Brian McGrory, City/Region Editor of the Boston Globe, was recently forthcoming in describing why his news desk deliberately did not cover the Boston City Council election.
Now I wonder how aggressively his news reporters will be covering the Mayor, given that McGrory seems to be one of Mayor Thomas Menino's golf buddies, according to Boston Globe business columnist Steve Bailey.
Earlier this year, one such "Menino Golf Pal" told me that, as a result, he/she had to keep a low profile when addressing anything related to city issues. If so, then how can we expect a Boston Globe editor to keep such a low profile on the Mayor?
Friday, November 30, 2007
"Dirtiest Campaign Money Can Buy"? No way. Check Out "Citizens Opposed to Politicians Who Pander to Perverts"
Two weeks ago, Mark Trachtenberg wrote in the Allston-Brighton TAB an opinion piece that referred to the anonymous campaign mailings in the 2007 Boston City Councilor-At-Large race -- two of which Councilor-elect John Connolly later admitted to sending out -- as the "dirtiest campaign money can buy."
Dirty? Sure. But the dirtiest? Not by a long shot.
Howie Carr dug some mud out of his brain describing worse mailings from local political history. But we don't have to rely on Carr's memory. There's plenty of other campaigns to look to.
Saugus had an anonymous mailing this year smearing incumbent Selectman Stephen Horlick who, like Councilor Stephen Murphy here in Boston, got re-elected anyway.
The Framingham area saw an ugly mailing in 2004:
But the cream-of-the-crop is definitely Philadelphia politics, where one Councilman running for re-election was attacked for his position on raising the lease from $1 to $200,000 for Boy Scout use of a city building:
The COPPP appears to be under suspicion under Pennsylvania law because it is an unregistered committee making expenditures advocating for the election or defeat of a particular candidate. Sound familiar? Oh, and that Councilman Kelly appears to have won the race, too, albeit by a very narrow margin.
Dirty? Sure. But the dirtiest? Not by a long shot.
Howie Carr dug some mud out of his brain describing worse mailings from local political history. But we don't have to rely on Carr's memory. There's plenty of other campaigns to look to.
Saugus had an anonymous mailing this year smearing incumbent Selectman Stephen Horlick who, like Councilor Stephen Murphy here in Boston, got re-elected anyway.
The Framingham area saw an ugly mailing in 2004:
The mailing, which asks, "Who's Working in Our Children's Schools?" and includes a photograph of a crying child, criticizes [Karen] Spilka for voting against a Republican-sponsored amendment to a municipal relief package approved by the House last year. The Senate did not adopt the plan and it did not appear in a compromise bill later approved...Her opponent, Republican Jim Coffey, denied responsibility for the mailing. Another Framingham election in 2004 continued the trend:
"Vote NO on Karen Spilka. She won't protect our children at school," reads the postcard-sized mailing.
During the Democratic primary for the Seventh Middlesex District between Ginger Esty and write-in candidate and eventual winner Tom Sannicandro, the pro-same-sex marriage group MassEquality, sent mailings to residents that read, "Ginger Esty would divide our community."Oh, and that vote was taken out of context, as you can probably imagine. Demonstrating that there really is something funky in the water out west of Boston, Framingham resident Harold Wolfe put up a website skewering the opponent of a candidate he supported:
Esty does not favor allowing same sex-marriage and Sannicandro supports it.
The mailing also pointed out that Esty as a selectman voted against a proclamation stating Framingham would stand "against bigotry, prejudice, intimidation, and hatred of any kind."
The website features [State Representative Deborah] Blumer's picture complete with glowing and blinking eyes.Littleton Town Meeting had its own anonymous attack mailing back in May, although not centered on an election campaign.
Wolfe said the glowing eyes addition was inspired by a sci-fi character who is evil.
But the cream-of-the-crop is definitely Philadelphia politics, where one Councilman running for re-election was attacked for his position on raising the lease from $1 to $200,000 for Boy Scout use of a city building:
The "VOTER ALERT," printed on a yellow index card, reads: "Councilman Jack Kelly voted with the homosexual lobby to remove the Boy Scouts from their city rent-free headquarters. The Scouts can remain only if they agree with the homosexual agenda which would promote sodomy to our youth. Not too long ago this would have caused Jack Kelly to be tarred and feathered for contributing to the delinquency of minors. Today, all we can do is to retire him from City Council. Distributed by COPPP - Citizens Opposed to Politicians Who Pander to Perverts, P.O. Box 57040, Philadelphia, PA 19111. ANYONE BUT KELLY."Now those words -- "promote sodomy to our youth" and "Citizens Opposed to Politicians Who Pander to Perverts" -- are real down-and-dirty politics, not the comparatively tame mudslinging by Connolly against Councilor Murphy for wanting a job promotion (to some other job).
The COPPP appears to be under suspicion under Pennsylvania law because it is an unregistered committee making expenditures advocating for the election or defeat of a particular candidate. Sound familiar? Oh, and that Councilman Kelly appears to have won the race, too, albeit by a very narrow margin.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Legal Trouble for Another BC Football Player
While the Boston College football team has impressed the ACC with their 10-2 season record and a birth in the ACC championship game this Saturday, they will be playing without backup running back A. J. Brooks, who has been suspended indefinitely from the school.
Brooks has been charged with "assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (his shoe)" stemming from an incident Sunday night in which he allegedly kicked a visitor to BC in the face. (The Boston Globe and Boston Herald erroneously reported earlier that the victim was a residential adviser/assistant.)
Brooks's legal problems add on top of two other BC football players -- DeJuan Tribble and Gosder Cherilus, who were arrested over the summer after a fight in a North Station bar, and later charged with assault and battery. (The Boston Globe article strangely only notes their arrest but not that they were charged.)
Neither Tribble nor Cherilus were suspended for their actions over the summer, while Brooks was suspended without delay. All three were charged with the same assault and battery. The Greatest Bar incident at North Station led to the victim, Sean Maney, needing emergency spinal surgery a couple of days later. (Maney was also charged in the incident, as was off-duty State Police Sgt. Joseph Boike.) BC football coach Jeff Jagodzinski did not respond to the Globe's request to describe why (backup running back) Brooks was suspended, while (starters) Cherilus and Tribble were not; Jagodzinski only said that each case is treated separately.
Methinks it smells suspiciously like the star players getting preferential treatment over the expendable backup player.
Brooks has been charged with "assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (his shoe)" stemming from an incident Sunday night in which he allegedly kicked a visitor to BC in the face. (The Boston Globe and Boston Herald erroneously reported earlier that the victim was a residential adviser/assistant.)
Brooks's legal problems add on top of two other BC football players -- DeJuan Tribble and Gosder Cherilus, who were arrested over the summer after a fight in a North Station bar, and later charged with assault and battery. (The Boston Globe article strangely only notes their arrest but not that they were charged.)
Neither Tribble nor Cherilus were suspended for their actions over the summer, while Brooks was suspended without delay. All three were charged with the same assault and battery. The Greatest Bar incident at North Station led to the victim, Sean Maney, needing emergency spinal surgery a couple of days later. (Maney was also charged in the incident, as was off-duty State Police Sgt. Joseph Boike.) BC football coach Jeff Jagodzinski did not respond to the Globe's request to describe why (backup running back) Brooks was suspended, while (starters) Cherilus and Tribble were not; Jagodzinski only said that each case is treated separately.
Methinks it smells suspiciously like the star players getting preferential treatment over the expendable backup player.
Brighton Tree Lighting: Saturday in Oak Square; Monday in Brighton Center
The annual tree lighting (and trolley tour) events are coming to Allston-Brighton during the next week. These are a chance to meet Santa Claus, drink cider, eat candy canes, watch the holiday Christmas tree be lit -- and, for Oak Square only, go on a trolley tour. You know, that thing that rides on train tracks down the middle of Washington Street...
Oak Square: Saturday, December 1st, 5:00 pm. Annual Trolley Tour and Tree Lighting.
Brighton Center: Monday, December 3rd, 6:00 pm. Tree Lighting.
Jackson-Mann School / Community Center (Allston): Thursday, December 6th, 11:30 am. Tree Lighting.
For more information, contact: Paul Holloway, Office of Neighborhood Services, 617-635-2678, Paul.Holloway@cityofboston.gov
Oak Square: Saturday, December 1st, 5:00 pm. Annual Trolley Tour and Tree Lighting.
Brighton Center: Monday, December 3rd, 6:00 pm. Tree Lighting.
Jackson-Mann School / Community Center (Allston): Thursday, December 6th, 11:30 am. Tree Lighting.
For more information, contact: Paul Holloway, Office of Neighborhood Services, 617-635-2678, Paul.Holloway@cityofboston.gov
This Saturday: Dueling Christmas Bazaars
Annual Christmas Bazaar at St. Columbkille's 10:00 am - 4:00 pm
The annual Christmas Bazaar at St. Columbkille's parish will happen this Saturday, December 1st, at 10:00 am - 4:00 pm, 25 Arlington Street, Brighton, 02135. Lots of arts and crafts for sale, silent auctions, and, presumably, the Cookie Room Bag Stuffing Contest (as many cookies as you can fit in one bag for a fixed price).
Christkindlmarkt at the German International School 1:00 - 5:00 pm
This is a "traditional" German Christmas fair being held by new North Allston neighbors, the German International School, at the former St. Anthony’s School, 57 Holton Street, Allston, MA 02134, from 1:00 - 5:00 pm. "Santa, lots of kids activities, gluehwein (hot mulled wine, the real thing!), beer and nonalcoholic beverages, all kinds of food, a kids raffle, traditional holiday crafts, and more!" The Christmas sausages are no doubt "Blutwurst" (red) and vegetarian (green).
The annual Christmas Bazaar at St. Columbkille's parish will happen this Saturday, December 1st, at 10:00 am - 4:00 pm, 25 Arlington Street, Brighton, 02135. Lots of arts and crafts for sale, silent auctions, and, presumably, the Cookie Room Bag Stuffing Contest (as many cookies as you can fit in one bag for a fixed price).
Christkindlmarkt at the German International School 1:00 - 5:00 pm
This is a "traditional" German Christmas fair being held by new North Allston neighbors, the German International School, at the former St. Anthony’s School, 57 Holton Street, Allston, MA 02134, from 1:00 - 5:00 pm. "Santa, lots of kids activities, gluehwein (hot mulled wine, the real thing!), beer and nonalcoholic beverages, all kinds of food, a kids raffle, traditional holiday crafts, and more!" The Christmas sausages are no doubt "Blutwurst" (red) and vegetarian (green).
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Brighton High School Football to the Super Bowl
It wasn't many years ago when the Brighton High School football team had seasons where they fought to avoid a winless record. No longer. In Tuesday evening's semi-final game, the Bengals defeated Manchester Essex 28-7 to gain a berth in the Division 4 Superbowl game on Saturday at Stonehill College.
The Boston Herald and Boston Globe both come through with more coverage of Brighton High School football than they gave to Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council elections. The A-B TAB chimes in, too... albeit with historically more balanced coverage.
The Boston Herald and Boston Globe both come through with more coverage of Brighton High School football than they gave to Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council elections. The A-B TAB chimes in, too... albeit with historically more balanced coverage.
Brighton Challengers for Mayor Menino?
Mayor Thomas Menino has been flexing his fund-raising muscle this fall, despite the fact that he was not on the ballot. Many are viewing this as a sign that he wants to run for re-election in 2009. More evidence? David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix couldn't get anyone to speak on -the-record, but provides this nugget ("Menino's Hit List"):
6. Peter Meade, 61, Executive Vice President, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts
11. Steven Tolman, 53, State Senator
12. Joe Kennedy, 55, Chairman, Citizens Energy; former Congressman
18. William Galvin, 57, Secretary of the Commonwealth
37. Kevin Honan, 49, State Representative
38. Michael Moran, 36, State Representative
It is a big step to go from a local district to a city-wide Mayoral race, so I find ranking our local representatives as quite a leap. On top of that, both Rep. Honan and Rep. Moran appear genuinely devoted to local issues and constituent services, as opposed to constantly aspiring to higher and higher office. That said, Secretary Galvin made the leap to state-wide office quite effectively.
Senator Tolman is an intriguing possibility: connections from brother Warren could be very useful for the vast fund-raising required by a city-wide election. But why hasn't Senator Tolman been raising much money in recent years? He had only $88,677.63 in his account as of year-end 2006, less than you would expect for someone thinking about getting a bigger office and poised to take on a powerful Mayor. Those connections of Tolman's may not be as profitable as you might think at first.
Former Congressman Kennedy and Secretary Galvin would be strong contenders if they had any interest in being Mayor; the Phoenix provides no evidence of such interest, so I find their inclusion in the list as odd. Secretary Galvin's associates may also be stinging a bit from their inability to throw a local election to their favorite candidate.
How About Flaherty?
My odds-making? The Phoenix's #1 pick, Councilor Michael Flaherty, has a shot only if he can knock off the Mayor neighborhood-by-neighborhood by aggressively adopting those residents' key local issues as his own.
He has to go to East Boston and take the residents' side by fighting hard against the Mayor on having a casino at Suffolk Downs. Go to Allston-Brighton and take the residents' side by fighting hard against unchecked expansion by Harvard and Boston College and their facilitator, the BRA. Walk the streets of Dorchester and Mattapan every night, arm-in-arm with community leaders, railing against rising violent crime rates and how City Hall isn't doing anything about it. Help South Boston residents replace garbage cans in the streets, after City workers remove them, thereby reserving their shoveled parking spaces. (OK, maybe a bad example.) Blame every major woe in every neighborhood on the Mayor, even if it isn't quite true.
That's the only way someone like Councilor Flaherty could take on incumbent Mayor Menino in 2009: on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, standing alongside the local residents on their biggest issue, and all-the-while blaming it everything on the Mayor. It would be a fun election to watch, but bound to be immensely negative.
Sources also say that Menino’s people — particularly former chief of staff David Passafaro — are warning off anyone who provides aid and comfort to a potential rival. Those who contribute to a rumored mayoral candidate’s campaign committee, or who make introductions at ward committee meetings for a rumored candidate, these sources say, receive a reproachful call from Passafaro.Who is poised to take on an incumbent Mayor Menino in 2009? Bernstein has a top-40 list. A number of Brighton residents show up in the list -- some real possibilities, others unlikely (Brighton residency given in the Phoenix article, not by my research):
6. Peter Meade, 61, Executive Vice President, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts
11. Steven Tolman, 53, State Senator
12. Joe Kennedy, 55, Chairman, Citizens Energy; former Congressman
18. William Galvin, 57, Secretary of the Commonwealth
37. Kevin Honan, 49, State Representative
38. Michael Moran, 36, State Representative
It is a big step to go from a local district to a city-wide Mayoral race, so I find ranking our local representatives as quite a leap. On top of that, both Rep. Honan and Rep. Moran appear genuinely devoted to local issues and constituent services, as opposed to constantly aspiring to higher and higher office. That said, Secretary Galvin made the leap to state-wide office quite effectively.
Senator Tolman is an intriguing possibility: connections from brother Warren could be very useful for the vast fund-raising required by a city-wide election. But why hasn't Senator Tolman been raising much money in recent years? He had only $88,677.63 in his account as of year-end 2006, less than you would expect for someone thinking about getting a bigger office and poised to take on a powerful Mayor. Those connections of Tolman's may not be as profitable as you might think at first.
Former Congressman Kennedy and Secretary Galvin would be strong contenders if they had any interest in being Mayor; the Phoenix provides no evidence of such interest, so I find their inclusion in the list as odd. Secretary Galvin's associates may also be stinging a bit from their inability to throw a local election to their favorite candidate.
How About Flaherty?
My odds-making? The Phoenix's #1 pick, Councilor Michael Flaherty, has a shot only if he can knock off the Mayor neighborhood-by-neighborhood by aggressively adopting those residents' key local issues as his own.
He has to go to East Boston and take the residents' side by fighting hard against the Mayor on having a casino at Suffolk Downs. Go to Allston-Brighton and take the residents' side by fighting hard against unchecked expansion by Harvard and Boston College and their facilitator, the BRA. Walk the streets of Dorchester and Mattapan every night, arm-in-arm with community leaders, railing against rising violent crime rates and how City Hall isn't doing anything about it. Help South Boston residents replace garbage cans in the streets, after City workers remove them, thereby reserving their shoveled parking spaces. (OK, maybe a bad example.) Blame every major woe in every neighborhood on the Mayor, even if it isn't quite true.
That's the only way someone like Councilor Flaherty could take on incumbent Mayor Menino in 2009: on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis, standing alongside the local residents on their biggest issue, and all-the-while blaming it everything on the Mayor. It would be a fun election to watch, but bound to be immensely negative.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Bloggers 1, Mainstream Media 0
Not really about Brighton, but follows along on issues that have been discussed here at Brighton Centered about whether or not (some) bloggers practice journalism.
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently held two telecons with journalists -- one for mainstream reporters, another for bloggers. The bloggers' questions were far more substantive (albeit many of them were also Huckabee supporters), while the mainstream reporters' questions were far more superficial.
Read about it at Slate (via Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix).
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently held two telecons with journalists -- one for mainstream reporters, another for bloggers. The bloggers' questions were far more substantive (albeit many of them were also Huckabee supporters), while the mainstream reporters' questions were far more superficial.
Read about it at Slate (via Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix).
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.
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.
New Poll on Low Voter Turnout in Election
I've posted a new poll on the Brighton Centered Blog:
"What do you think was the biggest reason for the low voter turnout in the November 6th election?"To see the poll, you must load the blog's full website in a browser and look at the upper-right-hand-side. Voting ends Thursday night at midnight.
Student Death on Allston's Glenville Avenue
The mainstream media has been covering this story, hence I'll just provide a summary and links here.
Early Saturday morning, November 17th, there was a large fight at 14 Glenville Avenue in Allston, MA 02134. Police officers responded and found a 21-year-old photography major at the Art Institute of Boston, Shawn Dow, lying in a back alley. He later died. He apparently fell off of the roof of the building. The coroner later determined that he died from the fall itself, but no police or coroner statement has been made about what caused him to fall off the roof (accidental or intentional); this last element of the story is yet to be resolved.
BPDnews 11/17/07: death investigation
Boston Globe 11/18/07: police interviews indicate faller from building and brawl inside building were separate incidents
BPDnews 11/18/07: deceased identified as Shawn Dow, 21, of Peabody
Blog comment from "pierce" 11/18/07: Dow had "footprints all over his chest" (note: unconfirmed report, taken from a now-removed, second-hand EMT report of a not-fully-specified fatal party fight. EMT report probably removed for legal reasons.)
Boston Herald 11/18/07: broken bottles litter building's stairwell, bannister poles missing
Boston Globe 11/19/07: story on Dow, friends, and family
Boston Herald 11/19/07: Dow's mother suspects foul play causing Dow's fall, since police photo of Dow's face, she says, looks like "someone hit him"
BPDnews 11/19/07: death is not listed as a "homicide" as of this date
Allston-Brighton TAB 11/19/07: Conway Cahill-Brodeur Funeral Home in Peabody is handling funeral arrangements; Art Institute planning a memorial service
Salem News 11/19/07: interviews with family, friends in Peabody area
BPDnews 11/19/07: cause of death consistent with a fall, as opposed to injuries sustained as the result of assault; interviewed 20+ witnesses which don't place Dow at the scene of the brawl
boston.com report on the same 11/19/07
BU's Daily Free Press 11/20/07: anonymous witness says that Dow had severe injuries to his face, despite being found near-dead on his back after falling from the roof. Brawl reported to have included breaking bottles over people's heads.
Salem News 11/20/07: "Witnesses quoted in some media reports said Dow had been beaten in a fight."
Allston-Brighton TAB 11/20/07: details on the wake, funeral, and burial of Dow
Boston Police "Citizens Alert" 11/20/07: "On Nov. 17th 2007 the Boston Police responded to a large fight at 14 Glenville Avenue where a party was being held and found a male lying on the asphalt in the rear alley of 14 Glenville Ave. Autopsy reports indicate that this male sustained injuries consistent with falling off the roof. Anyone with any information relative to this incident is advised to call the Boston Police @ 617-343-4256 and speak to the Detectives."
Boston Police are looking for tips in the investigation: Crime Stoppers at 1-800-494-TIPS where anonymous tips can be placed.
On an unrelated note: three young men were arrested on gun charges in the area of Tremont Street and West Newston Street on Friday night, November 16th.
Another unrelated note: the two Brighton bank robberies on Friday, November 16th, were accompanied by two others in the Boston area. Some of the suspects have physical features that do not match each other. Since this year has seen 118 bank robberies in Massachusetts thus far, it is unusual to see four on the same day.
Early Saturday morning, November 17th, there was a large fight at 14 Glenville Avenue in Allston, MA 02134. Police officers responded and found a 21-year-old photography major at the Art Institute of Boston, Shawn Dow, lying in a back alley. He later died. He apparently fell off of the roof of the building. The coroner later determined that he died from the fall itself, but no police or coroner statement has been made about what caused him to fall off the roof (accidental or intentional); this last element of the story is yet to be resolved.
BPDnews 11/17/07: death investigation
Boston Globe 11/18/07: police interviews indicate faller from building and brawl inside building were separate incidents
BPDnews 11/18/07: deceased identified as Shawn Dow, 21, of Peabody
Blog comment from "pierce" 11/18/07: Dow had "footprints all over his chest" (note: unconfirmed report, taken from a now-removed, second-hand EMT report of a not-fully-specified fatal party fight. EMT report probably removed for legal reasons.)
Boston Herald 11/18/07: broken bottles litter building's stairwell, bannister poles missing
Boston Globe 11/19/07: story on Dow, friends, and family
Boston Herald 11/19/07: Dow's mother suspects foul play causing Dow's fall, since police photo of Dow's face, she says, looks like "someone hit him"
BPDnews 11/19/07: death is not listed as a "homicide" as of this date
Allston-Brighton TAB 11/19/07: Conway Cahill-Brodeur Funeral Home in Peabody is handling funeral arrangements; Art Institute planning a memorial service
Salem News 11/19/07: interviews with family, friends in Peabody area
BPDnews 11/19/07: cause of death consistent with a fall, as opposed to injuries sustained as the result of assault; interviewed 20+ witnesses which don't place Dow at the scene of the brawl
boston.com report on the same 11/19/07
BU's Daily Free Press 11/20/07: anonymous witness says that Dow had severe injuries to his face, despite being found near-dead on his back after falling from the roof. Brawl reported to have included breaking bottles over people's heads.
Salem News 11/20/07: "Witnesses quoted in some media reports said Dow had been beaten in a fight."
Allston-Brighton TAB 11/20/07: details on the wake, funeral, and burial of Dow
Boston Police "Citizens Alert" 11/20/07: "On Nov. 17th 2007 the Boston Police responded to a large fight at 14 Glenville Avenue where a party was being held and found a male lying on the asphalt in the rear alley of 14 Glenville Ave. Autopsy reports indicate that this male sustained injuries consistent with falling off the roof. Anyone with any information relative to this incident is advised to call the Boston Police @ 617-343-4256 and speak to the Detectives."
Boston Police are looking for tips in the investigation: Crime Stoppers at 1-800-494-TIPS where anonymous tips can be placed.
On an unrelated note: three young men were arrested on gun charges in the area of Tremont Street and West Newston Street on Friday night, November 16th.
Another unrelated note: the two Brighton bank robberies on Friday, November 16th, were accompanied by two others in the Boston area. Some of the suspects have physical features that do not match each other. Since this year has seen 118 bank robberies in Massachusetts thus far, it is unusual to see four on the same day.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Robberies at Two Citizens Banks in Brighton
Two robberies, one armed, occurred Friday morning at different Citizens Bank branches in Brighton. The armed robbery was at the bank next to Whole Foods at 35 Washington Street, while the second robbery (where no weapon was shown) was at the bank in Brighton Center at 414 Washington Street.
BPDnews, the Allston-Brighton TAB, and the Boston Globe have short stories up already. Neither robber has been apprehended yet.
BPDnews, the Allston-Brighton TAB, and the Boston Globe have short stories up already. Neither robber has been apprehended yet.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Brighton-Allston Bicentennial Jubilee Saturday Night
The Brighton - Allston Bicentennial Committee Members
Cordially Invite You To The Bicentennial Jubilee
At The New WGBH Building
1 Guest St., Brighton, MA 02135
Featuring “Herb Reed” And “The Platters”
Saturday, November 17, 2007
6:30 pm to 12:00 am
Gourmet Hors D’oeuvres & Cash Bar
Tickets: $50 per person [CORRECTED]
Contact Terri Weida (617) 254 1950 -- no tickets available at the door, call by Friday
Tickets can also be purchased at http://www.brighton-allston200.com
Cordially Invite You To The Bicentennial Jubilee
At The New WGBH Building
1 Guest St., Brighton, MA 02135
Featuring “Herb Reed” And “The Platters”
Saturday, November 17, 2007
6:30 pm to 12:00 am
Gourmet Hors D’oeuvres & Cash Bar
Tickets: $50 per person [CORRECTED]
Contact Terri Weida (617) 254 1950 -- no tickets available at the door, call by Friday
Tickets can also be purchased at http://www.brighton-allston200.com
Governor Patrick to Announce Affordable Housing Bond Bill at Honan Apartments
This release/invitation comes from the Allston Brighton Community Development Corporation:
Please join Governor Patrick and Mayor Menino, Rep. Kevin Honan and the Allston Brighton CDC at the Brian J. Honan apartments at 33 Everett Street in Allston tomorrow, Friday November 16, at 11 AM. Governor Patrick has chosen the site for the release of his Affordable Housing Bond Bill.
The Brian J. Honan apartments are 50 units of affordable rental housing for families, developed and owned by the Allston Brighton CDC. The housing was named in honor of the late Allston Brighton City Councilor Brian J. Honan who was instrumental in securing the site for the homes that now bear his name.
The Brian J. Honan Apartments were made possible by a unique partnership including suppport from the City of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Harvard University, the Home Funders Collaborative, Massachusetts Housing Partnership, Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation, Bank of America, the Massachusetts Life Insurance Community Investment Initiative, Mass Development, Boston Community Capital and the Renewable Energy Trust of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
Contact:
Allston Brighton CDC
320 Washington Street
Brighton, Massachusetts 02135
617-787-3874
info@allstonbrightoncdc.org
www.allstonbrightoncdc.org
Please join Governor Patrick and Mayor Menino, Rep. Kevin Honan and the Allston Brighton CDC at the Brian J. Honan apartments at 33 Everett Street in Allston tomorrow, Friday November 16, at 11 AM. Governor Patrick has chosen the site for the release of his Affordable Housing Bond Bill.
The Brian J. Honan apartments are 50 units of affordable rental housing for families, developed and owned by the Allston Brighton CDC. The housing was named in honor of the late Allston Brighton City Councilor Brian J. Honan who was instrumental in securing the site for the homes that now bear his name.
The Brian J. Honan Apartments were made possible by a unique partnership including suppport from the City of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Harvard University, the Home Funders Collaborative, Massachusetts Housing Partnership, Community Economic Development Assistance Corporation, Bank of America, the Massachusetts Life Insurance Community Investment Initiative, Mass Development, Boston Community Capital and the Renewable Energy Trust of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
Contact:
Allston Brighton CDC
320 Washington Street
Brighton, Massachusetts 02135
617-787-3874
info@allstonbrightoncdc.org
www.allstonbrightoncdc.org
"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:
Reilly got Brian McGrory, the news editor, on-the-record about his paper's lack of coverage:
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:
...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.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.
“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.”
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?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.
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.)
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Heroin Bust Near Monastery Road
Heroin bust near corner of Washington Street and Monastery Road (near St. Elizabeth's Medical Center and Fidelis Way public housing):
Two Arrested On Drug Charges
Yesterday at 4:01pm, members of the Drug Control Unit from District D-14 (Allston / Brighton) were in the area of Washington Street and Monastery Road when their attention was drawn to two males sitting in a black vehicle looking down onto their laps. Officers walked by the vehicle and observed the passenger with a folded scratch ticket and a q-tip on his lap. Officers approached the vehicle and identified themselves and observed the driver drop an uncapped hypodermic needle to the floor. Officers recovered a dollar bill from the floor, which contained one open plastic bag of tan powder believed to be heroin.
Mathew Baldwin, 26, and Michael Baldwin, 22, both of Cotuit were arrested and charged with Possession of Class A and Possession of Class C.
Did the Mass Turnpike Authority Violate the Open Meeting Law When Approving Recent Toll Hikes?
During the October 29, 2007 meeting of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority's Board, they voted to approve toll increases on the Massachusetts Turnpike, including an increase of $0.25 in the Allston-Brighton tolls as of January 1, 2008.
In so doing, however, the MTA Board may have violated Massachusetts's Open Meeting Law by meeting privately ("back-room meetings") with lawyers during a break in the public meeting. The nature of the Board's public meeting changed after the private meetings occurred, highlighting how substantive and key the private meetings appear to have been to the subsequent Board vote.
Boston Globe Story on MTA Board Meeting
Mac Daniel, Director of Communications for the MTA, confirmed the accuracy of the reporting in the Boston Globe story about the October 29 public meeting of the MTA Board. That story reported that a break in the meeting occured after two hours but before the Board vote on the toll increase. The story also reported that during the meeting break "several back-room meetings" occured between Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen, "fellow board members and Turnpike Authority lawyers."
Daniel clarified that the break and the "back-room" meetings were not part of an Executive Session. In particular, he said, the MTA Board did not enter Executive Session at any time prior to the vote on the toll increases, but did enter Executive Session after the vote occurred.
How many people were meeting privately in the "back-room"? The Globe story states it was the Board chairman (Secretary Cohen), "fellow board members" (i.e., plural, so at least two), and MTA lawyers.
What was discussed in the "back-room" meetings? The Globe story does not make it clear, instead only noting the reasons given subsequent to the "back-room" meetings to support the toll increase:
One person present on 10/29/07 has confirmed that the public in general was neither notified that the "back-room" meetings were taking place during the break nor were the public invited to attend them.
(Daniel did not respond to an additional request for information and comment related to the meeting. Official minutes [either draft or final] of the 10/29/07 MTA Board meeting were not available for this story; Eileen Fenton of the MTA explained that the minutes are only released once they are approved at the next meeting of the Board.)
Did the MTA Board Meeting Violate the Open Meeting Law?
The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law applying to state agencies is in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Sections 11A, 11A-1/2, 11B, and 11C. The Attorney General has issued guidelines for understanding, interpreting, and applying the OML. Many informational resources about the OML can be found at the Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries site. Discussion about some other OML cases are discussed on the Brighton Centered Blog.
The basic text of the statute reads:
Applicability. Does the OML apply at all to the MTA Board? The Law gives the definition of "Governmental body" as:
Last year, two unions took the MTA Board to court over allegations that the Board violated the OML when they discussed the issue of removing toll booths. The nature of at least some of Suffolk Superior Court Associate Justice Diane Kottmyer's rulings in the case indicate that the Kottmyer considered that the MTA Board is subject to the OML. Another instance from July 2007 indicates that Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, believed that the MTA Board was subject to the OML.
Possible Violations of the OML. Assuming that the OML applies to the MTA Board, then the "back-room" meetings during a break in the public meeting of October 29th appear to violate these provisions in MGL, Ch.30A, Section 11A1/2 because:
Did the direction of the Board's public meeting alter after the "back-room" meetings? The Globe reported:
Summary. All said, it appears to me that the OML applies to the MTA Board; it further appears that the MTA Board violated the OML by holding these "back-door" meetings. Since their vote on the toll increase was made subsequent to the "back-door" meetings, a legitimate case can be made for invalidating their vote.
Is Anybody Investigating Possible OML Violations?
The Attorney General is charged with enforcement of the statute. (This differs from the the case of municipalities, where the District Attorney is charged with enforcement.) Complaints of violations of the OML must be made within 21 days of the meeting, i.e., by next Monday, November 19. The obvious first step for any such investigation by the AG would be to establish if the MTA Board is subject to the OML.
I asked the AG's press office whether they have received a complaint about (or are investigating) possible violations of the OML by the MTA Board. The press officer confirmed that no such complaint has been received to date by the AG's office. He could neither confirm nor deny, however, whether any such investigation is currently being undertaken by the AG's office since that information cannot be legally disclosed.
Does Anybody Care About the Toll Increase?
Since the MTA Board vote was taken, legislation has been introduced on Beacon Hill that would block the toll increases by freezing the tolls.
Locally to Allston-Brighton, State Representatives Kevin Honan and Michael Moran are co-sponsoring the House bill, while State Senator Steven Tolman is co-sponsoring the Senate bill.
Senator Tolman and Representatives Honan and Moran wrote a letter to Secretary Cohen on October 12, 2007, requesting a "Resident Discount Program" for residents of Allston-Brighton. The letter read, in part:
Does anybody care about these toll increases? Sounds like a lot of State Legislators do, including ours in Allston-Brighton.
In so doing, however, the MTA Board may have violated Massachusetts's Open Meeting Law by meeting privately ("back-room meetings") with lawyers during a break in the public meeting. The nature of the Board's public meeting changed after the private meetings occurred, highlighting how substantive and key the private meetings appear to have been to the subsequent Board vote.
Boston Globe Story on MTA Board Meeting
Mac Daniel, Director of Communications for the MTA, confirmed the accuracy of the reporting in the Boston Globe story about the October 29 public meeting of the MTA Board. That story reported that a break in the meeting occured after two hours but before the Board vote on the toll increase. The story also reported that during the meeting break "several back-room meetings" occured between Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen, "fellow board members and Turnpike Authority lawyers."
Daniel clarified that the break and the "back-room" meetings were not part of an Executive Session. In particular, he said, the MTA Board did not enter Executive Session at any time prior to the vote on the toll increases, but did enter Executive Session after the vote occurred.
How many people were meeting privately in the "back-room"? The Globe story states it was the Board chairman (Secretary Cohen), "fellow board members" (i.e., plural, so at least two), and MTA lawyers.
What was discussed in the "back-room" meetings? The Globe story does not make it clear, instead only noting the reasons given subsequent to the "back-room" meetings to support the toll increase:
Any delay in approving a hike would risk damaging the authority's bond rating and possibly lead to higher interest rates, authority lawyers said...Daniel confirmed that, early in the public meeting, Secretary Cohen was considering post-poning the Board vote on the toll increase for a month, but that he was later told that any delay in approving a toll increase could have a negative impact on being able to roll out the increases by January 1, 2008. Daniel also confirmed the Globe story that concerns over the MTA's bond rating factored into the decision to vote on October 29 on the toll increase. "Cohen initially agreed with the rest of the board... that a final vote could wait another month," reported the Globe. Secretary Cohen's position changed in the latter part of the public meeting -- after the "back-room" meetings had taken place -- to supporting the toll increases.
But [Cohen] seemed blind-sided when authority staff told him after two hours of debate that a delay would make it difficult if not impossible to begin collecting the new tolls by Jan. 1, the deadline set by bondholders.
One person present on 10/29/07 has confirmed that the public in general was neither notified that the "back-room" meetings were taking place during the break nor were the public invited to attend them.
(Daniel did not respond to an additional request for information and comment related to the meeting. Official minutes [either draft or final] of the 10/29/07 MTA Board meeting were not available for this story; Eileen Fenton of the MTA explained that the minutes are only released once they are approved at the next meeting of the Board.)
Did the MTA Board Meeting Violate the Open Meeting Law?
The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law applying to state agencies is in Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Sections 11A, 11A-1/2, 11B, and 11C. The Attorney General has issued guidelines for understanding, interpreting, and applying the OML. Many informational resources about the OML can be found at the Massachusetts Trial Court Law Libraries site. Discussion about some other OML cases are discussed on the Brighton Centered Blog.
The basic text of the statute reads:
All meetings of a governmental body shall be open to the public and any person shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this section.
No quorum of a governmental body shall meet in private for the purpose of deciding on or deliberating toward a decision on any matter except as provided by this section. [M.G.L. Ch.30A, Section 11A1/2.]
Applicability. Does the OML apply at all to the MTA Board? The Law gives the definition of "Governmental body" as:
a state board, committee, special committee, subcommittee or commission, however created or constituted within the executive or legislative branch of the commonwealth or the governing board or body of any authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose in the commonwealth or any part thereof, but shall not include the general court or the committees or recess commissions thereof, or bodies of the judicial branch, or any meeting of a quasi-judicial board or commission held for the sole purpose of making a decision required in an adjudicatory proceeding brought before it, nor shall it include the board of bank incorporation or the Policyholders Protective Board. [MGL, Ch.30A, Section 11A]As I understand it, the MTA Board is the governing board of an authority established by the State Legislature, so the OML appears to be applicable. (Note: I am not a lawyer, so I have not pored through case law on any of these issues.) A contrary argument might be made, however, based on the Supreme Judicial Court ruling that the MTA Board was "not part of the machinery of the government" when it considered the attempted firings in 2001 by Acting Governor Jane Swift of Board members Christy Mihos and Jordan Levy. It is unclear how that particular ruling of the SJC might impact the applicability of the OML to the MTA Board.
Last year, two unions took the MTA Board to court over allegations that the Board violated the OML when they discussed the issue of removing toll booths. The nature of at least some of Suffolk Superior Court Associate Justice Diane Kottmyer's rulings in the case indicate that the Kottmyer considered that the MTA Board is subject to the OML. Another instance from July 2007 indicates that Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, believed that the MTA Board was subject to the OML.
Possible Violations of the OML. Assuming that the OML applies to the MTA Board, then the "back-room" meetings during a break in the public meeting of October 29th appear to violate these provisions in MGL, Ch.30A, Section 11A1/2 because:
- The "back-room" meetings were unannounced to the public in advance;
- There was no clear indication that the public was invited to join the "back-room" meetings, or was allowed to do so;
- A quorum of members of the MTA Board participated in the "back-room" meetings;
- Issues related to their decision-making authority appear to have been discussed in the "back-room" meetings; and
- The subsequent public meeting showed a change in direction relative to the public meeting prior to the "back-room" meeting.
Did the direction of the Board's public meeting alter after the "back-room" meetings? The Globe reported:
For two hours of the three-hour meeting, the board seemed certain to delay the vote by a month...
Transportation Secretary Bernard Cohen, who chairs the board, reopened the public meeting and shifted course. Any delay in approving a hike would risk damaging the authority's bond rating and possibly lead to higher interest rates, authority lawyers said.
Summary. All said, it appears to me that the OML applies to the MTA Board; it further appears that the MTA Board violated the OML by holding these "back-door" meetings. Since their vote on the toll increase was made subsequent to the "back-door" meetings, a legitimate case can be made for invalidating their vote.
Is Anybody Investigating Possible OML Violations?
The Attorney General is charged with enforcement of the statute. (This differs from the the case of municipalities, where the District Attorney is charged with enforcement.) Complaints of violations of the OML must be made within 21 days of the meeting, i.e., by next Monday, November 19. The obvious first step for any such investigation by the AG would be to establish if the MTA Board is subject to the OML.
I asked the AG's press office whether they have received a complaint about (or are investigating) possible violations of the OML by the MTA Board. The press officer confirmed that no such complaint has been received to date by the AG's office. He could neither confirm nor deny, however, whether any such investigation is currently being undertaken by the AG's office since that information cannot be legally disclosed.
Does Anybody Care About the Toll Increase?
Since the MTA Board vote was taken, legislation has been introduced on Beacon Hill that would block the toll increases by freezing the tolls.
Locally to Allston-Brighton, State Representatives Kevin Honan and Michael Moran are co-sponsoring the House bill, while State Senator Steven Tolman is co-sponsoring the Senate bill.
Senator Tolman and Representatives Honan and Moran wrote a letter to Secretary Cohen on October 12, 2007, requesting a "Resident Discount Program" for residents of Allston-Brighton. The letter read, in part:
Given a long history of hosting this major highway with its negative effects, and recent proposal to increase the toll at the Allston-Brighton turnpike exit, it seems appropriate and necessary to explore some means of mitigating impacts on our community.Representative Honan also testified before the MTA's October 12, 2007 meeting in Framingham. He argued that the MTA should first provide information on projected potential revenues, and study potential benefits from Governor Deval Patrick's proposal for consolidating parts of the state transportation. He also said he was "disappointed" with the failure of the MTA install sound barriers (e.g., along Lincoln Street) that he had requested previously be done.
Does anybody care about these toll increases? Sounds like a lot of State Legislators do, including ours in Allston-Brighton.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
