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

NAME	END DATE	BEGIN BALANCE	RAISE	OWN MONEY	SPEND	END BALANCE
Felix Arroyo	10/31/07	3720.04	29878.49	0.00	32498.19	1101.30
John Connolly	10/31/07	35926.65	309174.77	10000.00	334722.83	20378.19
William Estrada	10/31/07	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Michael Flaherty	10/31/07	447262.56	337821.15	0.00	350947.80	434135.91
Matthew Geary	10/31/07	0.00	3672.01	0.00	3147.35	524.66
Martin Hogan	10/31/07	0.00	1621.13	0.00	1601.80	19.33
Stephen Murphy	10/31/07	43710.09	100000.00	250.00	96192.66	47767.43
David Wyatt	10/31/07	0.00	363.00	0.00	341.78	21.22
Sam Yoon	10/31/07	47636.17	209257.33	0.00	138422.17	118471.33
TOTAL	10/31/07	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.

BRA Meeting on BC's Renovations to Library and Bishop Peterson Hall

Boston Redevelopment Authority Public Meeting

Topic:  Boston College's Institutional Master Plan Amendment filing to renovate two buildings.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007
6:00 - 7:00 pm

Brighton Marine Health Center
77 Warren Street, 3rd floor
Brighton MA 02135

For more information, contact:
John FitzGerald
Project Manager
Boston Redevelopment Authority
617-918-4267
John.Fitzgerald.bra@cityofboston.gov

Note that this meeting does not appear on the BRA website for Allston-Brighton meetings.

Also note:  this is not a meeting of the BC Task Force, but is a public meeting organized by the BRA as part of the public comment period on the IMPA Notification Form.


Institutional Master Plan Amendment

Boston College  filed an IMPA on 10/12/07 to provide for use of two buildings, Bishop Peterson Hall and the St. John's Library, that BC purchased in the late summer from the Archdiocese of Boston.



They announced that the IMPA would cover:

1. Extension of the BC master plan zoning overlay to include these two buildings;
2. Renovations of the two buildings; and
   
3. Occupancy of the two buildings for institutional use beginning in late 2008.

Election Day and Night

Tuesday, November 6th is a municipal election in Boston. On the ballot for residents of Allston-Brighton: (1) District 9 City Councilor [open seat]; and (2) four City Councilors-At-Large.

Polls are open 7:00 am - 8:00 pm.

After the polls close, you can head over to the campaigns' after-election parties. The Ciommo campaign provided the location for their event, but the Glennon campaign did not respond to email or a ...  but, aha!, the TAB's blog has the information.

Mark Ciommo post-election party
Tuesday, November 6th
Starts around 8:15 pm
Corrib Pub, 396 Market Street, Brighton, MA 02135

Greg Glennon post-election party
Tuesday, November 6th
Start time:  ???
Cafe Brazil, 421 Cambridge Street, Allston, MA 02134



Voter Information Guide. In case you haven't seen all the Election 2007 related voter information, load the full website of the Brighton Centered Blog and look at the links at the right-hand-side of the page. Transcripts, audio recordings, questionnaires, interviews, campaign finance reports -- as well as analysis and critical commentary. There is literally no shortage of information about the candidates in this election.

League of Women Voters has a thorough guide detailing everything you need to know about voting.

Note:  if the precinct doesn't seem to have you on their list of registered voters, then request a provisional ballot.  If they won't give you a provisional ballot, then call the City of Boston Elections Department at 617-635-3767 and they will "gladly assist you."


Who to vote for? For the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council seat there are two final candidates: Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon.

For Boston City Councilor-At-Large, you may vote for up to four candidates among: Felix Arroyo, John Connolly, William Estrada, Michael Flaherty, Matthew Geary, Martin Hogan, Stephen Murphy, David Wyatt, and Sam Yoon.


Where to vote? Just go to "Where Do I Vote (MA)?"

Note that a few A-B precincts have changed their poll locations. If you go to a polling place and your name is not on the list of registered voters -- but you believe that your registration may still be current -- then request a provisional ballot. You vote now, and then the elections officials will sort it all out later.


When to vote? Polls open 7:00 am -- 8:00 pm. Usually, voters who are in line by 8:00 pm are allowed to vote, no matter how long it takes to process through the queue.


Election Results? Probably at the City of Boston's Current Elections website.


How often to vote? Once per registered voter, please.

From Anonymous Attack Mailings to Online Ballot Box Stuffing

There's a poll running in the upper-right-hand corner of Brighton Centered about whether or not John Connolly, candidate for Boston City Councilor-At-Large, should apologize for sending anonymous mailings attacking opponent Councilor Stephen Murphy.

The results have been neck-and-neck for the last 24 hours between "Yes," "No," and "I don't care" (politics as usual), with "Yes" ahead by a small margin.

That is, until now.

As of a couple of hours ago, one of my browsers has a snapshot of the interim results. I just looked at them a minute ago... and somebody has been voting like mad with "I don't care" answers.

	Few Hours Ago	Currently	Difference
Yes, he should also apologize for it	17	20	+3
No, admitting his campaign was involved was enough.	14	18	+4
I don't care -- this is just the way politics works.	13	39	+26
Who's John Connolly?	5	7	+2

I've highlighted in bold-face the statistically implausible increase in votes.

Ummmm... anyone care to guess who's behind this ballot box stuffing? And why does he want to make it look like people online "don't care"? You would think whomever is behind it has better things to do -- like making phone calls to get out your vote -- than scheming to vote multiple times on some two-bit blog's poll.

Post comments below with your guesses as to who is behind it. Please no profanity or offensive statements.


EDIT: and in the few minutes since I put up this post, he keeps adding more votes to the "I don't care" column. Methinks "Mr. I don't care" is named Pierre (copyright Maurice Sendak):

Damn! I Forgot to Get the Money First!

Dan Kennedy of Media Nation finds a profitable business model for community newspapers, including online versions:  "charge city-council candidates for covering them."

The Cambridge Chronicle reports:

Neil McCabe, who edits and writes for the monthly North Cambridge newsletter The Alewife, refused to print a candidate profile on Jonathan Janik written by McCabe’s staff after Janik decided not to buy advertising in McCabe’s newsletter...

[Wrote McCabe in an email:]  "The truth is that I am not in the news business, I am in the real estate business. I have 24 pages of real estate that I have to collect rent on every month."

I've just managed to put up an awful amount of campaign-related stories and information right here at Brighton Centered.  Every time I did so, the candidates told me the check was in the mail...  but I have yet to see one measly buck.  I should've insisted on the cash up front.  Damn.

Councilor Murphy Strikes Back at Challenger Connolly in Councilor-At-Large Race

Councilor Stephen Murphy has managed to get a mailing out attacking challenger John Connolly for the latter's anonymous mailings late last week attacking Murphy.

It reads, "We deserve better than cowardly attacks by a desperate campaign... Call John Connolly and tell him you won't stand for this Mud-Slinging! 617-327-5646" The adjectival choice of "cowardly" represents a bit of mud slung back at Connolly.

The anonymous mailings came out Thursday, and Connolly's campaign on Saturday admitted to being behind them. That Councilor Murphy was able to produce a response mailing, get it printed and mailed, and then have it appear in mailboxes today (Monday) is amazingly fast and nimble. Based on the information on the Murphy mailing, it was produced before Connolly's campaign admitted they were behind the anonymous mailing. Murphy's mailing gets into people's mailboxes the night before election day. I never received the original Connolly mailing -- but I got Murphy's mailing -- so I think the Murphy mailing's reach will go far beyond the Boston Herald and the blogosphere to connect with the electorate city-wide.

Score: Murphy 1, Connolly 0.


On other news, I got an automated message from Tim Schofield today asking me to vote for... Councilor Sam Yoon, not law partner John Connolly, in the Councilor-At-Large race.

I have also been informed that Governor Deval Patrick not only endorsed Councilor Stephen Murphy in the Councilor-At-Large race, but also Councilors Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon.

New Poll: Should Connolly Apologize?

I've put up a new poll on the Brighton Centered Blog:

John Connolly's campaign admitted to sending anonymous mailings attacking opponent Stephen Murphy, but offered no apology. Should Connolly also apologize for the mailings?

The background story on the anonymous mailings can be found here.

For readers of this blog who use the RSS feed, you will have to load the full webpage of the Brighton Centered Blog to see the poll (e.g., in a browser).  The poll is on the top-right of the webpage.

Former Councilor Larry DiCara on City Council Race

Former Boston City Councilor and candidate for Mayor Larrry DiCara spoke about the Boston City Council race on WBUR-FM's Morning Edition this morning.

DiCara thinks that Councilor Felix Arroyo is most at-risk of losing his Councilor-At-Large seat in tomorrow's election. DiCara talked about "Felix being Felix" -- akin to "Manny [Ramirez] being Manny" -- by doing the politics thing his own way. DiCara said that not many sounds have been coming from Councilor Arroyo lately, but DiCara apparently hasn't been in the middle of Brighton lately himself.

But, you know, if Councilor Arroyo can hit as many end-of-the-season home runs as Ramirez... he won't have much to worry about. He finished second in 2005, after all.

DiCara also stressed the important of Governor Deval Patrick's support for Councilor Stephen Murphy lately, including a big fundraiser last week.  Why would Governor Patrick do so?  Councilor Murphy came out early to support Governor Patrick in last year's gubernatorial race at a time when "not many people named Murphy from Hyde Park" were doing so.  Governor Patrick is returning the favor.

Maybe Murphy supported Patrick because the name sounded Irish?

Mayor Menino Dangles a Toe Into A-B City Councilor Waters

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has not openly endorsed any candidate for Tuesday's election of a new Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor. Like any election campaign in the city, word constantly swirls about the neighborhoods, wondering if the Mayor is pulling strings behind the scenes for this candidate or that. Maybe some rumors are true, others not, but without a clear endorsement, the Mayor isn't making a major move to support his favorite candidate -- if he had one.

A week ago at the Brighton Main Streets annual gala, the Mayor spoke briefly about the race. He said that he wasn't making any endorsements, but then said of candidate Mark Ciommo, who was in the crowd, that he would do a great job if elected. Ciommo's opponent, Greg Glennon, wasn't there that night.

Is Ciommo the Mayor's candidate? He was asked this in the September 17, 2007 candidates forum, when two of the other candidates nominated him as the Mayor's candidate. (Both have subsequently endorsed Ciommo following the preliminary election.) Here's what Ciommo had to say:

QUESTION: Since the other candidates also closely associate you with the Mayor, is this a blessing or a curse?

CIOMMO: All I can say is that for the past 20 years in this community, I've been in an executive position for the better part of those 20 years working on the behalf of the citizens of this community -- first, as the assistant director of the Jackson-Mann Community Center, and for the past 14 years, at the Veronica Smith Senior Center. And I have to work with the Mayor. He helps provide services that I deliver to the seniors in Allston-Brighton. I have to work with the Mayor as president of Little League, to make sure our parks and playgrounds get cleaned and the fields get mowed. As a Hobart Park Neighborhood Association founding member, I had to work with the Mayor to re-design the park, organize a community build, find funding from the grounds funds to erect the ornamental fencing and the historical markers. So, I will work with the Mayor, but I've always been a strong and independent voice on behalf of the citizens of this community, and I will continue to be that as your next City Councilor.

I'm not sure that the Mayor makes sure that the grass in the parks gets mowed, but that's beside the point. Instead, Ciommo was eager to connect anything to he could between him and the Mayor -- even mowing the grass -- to make it look like he was working with the Mayor. Methinks Ciommo counts the Mayor's good words as a blessing, no matter how well the Mayor might pretend it is a non-endorsement. (wink-wink)

(In the City Councilor-At-Large race, it sounds like Councilor Stephen Murphy has received similarly nice words from the Mayor this weekend.)

Why hasn't the Mayor come out more strongly with a full-fledged endorsement of a candidate? One City Hall insider told me, "What's the upside?" After the Mayor endorsed a candidate in the East Boston special election for State Representative last month, and his candidate tanked, he must have been leery of making two bad endorsements in a row and looking like a liability. Another possibility is that the Mayor thought that Ciommo's position in the election is strong, and so he didn't need to intervene. Nonetheless, if a sitting Mayor can only think of downsides for endorsing a candidate, then how strong a position must the Mayor think he's in?

New vs. Old Boston in the Councilor-At-Large Race

Some pundits are predicting a low turnout in Tuesday's municipal election, which would favor "old Boston over the new, white over minority, and seniors over younger voters."

People generally put Councilors Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon in the "new Boston" typecast, and there is little question that they are also minorities. Councilor Stephen Murphy, on the other hand, is clearly white and most would associate him with old Boston (cf. David Bernstein's case made in the Boston Phoenix). Councilor Michael Flaherty makes a more difficult case: many perceive him as blocking Team Unity's proposals in his former role as Council President, while the Phoenix claims that, since losing the Council President post, he has "become a more vigorous, daring, and thoughtful Councilor."

Putting aside the incumbents, let's ask the questions: Where lies challenger John Connolly? He is clearly white and young, but does he represent old Boston or new?

The mainstream media thinks Connolly represents new Boston. The Boston Herald thinks he would bring a "fresh approach," the Boston Globe quotes Connolly as promising to be "a voice for people who want to build a life in this city," and the Boston Phoenix says Connolly pitched himself as a progressive in 2005 -- he may be trying to be even more progressive this time around -- and has "thought deeply about a host of urban issues."

Is their combined assessment on target?

In what has probably been the most clever part of the 2007 municipal election campaign, Connolly has convinced the powers-that-be that he represents new Boston, when in reality he doesn't.

Old Boston Political Lineage. The obvious argument for Connolly as old Boston insider focuses on lineage: his father was the Secretary of the Commwealth, his mother is currently a Superior Court judge, and his uncle used to be Boston City Councilor. The Irishman doesn't seem to have the background of an urban progressive.

His connection to the Boston politics of old became all too clear in the last week as his campaign sent out two anonymous mailings attacking Councilor Stephen Murphy, and may have sent out another two "anonymous" mailings (supposedly from the "Parkway Coalition" and the "South Boston Association," both of which don't exist, according to the Herald's Howie Carr). Vicious, anonymous attack mailings are lore of old-time politics, not YouTube or internet-savvy young 'uns. Embarrassing thing (for me) is that Howie Carr seems to agree with this assessment: "Just when you think the old Boston is dead and buried, things like these farcical flyers pop up."

Casino Gambling. Connolly has come out solidly in favor of casino gambling in the state -- and in Boston itself -- although he notes that he wants East Boston residents to have some kind of say in the matter. Putting Governor Deval Patrick aside, gambling as revenue generation is usually more a conservative position than a progressive one: conservatives who don't want to raise taxes instead support raising "voluntary" taxes through gambling, while progressives express strong opposition to the terrible human cost gambling inflicts on the under-priviliged classes. It's no coincidence that Councilor Arroyo strongly opposes casino gambling and Councilor Yoon expresses strong reservations about it based on the human costs. Connolly mostly sits on the other side of the aisle from new Boston Councilors Arroyo and Yoon.

City Planning. The formation of the Boston Redevelopment Authority in the 1950s gave every Mayor since then a cover to undertake large-scale urban renewal (like razing the West End), thereby keeping his hands clean. What has made the situation far messier now than then is the breadth of land ownership by tax-exempt institutions, and their massive proposals to develop on those lands. The BRA regulates their development proposals while simultaneously promoting economic development in the city and undertaking city planning. Those three functions of regulation, promotion, and planning often conflict on a fundamental and unresolvable level.

Recent years has seen a surge in the interest in splitting off at least the planning arm of the BRA into a separate city planning department; Councilor Arroyo proposed the current ordinance. These are the realities of the new Boston: dealing with the complicated and messy problem of planning a city's redevelopment while simultaneously regulating the developers. Connolly favors the status quo to keep the half century-old BRA as has been since old Boston times.

Public Schools. More than anything else, Connolly's stance on schools betrays his old Boston roots. He's 34-years-old, so when he grew up Boston was already under court-ordered desegration and mandatory busing. He told me he did not attend the Boston Public Schools himself, and he also strongly favors returning to neighborhood schools. In fact, he sat down with me in August and lectured for probably a solid 10-15 minutes on why neighborhood schools were the key towards improving the public schools.

The problem with wanting a return to neighborhood schools is that the city may revert to pre-1970s battle lines with schools segregated based on neighborhood demographics, and uneven school quality from neighborhood-to-neighborhood. It's not a surprise that new Boston Councilor Arroyo opposes continued movement towards neighborhood schools. Councilor Yoon summed up a progressive take on the issue by ensuring equality of schools for all: fix the schools first so that every neighborhood has a good school, and only then can overhauling the school assignment system occur. Connolly instead thinks doing the latter will accomplish the former, which sure sounds like an old Boston approach to me.


In the end, voters on Tuesday may well choose Connolly's ideas over one of the incumbent Councilors-At-Large. Good arguments can be made on both sides of each of these issues in the election. But somehow Connolly has convinced the mainstream media that these ideas are new and even urban progressive, when they sure seem like they are old -- and sometimes even conservative.

Candidate for City Crooner-At-Large

For those who missed the Boston City Councilor amateur talent night, here's a little something from last year: Felix Arroyo singing La Despedida (in Spanish) on YouTube. What a crooner!

I couldn't find any other YouTube videos of the other candidates, other than a 2005 commercial for John Connolly previously noted.

City Council Candidate Connolly Sent Anonymous Mailings Attacking Councilor Murphy

People all over town have begun receiving two different, but related, anonymous mailings about the Boston City Councilor-At-Large race which expresses negative comments about Councilor Stephen Murphy, who is running for re-election. The nature of the negative comments are given in a humorous way using a shopping cart and a deliveryman.

I received my first phone call about it on Thursday, November 1st. The first blogged report of one of these mailings was later that day from Adam Rosi-Kessel (via UniversalHub):

Today’s mailing attacked Stephen Murphy for repeatedly trying (and failing) to win some other office or get some other job than City Councilor. The return address was 31 Milk Street, which is the address of many different businesses.

One non-business at 31 Milk Street is a U.S. Post Office.

Murphy-attack-mailing #1 has a front cover the photo of packages in a shopping cart zooming down a store aisle: "Steve Murphy is always shopping for another job. Trouble is, he isn't very good at the one he has." Murphy-attack-mailing #2 shows a deliveryman with a stack of cartons: "Steve Murphy spends a lot of time shopping for a new job. But when it comes to the job he has, he isn't carrying the load." Both were mailed 9-5/8" x 8" glossy card stock. Both are stamped, rather than using a permit which would allow you to easily track down the sender.

The Boston Herald picked up the story in the November 2nd edition, quoting one flyer as saying:

“You know it’s election time when Steve Murphy is out looking for a different job that [sic] the one he already has,” states the flier. “On Nov. 6th, tell Steve Murphy that if he doesn’t want the job he has, you’ll elect someone who will.”

The Herald noticed that the printer "bug" on a Murphy-attack mailing matched that of other mailings from challenger John Connolly. Here is the "bug" on a previous Connolly mailing sent to me:


where the fine print on the right-hand-side reads "GCIU 274C". It stands for Graphic Communications International Union, where the tag "274C" identifies the printer as Standard Modern Company of Brockton, MA. A Brighton resident who received both of the Murphy-attack mailings informed me that both carry the same "GCIU 274C" bug as this previous Connolly mailing. The Herald considered this identical "bug" as evidence sufficient to write a story:

The mailing has a Milk Street return address and was printed by a Brockton company that produced another flier [sic] for John Connolly, one of Murphy’s opponents in Tuesday’s election. Connolly and his aides did not return repeated calls.

Nowhere on Connolly's campaign finance reports is there an expenditure referring to either a Brockton printer or the name Standard Modern Company. Other candidates for public office in Massachusetts, such as Christy Mihos, Governor Deval Patrick, Joanna Gonsalves, and Thomas Reilly, have recently listed this company in their expenditure on campaign finance reports; none of them appear to be directly linked with Connolly.

Adam Gaffin of UniversalHub further discussed the similarity between the attack mailing and a previous Connolly flyer by comparing the shape of the "Boston Globe" cutouts on the two: amazingly similar scissors work, although it is quite possible the the creator of both flyers downloaded a graphic from the same source. He also notes that the mailing addressee name, "The Gaffin Household," is identical between the two, and that both are the same size and card stock.


New Evidence Linking Attack-Mailings to John Connolly

I asked a Boston resident with direct expertise in writing software for campaign mailings to inspect the attack mailings and a previous Connolly flyer to determine if they were similar. His experience in the field provides a nuts-and-bolts approach to the technical aspects of such campaign mailings.

He confirmed most of the above points raised by the Herald and Gaffin: similar size and card stock; similarly structured name for the addressee; and same GCIU bug.

He also found one much more compelling similarity between the attack mailing and the Connolly mailing: the computer entry line, sandwiched between the addressee's name and the postnet code, was a direct match in one case. The computer line likely originates from the sender's computer database of addresses.

In particular, the "Shopping Cart" attack flyer has the same prefix characters "S125 P6" as a flyer previously sent to the same addressee by Connolly. These numbers appear on the line above the address with the ECRLOT number (which is the Enhanced Carrier Route, Line of Travel) code. The whole line is like this: "S125 P6 *********************ECRLOT**C006."

The "Delivery Man" attack flyer has a slightly different pattern for the beginning of the database entry line, "S166 P7"; these prefix characters are nonetheless very similar to the "Shopping Cart" flyer ("S" followed by three digits, then "P" followed by one digit) and very different from the database lines coming from other candidates' mailings.

Locally in A-B, Greg Glennon has had flyers printed by the same shop carrying the "274C" bug. The computer database entry line for two identical mailings sent to me and my wife by Glennon show a different line from the Murphy attack mailing, "****************ECRLOT**C033 S22 P1"; another one sent a while ago reads, "*******AUTO**5-DIGIT 02135 T3 P1". Clearly, all recent mailings sent out by Standard Modern Company do not carry the same ECRLOT line.

All told, the mounting evidence -- particularly the exact match of the ECRLOT line -- appears quite strong in pointing towards Connolly's campaign having sent out these two flyers as anonymous attacks on Councilor Murphy.


Connolly Campaign Admits Involvement

Connolly's campaign did not return calls and emails seeking comment on whether or not they were behind the mailings attacking Councilor Murphy. (I had set a deadline in my request for comment for 4:00 pm, after which I would go to press.) As noted above, they also did not return repeated phone calls from the Herald on Thursday seeking comment.

As I was "going to press" Saturday afternoon, the Connolly campaign issued a statement to the Herald and UniversalHub that they are responsible for the mailing. (The Herald's website indicates they published it around 3:00 pm.) The Connolly campaign issued no apology, nor did they explain why they went to great lengths (anonymously sent, USPS return address, stamps instead of permit for postage) to hide their involvement; instead, they defended the nature of the statements made in the mailings attacking Murphy.


Motivation?

What was Connolly's motivation in sending out these attack mailings? The obvious reason is that Councilor Murphy finished took the fourth and final Councilor-At-Large seat in the 2005 election, while Connolly finished out of the money in fifth place. Some pundits think that Councilor Murphy is therefore the most vulnerable sitting Councilor to being unseated by Connolly.

A deeper reason might be that Connolly sees the close synergy between him and Councilor Murphy: the two share more than just Irish surnames. Despite recent arguments to the contrary, they both appear to share some positions that are more socially conservative than the other competitors (particularly Councilors Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon). Connolly and Councilor Murphy are pro-casino, anti-Planning Department, vocal proponents of more police officers, etc. If Connolly wants to unseat Councilor Murphy, he has to figure out a way to differentiate the two of them. Reminding voters how Councilor Murphy keeps running for other offices is one way to do it.


Connolly Campaign Enters Slow Burn Phase of Bad Public Relations

The inability of the Connolly campaign to get out early, on Thursday, in front of the story puts them into a repeated news cycle problem that will likely get worse before it gets better. Early on, they should have been returning phone calls and emails from the media and issuing strong statements of admission or denials; instead, they didn't return phone calls or emails, and only issued a statement after two days. Good PR officials time-and-again recommend getting out in front of a story quickly in order to limit damage.

Their failure to apologize for the anonymous nature of the attack mailings was another big blunder by their campaign. If I made a statement like that to my wife after making a big mistake, then I would be sleeping on the couch for a long time... if I were so lucky not to have the locks changed first. Does politics mean never having to say you're sorry? Obvious answer: no.

A series of comments posted on the Herald site, plus Gaffin's personal opinion, suggest that many voters who believed Connolly to be connected with this attack mailing will not vote for him on Tuesday. One Brighton poltical insider, who up until now has supported Connolly, responded negatively towards Connolly with a Bronx cheer when confronted by the increasingly likely possibility that Connolly is responsible for the attack mailings. The damage is mounting; we'll see if their statement, continuing the attack on Murphy rather than apologizing, can stem the tide. I doubt it.

It would be a sad outcome for Connolly if, after running such an effective campaign all year, he then gets clubbed in the end by making a lousy decision to send out these attack mailings a few days before the election. Nobody would be raising a stink about this if the attack mailings had carried his name on them. But politics is all about standing up for your actions, and Connolly took quite a while to take responsibility. I predict he will undergo a slow burn over the next couple of days -- and he might also be greeted by an unsurprising and unfavorable result on Tuesday night as a result of both his delay in taking responsibility and his refusal to apologize.


I don't normally link to attack-meisters like Howie Carr, columnist of the Boston Herald. But he ran a column in today's Herald containing relevant information (amidst Carr-like foaming rants) that was filed before Connolly's statement was released; the Herald website promises another column from Carr tomorrow. (EDIT: it can be found here.) Remember that the Herald editorial board endorsed Connolly, as did the Globe; it will be interesting to watch if either editorial page comments on Connolly's stupid mailings, or even retract their endorsements. I doubt it.

When all those newspapers, plus the Allston-Brighton TAB and sort-of the Boston Phoenix, endorsed Connolly for all the new and fresh ideas that he might bring to the City Council, was this what they meant? If so, the constables guarding City Hall might not be sufficient to contain the fighting that will break out inside among the Councilors themselves.

Will Team Unity Fall to Team Low Turnout?

The last week or so has seen the politics punditry a-flutter with speculation that there will be low turnout in Tuesday's municipal election that might result in the defeat of Councilors-At-Large Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon. Wrote blogger Marry in Massachusetts, "Will Team Unity survive a low-interest contest?"

The argument goes like this. Tuesday's election will have low turnout because: (1) it is an off-year municipal election because the Mayor is not up for re-election until 2009; and (2) the mainstream media has not covered the race, totally ignoring the preliminary municipal election, for example, until only after it had taken place. Low voter turnout emphasizes "reliable" voters -- elderly, wealthy, and white -- while de-emphasizing the opposite. On BNN's Talk of the Neighborhood show last Tuesday, David Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix told host Joe Heisler that a low turnout vote emphasizes old Boston over the new, white over minority, and seniors over younger voters.

Minority candidates like Team Unity's Councilors Arroyo and Yoon will get hit hard by the low turnout, while majority candidates -- like Team Irish's challenger John Connolly and Councilors Michael Flaherty and Stephen Murphy -- will fare well. Wrote the Boston--Bay State Banner:

For Arroyo and Yoon, success depends largely on who will turn out. In the last off-year election in 2003, Arroyo garnered 75 percent of the vote in predominantly African American Ward 12. Flaherty got 25 percent of the vote.

In South Boston’s Ward 6, Flaherty garnered 86 percent of the vote to Arroyo’s 25 percent.

While people of color make up more than half the city’s population, the whites in Flaherty’s voting base turn out in greater numbers.

But that article then contradicted the story line by noting that Connolly and Councilor Murphy are both courting people of color in this election; if they, too, are reaching out to minority voters in order to get elected, then why would low turnout work in their favor? More likely is that Connolly and Councilor Murphy have far less support in minority neighborhoods than their supporters would like you to believe, reinforcing the point that they would benefit from low turnout. Retired school teacher Bob Marshall was quoted by them as saying, "I’m not voting for anybody else," he said. "These Councilors [Arroyo and Yoon] have been on the front lines when it comes to dealing with communities of color."

Bernstein argued on BNN that city politics are steadily moving towards to the point where no one can run city-wide unless they appeal to minorities and urban progressives. He predicted a voting bloc on the City Council to develope in the next 4-6 years, representing the new Boston -- whether explicitly minority, like Team Unity, or not.

Allston-Brighton may buck some of these voter turnout trends, since we have a lively race for the open District 9 seat being vacated by Councilor Jerry McDermott. Turnout of 4500 voters at last month's preliminary municipal election may have been a little lower than expected, but may very well set the stage for proportionately higher voting in A-B in the municipal election November 6th as compared with the rest of the city. (A-B historically turns out the vote at lower percentages of registered voters than most of the rest of the city, so I am referring to A-B potentially delivering a larger percentage of the overall number of voters than in past elections.) That all of the active candidates for Councilor-At-Large showed up last month for our Brighton candidates forum speaks not only to their renewed interest in the issues of our neighborhood, but likely also to a political calculation that A-B turnout this year could be more important than usual to the Councilor-At-Large election.

A-B TAB Package on A-B City Council Race

The Allston-Brighton TAB has published a nice package of information this week related to the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council race.

Candidate Profiles: Mark Ciommo, Greg Glennon
Questionnaire: Ciommo, Glennon
Campaign finances -- also see original stories at Brighton Centered and A-B Community Blog
Editorial Meeting with the Candidates: Public schools, institutional expansion, housing and taxes
Various people's endorsements (of Ciommo, not Glennon), Ward 21 committee (also see original story at Brighton Centered), and former opponents endorsements
Editorial Endorsement of Ciommo

The Allston-Brighton TAB compiled a comprehensive collection of information about the election that will help to inform Allston-Brighton voters of their choices. The TAB is to be commended on a job well-done!

Boston Globe Covers City Council Race (on Page B4)

The Boston Globe has exploded onto the scene with 3/4 of a page of coverage of the issues in the Boston City Councilor-At-Large race! Toss aside the front section! Pick up the City/Region section -- and flip through to page B4! Marvelous... I'm delighted that the Globe's newsdesk has chosen to cover some of the issues in the race.

The article actually notes which District City Councilors face competition for re-election, although it fails to name any challengers. Shame on you, Globe!

The article manages to name both finalists for the Allston-Brighton Distict 9 seat, Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon, although the Globe newsdesk continues in their dogged insistence of not once giving either candidates' position on any issues. The Globe once previously mentioned District 9 race on September 26th, the day after the preliminary municipal election.

The Globe also previously devoted one article to the Councilor-At-Large race in their Sunday City Weekly section, although that article consisted mostly of a discussion of bullet-voting -- not the issues -- and included a print-only set of contact information for the candidates.

Their latest article continues that tradition of print-only content: the wonderful table containing the responses of all nine candidates for Councilor-At-Large to three different questions, is not included in the online version of the article. Sigh. They were so close -- and yet so far -- from delivering information to the online masses!

Since the Globe can't figure out how to deliver this (sidebar) content on their website, I've scanned and provided the thing below.

A-B TAB Endorses Ciommo, Arroyo, Connolly, Flaherty, and Yoon for City Councilor

The Allston-Brighton TAB has endorsed Mark Ciommo for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council. Their editorial page writes:

In the time we’ve been observing Ciommo, he’s shown himself to be a consistently reliable advocate for the people of Allston-Brighton. He’s regularly attended community meetings and, again in contrast to his opponent, never skipped a community debate. When local activists have asked candidates to fill out election-related questionnaires for publication on local blogs, Ciommo has always taken the time to answer them.

On the issues themselves, the TAB highlights Ciommo's stance on improving the Boston Public Schools through advocacy of the K-8 model, while contrasting it with opponent Greg Glennon's support for state-chartered schools and school vouchers.


In the Councilor-At-Large race, they picked "[Councilor] Michael Flaherty over [Councilor] Stephen Murphy, because we hear from him more – and that’s significant since all of the at-large incumbents could probably stand to pay a bit more attention to A-B than they do"; I have heard from a lot of people in the neighborhood who have the opposite view altogether.

Their other endorsements are for Councilors Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon, for providing "a voice in government for people who might not otherwise have one," and challenger John Connolly, because he "would bring a fresh, new, intelligent perspective to the council" even though his positions on some of the issues "are different from those of some of the other candidates we’re endorsing."

Tax-Exempt Status and the Knights of Columbus

The Knights of Columbus 121 Brighton Council hall at 321 Washington Street in Brighton Center has recently mounted two signs in the front of their building advocating for Greg Glennon for City Council (see photo at end of that post).

This "Catholic fraternal benefit society" appears to be organized, at least in part, as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt institution under Federal tax law as the Knights of Columbus Charities, Inc. Their property at 321 Washington Street is listed by the City of Boston as "exempt" from property taxes.

Under Federal law, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations "may not publish or distribute printed statements or make oral statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office. Consequently, a written or oral endorsement of a candidate is strictly forbidden." Harvard's Office of General Counsel further advises that "section 501(c)(3) organizations are strictly prohibited from participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. This means that organizations that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) cannot endorse or advocate for political candidates or parties." Engaging in such activity could lead to loss of the organization's tax-exempt status.

I wonder: are the Knights of Columbus 121 Brighton Council aware that posting candidate signs on their property might be putting their organization's tax-exempt status in jeopardy? It seems like a very high price to pay just to support a candidate for City Council. You would think that attorney Glennon would realize the legal implications of that political activity.

I bet they could put both those signs to equally good use by moving them to the front yard of somebody's (private) house...


EDIT:  L. B. Jefferies has told me that the signs now seem to be gone.

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Glennon, and the Ambassador

Mark Ciommo, candidate for the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council seat, has been open on his positions on major social issues of the day. He is openly pro-choice and supports marriage equality, and wrote to me that he opposes the death penalty. Four of his opponents in the preliminary municipal election all openly answered questions on social issues, such as gay marriage, when asked.

Ciommo's opponent in the final municipal election, Greg Glennon, has, on the other hand, been remarkably quiet on these issues in this campaign. An audience question at the October 23rd debate asked him his personal position on abortion, and Glennon declined to answer the question. (Listen to the audio under "audience questions".) When given the same question, Ciommo instead chose to answer it (albeit in the fewest possible words)... and off we went to the next question.

Both Ciommo and Glennon expressed the opinion that these issues are not particularly relevant to the job of a City Councilor. But when asked if he thought these issues do matter to voters in the City Councilor election, Ciommo told me he thinks they might. "I think voters may consider these issues, however, I believe voters care most about having someone who has a record of service and experience and of proven results."

There is a clear disconnect between the two remaining candidates in their approach to addressing these major social issues of the day. It isn't really much about their particular stances on the issues -- although that does factor into the equation. Instead, their eagerness or unwillingness to address the issue with Allston-Brighton voters is the story.

Three particular points have been difficult for me to get my arms around in this election: (1) Where does Glennon stand on these social issues? (2) Does it matter to voters? and (3) Why won't he answer the same questions that other candidates will?


Where Does Glennon Stand on the Social Issues?

Where does Glennon actually stand on these social issues? Nearly everybody I have spoken to expresses certainty that Glennon opposes gay marriage and is pro-life. Is this accurate? I went to the public record to find out. (Glennon did not respond to the request to provide his positions on gay marriage and abortion for this article, or to describe how his position might have changed since 2005.)

Many stories in the last few years which have tried to categorize Glennon's political positions have called him "conservative." In general, however, the articles give no direct reference to a position paper or a quotation from Glennon himself. A simple example from the 2005 race for State Representative was in the Boston Globe's coverage (categorizing Glennon without quoting him):

Gregory Glennon... seems poised to make a play for more conservative voters who will respond to the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage views he shares with Golden.

As best as I can tell, the paper-less trail seems to go back to one event in Brookline in 2005. Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix reported:

Greg Glennon, a former legislative aide to Golden, represents the district’s conservative constituency (Brighton is also home to the Boston archdiocese’s headquarters) and wears his views proudly. During a recent candidates’ debate in Brookline, Glennon declared himself pro-life and, after acknowledging that Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, plugged "reasonable restrictions" on abortion rights (e.g., "informed consent" and parental-notification rules). He also denounced the Supreme Judicial Court’s Goodridge decision, which legalized gay marriage, as bad jurisprudence, and suggested that freewheeling popular debate on the subject would be healthy for Massachusetts...

Another media report I have found about the event, but which is not available online, was a column by Mark Trachtenberg in the now-defunct Allston-Brighton Bulletin:

Glennon knew he was walking on eggshells on the issue [of gay marriage] and his comments reflected it. He was the only candidate in the [2005 state representative race] field who opposed the Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage.

[Glennon said:] "I believe the voters deserve the chance to voice their position on the issue by way of the [state constitutional] amendment. I believe the amendment is a fair, thoughtful amendment that respects the concerns off those who believe that consensual adult relationships deserve legal recognition."

Trachtenberg's column continues on with the issue of abortion:

As a devout Catholic, Glennon disapproves off abortion but regards a woman's access to most reproductive health services as a matter of "settled law."

The qualification "most reproductive health services" is a hole wide enough to drive a truck through, but the "settled law" statement is also a strong respect for legal precedent.

In the October 15, 2007 candidates debate, Ciommo asked Glennon about whether or not evolution should be taught in the schools. According to two people in attendance, Glennon initially seemed ready to respond -- like he did to the aborion issue in the October 23rd debate -- that the social issue was not within the purview of a City Councilor, and so that he wouldn't answer it. But the attendees said that he appeared to change his mind early in the answer; Glennon then said that it was OK to teach evolution in the public schools. (Ciommo might be cut out for the job of journalist should the election not go his way: that was a clever question he wrote, designed to pull a candidate out of his shell. It succeeded.)

There we seem to have it. Glennon is quoted as personally opposed to abortion, considering it to be a matter of "settled law," but supporting "reasonable restrictions" on it. He disagrees with the SJC's decision on gay marriage, possibly on legal grounds (he is a lawyer, after all), but has not spoken on whether or not he personally supports gay marriage; instead, he wanted a popular referendum on a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (a position also generally taken, it should be noted, by outspoken opponents of gay marriage).


Are These Major Social Issues Relevant to a City Councilor?

A Boston City Councilor has virtually no jurisdiction over any of these three issues -- abortion, gay marriage, or the death penalty -- so his position is unlikely to lead to changes in the law. There are three ways I can think of, however, in which the issues might impact voters.

First, the Boston Police Department has a significant influence over enforcement of laws related to abortion: anti-abortion protestors, such as those outside the Planned Parenthood clinic on Commonwealth Avenue just outside the District 9 borders, could be impacted by either aggressive or lax enforcement of the law. Changes in state law are currently making their way through the legislature, which would increase the buffer zone from six to 35 feet and re-define where the buffer zone originates, make enforcement an issue that is likely to crop up within the next year or two. City Councilors do have influence over police enforcement issues.

Second, getting elected City Councilor could provide an "entry point" or springboard for a politician who eventually may seek a higher office where his views could actually create an impact. Elect someone now with whom you disagree on fundamental issues, and that person could be the next Congressman.

Third, while the Legislature voted this past year not to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the voters, they may vote yet again in the future to do so. If Governor Deval Patrick gets his casinos, then I would bet in one on such a referendum passing and reversing the SJC decision. The City could be in the position to re-consider providing domestic partner benefits to city employees, an issue on which a Councilor might vote.

Of these three arguments, the first one is current and relevant on Commonwealth Avenue -- just across the boundary of District 9. The second and third arguments are, admittedly, more and more of a stretch.

What do some voters think? One undecided voter recently told me that the "entry point" argument was relevant in choosing a candidate. Many other undecided voters -- supporters of Schofield, Selvig, and Hanlon -- have told me since the September 25th preliminary election that they are considering the candidates' positions on these social issues when deciding who to support for the November 6th municipal election, with abortion and gay marriage being the key two issues.

Should these social issues matter in a City Council election? Probably not. Are voters considering these issues in this election? It sure sounds like they are -- and Ciommo suspects as much. (Glennon did not respond to a request to comment on whether or not he thinks that voters are considering these issues in this election.)


Former Mayor Flynn Supports Glennon for City Council

Former Boston Mayor and former Ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn supported Glennon in the preliminary election with a $200 check; he was also seen on election day, September 25th, outside the Oak Square YMCA, a polling location, wearing a Glennon campaign button. Flynn is well-known for his strong advocacy of the pro-life position on abortion, particularly through the organizations Catholic Alliance, Your Catholic Voice, and Catholic Citizenship. Under a photo of Ambassador Flynn and Sean Cardinal O'Malley, Catholic Citizenship expresses its goal "to get to the point where all candidates are pro-life."

I asked Ambassador Flynn recently why he supported Glennon's candidacy for A-B District 9 City Councilor. The first reason, he said, was that former State Representative Brian Golden's office -- which included staffer Glennon -- was "one of the best state representatives for delivering constituent services," an important function which was "getting short-changed in an age of institutional expansion." The second reason was the friendship that Glennon had developed with the Ambassador's son, Ed Flynn, in recent years.

I asked Ambassador Flynn if Glennon's position on abortion factored in as a reason for his support based on the Ambassador's own well-known advocacy for right-to-life causes. He said that "there's not much a City Councilor can do on this issue." But then he added, "I admire [Glennon's] position on the respect for life."

While Ambassador Flynn's response indicates that the main reasons for his support of Glennon are a past record of delivery of constituent services and a personal relationship through his son, his answer nonetheless shows that he is aware of Glennon's stance on abortion and "admires" it.

Glennon may not have wanted to answer publicly the audience question on abortion during the October 23rd debate, but he appears to have answered the question privately with at least one of his prominent supporters.


Why Would Glennon Avoid These Social Issues?

The obvious question keeps coming back to me: Why is Glennon avoiding stating his position on these social issues while his opponent -- and all the other opponents in the preliminary election -- were perfectly happy providing their positions?

One conclusion: Glennon's perceives that his position on these issues is at odds with the bulk of the electorate in Allston-Brighton. The 2005 race was a very close three-way contest between Glennon, Michael Moran, and Tim Schofield; now-State Representative Moran eeked out the win. In an election where social issues did matter, less than 1/3 of the electorate voted for the conservative candidate on these issues.

An alternate conclusion: Glennon's actual position on abortion (and/or gay marriage) is not quite conservative enough that he might fear alienating his conservative supporters. Note his statement about abortion being "settled law": this is close to heresy to the religious right, since many conservatives would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned altogether.

One Brighton political insider told me that in 2005 Glennon confided to him that he was worried what his conservative supporters might do if they heard his comment about "settled law." If this one person's account of a conversation in 2005 is accurate, then this just might provide the key to understanding Glennon's 2007 campaign strategy not to answer questions on these social issues.

Glennon appears to be walking a tightrope when he declines to answer questions about abortion: not wanting to alienate his conservative supporters with a more measured view of abortion, while also not wanting to alienate the broader A-B community who rejected a social conservative candidate more than 2-1 in 2005.

Are Glennon supporters like Ambassador Flynn aware of Glennon's somewhat nuanced position on abortion that acknowledges it as "settled law"? I cannot tell. But it is also possible that some people who were considering voting for Ciommo based on Glennon's perceived stance on abortion may take a second look at Glennon.



Caption: One of two campaign signs for Greg Glennon recently mounted outside Brighton Center's Knights of Columbus Hall. The middle line on the sign on the brick wall reads, "PRAY FOR THE UNBORN." The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic fraternal benefit society that is active in pro-life causes.