower than expected -- in fact, barely 5% more voters casting ballots than in the preliminary election. I estimate voter turnout at 13.1%.

The surprise of the evening was hearing Tim Schofield read off the Wallingford Road vote as 333-241 for Ciommo over Glennon, meaning that Glennon actually lost votes from the Russian Jewish elderly vote since the preliminary (when he won over Ciommo 303-142). Some mighty strong arm-twisting was going on there.


In an even more awfully low-turnout vote city-wide -- 13.5% -- challenger John Connolly knocked off sitting Councilor-At-Large Felix Arroyo by around 3000 votes, according to preliminary results. Councilor Arroyo just wasn't running in the same league: he only managed to raise around $30,000 this year, far less than Connolly and Councilor Flaherty, who each managed to raise more than $300,000. Many pundits were right when they put Councilor Arroyo as the one most at risk of losing his seat.

Councilor Michael Flaherty took first, Councilor Stephen Murphy second, Councilor Sam Yoon third, and challenger John Connolly fourth.

In the Councilor-At-Large race it is amazing how few votes separated first-place from fourth-place: fewer than 4000, where Flaherty took 25,700 and Connolly 21,800. In 2005, with a bit more than twice the number of votes cast, first and fourth place were separated by more than 13,000 votes.

Challenger Carlos Henriquez, a former aide to Councilor Flaherty, did poorly in District 7 against incumbent Councilor Chuck Turner. Between the low vote total for first place and the result in District 7, Councilor Flaherty will find little to justify a run against Mayor Menino in 2009. Flaherty needed to win big, and he didn't. There's always 2013.

Bullet voting was big in this race compared to 2005. In the Councilor-At-Large race today, the average ballot had 2.7 votes out of four allowed, while the 2005 race had 2.9 votes on average per ballot. It will be interesting to see where those bullet votes occurred -- West Roxbury, anyone? -- since Councilor Arroyo's defeat indicates that they weren't generally for him.


District 2 Councilor Bill Linehan won the prize for the "least-liked unopposed Councilor," getting only 60.1% of the vote; all the other ballots either had a write-in candidate or no vote, meaning he beat out "anything but him" by only 3:2. District 8 Councilor Michael Ross was the "most-liked unopposed Councilor," garnering 76.1% of the vote, thereby beating "anything but him" by more than 3:1.

Predictions for the Boston City Council Election

These predictions are being submitted at the close of the polls on Tuesday, November 6th. If I'm totally off-mark, then please take every opportunity to laugh at me without end.

Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor

Mark Ciommo will carry the election in what approaches a landslide, predicted at 57-43% -- but possibly as high as 60%-40% -- and a difference of at least 900 votes.

Turnout. With lots of rain forecast and a city-wide (non-Mayoral) City Councilor-At-Large race with only one strong challenger, the turnout will be lower than expected, probably close to 6500 votes in Allston-Brighton. Those 2000 votes of people who didn't show up for the preliminary election are Glennon's best -- and only -- chance to pull out a win today.

Russian Jewish elderly vote. They vote in large numbers in preliminary and primary elections, which means that there's not a lot of room to grow into the final or general election. Glennon picked up 302 votes in Ward 21, Precinct 13 to Ciommo's 142. Look for, at most, 200 more votes among these Wallingford Road -- and that the forces of darkness will twist both Ukrainian arms to turn it into a true voting bloc. Probably another 50-100 votes in the less-Russian, but still elderly, Precinct 12. Glennon +200 votes relative to Ciommo.

Who will Schofield-Hanlon-Selvig supporters vote for? In the preliminary municipal election on September 25th that saw 4500 total votes cast, Tim Schofield took third with 965 votes, Rosie Hanlon fourth with 576 votes, Alex Selvig fifth with 293 votes, and James Jenner sixth with 28 votes. That comes to 1862 votes up-for-grabs, or 41% of the overall vote. On September 26th, all these voters were looking hard at Ciommo and Glennon to figure out who to vote for.

All four candidates who finished out of the running have since endorsed Ciommo.

I haven't met a single Schofield supporter who admits to now being a Glennon supporter. There must be some, there really must be some... so I'll make a conservative estimate that Ciommo picks up Schofield's votes 80-20%.

Selvig supporters congregated around Boston College's new Brighton Campus area in Ward 22, Precinct 8 where Glennon supporters Patrick Galvin and Mark Alford are long-time and influential residents. The Selvig supporters I have spoken to, however, are breaking Ciommo, so I'll put it at 65-35%.

Hanlon supporters come from all over the district and have a variety of constituencies: business owners, long-time residents, more conservative Irish Catholics, etc. She took a long time to decide to support Ciommo, and I think her supporters will show similar difficulty choosing between the two: 50-50%.

What do these numbers mean? Ciommo picks up 1250 votes from the other candidates' supporters, while Glennon only picks up 600. Advantage Ciommo, +650. Big, big advantage which more than neutralizes Glennon's elderly pick-up.

Ward 21 progressive precincts. Forget-about-it.

Irish Catholic vote near Oak Square. Ciommo walloped Glennon in Ward 22, Precincts 7, 10, and 11, while Glennon tied him in 4 and 6. These precincts will be the bell-wether of the election: if Galvin, Alford, and former State Representative Brian Golden call up every single person they have ever remotely heard ever came within three miles of this neighborhood, then Glennon may get close here and make the race overall relatively close. But if Ciommo carries 7, 10, and 11 with big margins, then it's lights out. In one of Governor Patrick's casinos I would bet on the latter.

Other new voters in final election. This leaves 1600 new voters in the municipal election who didn't vote on September 25th. They haven't been following the race as closely, so they base their votes on the limited information coming from the mainstream media and other factors (like endorsements).

Glennon picked up the Boston Herald endorsement, but virtually nothing else aside from a former Mayor who lives elsewhere, a former State Representative who lives elsewhere, and the gentlemen of Lake Street.

Ciommo cleaned up on the endorsements, getting the Boston Globe and Allston-Brighton TAB, all the other (defeated) candidates, all the unions, and the only two local elected officials who made endorsements (current State Representative Michael Moran and current State Senator Steven Tolman).

Up until these last 1600 votes, Ciommo was winning 56-44%. Give Ciommo 60-40% among these final-election-only voters, which is Ciommo +300.

All told, that's Ciommo by 900 votes out of 6500 total votes cast, or 57-43%.


Boston City Councilor-At-Large

I don't pretend to understand the nitty-gritty voting patterns of the city-wide race. Let me say that again, so that you don't misunderstand.

I was quoted last week as saying that this race is too close to call. More specifically, Councilor Michael Flaherty will easily top the ticket again, as he did in 2005. Other than that, I believed it to be a toss-up between Councilors Felix Arroyo, Stephen Murphy, Sam Yoon, and challenger John Connolly.

The election-eve hijinks of Connolly with his campaign's anonymous mailing attacking Councilor Murphy threw a wrench into the machine. While I am active in the blogosphere -- and the blogosphere was totally abuzz with establishing the links between the mailing and Connolly, as well as expressing negative comments afterwards -- the web probably only could managed to move hundreds of votes, or maybe a thousand, from Connolly to Councilor Murphy. It could've been the margin in a very close race... but probably not enough.

Councilor Murphy's rapid response mailing, however, extended the reach of the escapade to people who had no idea that any of this had been going on all weekend. He'll get extra sympathy votes from all over town. On top of that, Connolly got the bad press of a story on the Boston Globe City/Region front page on election morning. Yuck.

A race that was too close to call isn't quite anymore. Connolly takes fifth place, again, by a few thousand votes. All the incumbents are re-elected. Matthew Geary gets a nice, but distant, sixth place: he showed far more understanding of local political issues than any other 22-year-old you could dream up.

Spending Like Crazy At the Last Minute on City Council Campaign

I have been carefully trying to keep track of all the money that the candidates for Boston City Councilor-At-Large have -- not just their standard checking accounts, but also the money that they transfer to savings and/or money market accounts.

By my accounting, John Connolly did not have money in savings accounts at the end of 2006, but had transferred $90,000 to savings between June and October 2007. Combined with his checking account ending balance of $25,916.52 as of 10/15/07, he had a good amount of cash on-hand for last minute spending.

Between October 16st and 31st he pulled in another $23,428.10 in contributions, such that I think he should have had nearly $140,000 on-hand at the end of October. His campaign did not itemize the transfers from savings to checking in the expenditures on their 10/31/07 filing, but they do give the total in receipts during 10/16/07-10/31/07 as a whopping $220,279.73! The $220,000 should include the $23,428.10 in contributions above, plus any additional savings account money transferred into checking; since I thought they had another $90,000 in the savings account, that leaves around $106,000 mysteriously showing up in their receipts in the 10/31/07 report.

Where did that extra $106,000-plus come from??? I'm bamboozled. I knew he had a lot of money lying around, but not that much. I hope to see some clear accounting of this money beyond the mere itemization of around $23,000, because I really cannot figure out where the extra $106,000 came from. Then again, maybe I'm just dumb. That must be it: stupid me.

On the expenditure side, Connolly spent like crazy during the second half of October, making two wire transfers totalling more than $200,000. Past campaign finance reports indicate that such expenditures are usually updated later to indicate that they are media buys -- which can include mailings, radio advertisements, and television advertisements. (Councilor-At-Large finance reports get audited at some level, which appear to result in the OCPF requesting the campaign to clarify such expenditures with an amended report.) We also know that Connolly has been sending out some mailings city-wide in the last week, which probably account for some of the total. (Councilor Michael Flaherty lists two different expenditures on mailings of $27,000 and $28,000 during the second half of October, so this gives an indication of the cost of a city-wide mailing.)

Connolly has now spent more than $330,000 on the campaign to-date this calendar year, according to my calculations. Councilor Flaherty has topped him with $350,000 this year, spending nearly $60,000 in the second half of October. During late October, Councilor Stephen Murphy spent another $52,000, Councilor Sam Yoon only spent $10,000, and Councilor Felix Arroyo spent $4,600.

My estimates have the total in expenditures currently around $957,000 by all candidates in the Councilor-At-Large race.

Is this a quiet City Council election? Not with that kind of money being spent.

When it's all over, I will assemble the reports and figure out the total expenditures. I'm predicting the 2007 City Councilor-At-Large will be by far the most expensive race on record. With predicted low voter turnout, the expenditure cost per vote cast will also undoubtedly be a record for Boston.



Campaign Finance Year-To-Date to 10/31/07
Boston City Councilor-At-Large

NAMEEND DATEBEGIN BALANCERAISEOWN MONEYSPENDEND BALANCE
Felix Arroyo10/31/07 3720.04 29878.49 0.00 32498.19 1101.30
John Connolly10/31/07 35926.65 309174.77 10000.00 334722.83 20378.19
William Estrada10/31/07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Michael Flaherty10/31/07 447262.56 337821.15 0.00 350947.80 434135.91
Matthew Geary10/31/07 0.00 3672.01 0.00 3147.35 524.66
Martin Hogan10/31/07 0.00 1621.13 0.00 1601.80 19.33
Stephen Murphy10/31/07 43710.09 100000.00 250.00 96192.66 47767.43
David Wyatt10/31/07 0.00 363.00 0.00 341.78 21.22
Sam Yoon10/31/07 47636.17 209257.33 0.00 138422.17 118471.33
TOTAL10/31/07 578255.51 991787.88 10250.00 957874.58 622419.37

Last Story on Anonymous Mailings

OK, OK, OK... I promise, the last story on anonymous mailings.

David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix's Talking Politics blog thinks that John Connolly gave an "early Christmas gift" to Councilor Stephen Murphy by not putting his name on the Parkway Package Pummeling. But Bernstein still can't understand why everyone is all worked up about it:
Others in and around city politics are also expressing their shock and dismay over this dastardly scheme -- because Lord knows nobody in Boston politics has ever anonymously criticized another pol. As a journalist, I can personally attest that all of our local officeholders and their staffs insist on being named and fully identified whenever speaking ill of their colleagues; you should hear the umbrage when I suggest hiding their identities behind vague sourcing! No, never such cowardice for me!, they cry.
Har! The sin wasn't attacking an opponent anonymously: it was doing it so sloppily that he could be tracked down right away. More smoke and mirrors! Better deception!

Last night, Connolly's campaign sent out a robo-phone call to supporters noting that there's been some name-calling in the campaign of late, but that everyone should instead try to stay focused on the election. The fallout from the Maul Murphy Mailings has gotten to the point that Connolly's campaign is valiantly trying to re-group after a full-out retreat.

EDIT (8:30 pm): A supporter got four Connolly calls.

New Questions About One Anonymous Mailing Attacking Councilor Murphy

The anonymous mailings attacking Councilor Stephen Murphy continue to be in the news today as the subject of a story in the Boston Globe. This makes the fifth news cycle for the mailings, a public relations mess.

While Connolly's campaign has admitted to sending out two of the mailings, the Globe reports that there are three additional mailings around town, and that Connolly has declared he is not responsible for any of them.

As a result, one of those other three mailings may be subject to declaration as an expenditure under state campaign finance law, yet nobody has declared it to date.


Anonyous Mailings Sent Around Boston

Residents city-wide began receiving two anonymous mailings last Thursday attacking Councilor Stephen Murphy in the City Councilor-At-Large race. The Boston Herald (here and here) and online bloggers (here and here at Brighton Centered) established links between the anonymous mailings and challenger John Connolly. In a statement released Saturday, Connolly's campaign admitted they sent both mailings, although they did not apologize for either the content or the anonymous nature of them.

The Globe story writes:
In an interview yesterday, Connolly defended the mailings on legal grounds, saying that state law permits anonymous campaign literature against another candidate.

"In retrospect I should have put my name on it, and I wish I did," he said. He did not explain the change of heart and did not apologize, nor would he accept responsibility for other anti-Murphy mailings that were sent around the city late last week.

...

Three other anonymous mailings about the race have been sent out in recent days, one attacking Murphy in South Boston and the other two urging voters in West Roxbury to elect a councilor from the neighborhood. No one has accepted responsibility for those.
Connolly stated his defense, on legal grounds, of the city-wide anonymous mailings attacking Councilor Murphy. As long as his campaign is taking responsibility for them, the mailings will eventually appear on his campaign finance reports when he declares them as expenditures. Nothing illegal there: free speech in campaigns is perfectly illegal, and basically everything in those two flyers appears accurate. (In the Globe piece, Councilor Murphy split some hairs: "There's a difference between lobbying for a state job and ones being offered," Murphy said. "His stuff is false on that regard.")

Of the other three mailings sent out -- two in West Roxbury advocating for bullet voting for a local candidate (but not naming one), the other in South Boston attacking Murphy, according to the Globe -- no one has yet admitted to sending them out.


One Other Mailing May Be Subject to State Campaign Finance Disclosure Law

One of those three mailings -- sent to South Boston and attacking Councilor Murphy by name, according to the Globe -- is now the issue, because failure for anyone to come forward and therefore declare it on campaign finance reports might violate state campaign finance law.

Expenditures in Boston municipal political campaigns are governed by Massachusetts law and overseen by the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF). In their FAQ, OCPF offers guidance. Basically, if the Connolly campaign took responsibility for the Parkway and SBA mailings, there would be no issue -- the expenditures for the mailings would be detailed on the Connolly committee's regular campaign finance filings.

According to the Herald's Howie Carr, two of the additional three mailings have "return addresses to two nonexistent groups, 'the Parkway Coalition' and 'the South Boston Association.' " The Parkway mailing apparently has the same "bulk mailing permit out of North Reading as the Connolly committee," according to Stephen Murphy as quoted by Carr. Both appear to encourage voters to use their bullet vote in the Councilor-At-Large race, but at least one appears not to mention Connolly by name.

The West Roxbury mailings encouraging bullet voting do not mention any candidate by name, and therefore are classified as "issue ads" or "independent expenditures" which do not have to be reported by any candidate or committee under state law. If, however, they are made with "the cooperation of, in consultation or in concert with, or at the request of any candidate or campaign (or their agents)," then these mailings would have to be reported under state law. As long as Connolly continues to claim that he had nothing to do with them, and assuming that his statement is factually accurate, then no law appears to have been broken.

But the Globe notes that the other anonymous mailing, sent to South Boston residents, attacks Councilor Murphy by name. It may not therefore constitute an "independent expenditure," because it mentions a specific candidate related to an election. The key wording as to the applicability of the law lies in whether they have the "purpose of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate"; if they do, then they must be reported under campaign finance laws.

One of the anonymous mailings Connolly has admitted to sending out contains the following line:
On November 6th, tell Steve Murphy that if he doesn't want the job he has, you'll elect someone who does.
If the South Boston mailing, which nobody has claimed responsibility for, includes language like that advocating the defeat of Councilor Murphy, then it would likely be subject to full disclosure under the state's campaign finance laws. If no one makes the disclosure, then OCPF might need to investigate further.

Attorney Connolly stated in the Globe piece that "state law permits anonymous campaign literature against another candidate." Correct, as long as the expenditure related to the anonymous campaign literature naming a candidate is fully declared.

The OCPF website lists no registered committee named the "South Boston Association," or anything like it. (Nor is the "Parkway Coalition" listed, although, as noted above their mailing advocating bullet-voting is not at issue.) No one appears to have declared this particular expenditure. Will the SBA file papers with the OCPF declaring themselves a committee under state campaign finance law? We'll be watching.


Analysis

The failure of the Connolly campaign to get out in front of the anonymous mailings on the first day indicates horrendously bad public relations work on the part of the John Connolly campaign. They only admitted on Saturday to having sent out the two city-wide mailings; if they are also behind the other three neighborhood-specific ones, they should have admitted so early on to limit the damage. We are now in the fifth news cycle for this story, which could have died out after one or two if it were handled properly.

Connolly's defense of the mailings on legal grounds misses the point: weren't they something that was just-plain wrong to send out anonymously? If so, apologize for sending them out anonymously in a carefully-crafted statement that doesn't apologize for the content of them. It would be easy for attorney Connolly to draft such text. Furthermore, rather than parsing legal arguments about the mailings, wouldn't the public be better served by full and open disclosure?

In the Globe story, Connolly did not take responsibility for the anonymous mailings sent to West Roxbury advocating bullet votes. Yet one of them appears to have the same bulk mailing permit as other Connolly campaign literature, according to Councilor Murphy. If I were a betting man in one of Governor Deval Patrick's casinos, I would bet on the Connolly campaign's involvement with that mailing. It ain't illegal to advocate for bullet votes anonymously, so what's the downside to accepting responsibility for it?

The deeper problem, however, is that Connolly is now on record with the Boston Globe as not taking responsibility for the South Boston mailing attacking Councilor Murphy. Whomever is responsible for that one mailing -- be it Connolly or somebody else like the "South Boston Association" -- would be well advised to come forward with their involvement, and make sure that all state campaign finance laws are followed. Otherwise, an investigation by OCPF might be in order.