They better not come crawling to him for jobs, because he only hires his friends - even if they've been fired by the state's highest court for conduct unbecoming a court official.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
wow
By cybah
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 6:36am
Typical MA politician. Hiring his friends and donors, regardless of past history..
Pretty clear that this is all a connected move, and has zero to do with ability to do the job, because when Powers was at his old job, he didn't do it, and when he did, it wasn't a very good job at it. Considering this guys track record, this guy has no business working in government at all.
What a scam.. what a scam on the tax payers for pensions. Typical MA politics.. very typical.
I really hate this state and its corrupt politicians sometimes..
Insane..>
By bosguy22
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:02am
Over $200k a year for staff (not including health insurance), on top of pulling in $75k a year (and wanting a raise). What an absolute joke.
OK so
By MostlyHarmless
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:14am
I'm not talking about staff budget, but between this and the BPL threads, I've seen a lot of disgust recently at the salaries of public employees. To be honest, I'm not really sure why. Whether or not Murphy is essentially an oxygen thief (and I have no doubt that he is), $75k seems a fairly appropriate sum for a middle/senior public servant in a major city, particularly since the median income for MA sits at about $67k.
What sort of salary range wouldn't make you froth with rage?
Not a full time job
By Stevil
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:55am
There's a lot of navel gazing in this job.
A) I would cut the number of councilors to 5 district and 2 at large. Quite honestly, the pool gets pretty thin after that anyway - which is how we end up with the Murphys of the world.
B) Even then - with a few staffers, this is not a full time job (many councilors run side businesses - law, real estate etc. but keep a low profile) - $75k just to attract some capable people - not that big a deal - but keep in mind - the hardest part of this job is getting in (note how few people ever get voted out - especially district councilors).
My one interaction with Murphy - I noted a revenue column for parking meters that had millions the prior year and millions in the budget - but no revenue recorded more than half way into the fiscal year. I asked him why. He said he'd get back. I'm still waiting - that was like 6 years ago.
(Have since found out that this is one of several "balancing slush funds". The money goes in a trust and they take out enough to make the budget balance at the end of the year - which is part of how we manage to balance a multi-billion dollar budget to within a few million dollars every year. They add up the shortfall at the end - and there are different accounts you can pull from to make it look like we balanced the budget - when in fact we go over the original budget almost every year)
That's not my issue
By anon
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:56am
For me, the issue isn't paying pubic employees but the existence of all these crony level jobs which probably don't require anything like 40 hours of work per week and serve to bump up the long time public employees pensions and benefits. It'd be great to have fewer public employees who earn good money for good work, but that's probably a pipe dream. Really it's the same in corporate America - there are tons of middle level managers out there pulling down great salaries undeservedly but the key difference is that the public employee's pensions are underfunded and a tax payer liability. So we're on the hook to over pay this guy until he shuffles off this mortal coil.
A lot of this would go away
By Bob Leponge
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:06am
if we switched to defined contribution plans rather than defined benefit plans.
ZOMG, Scott Walker attacks!
By anon
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:29am
...would be the response to that I suspect, but you are correct.
Getting rid of deadwood patronage jobs would seem to be an easier first step though as that impacts friends and relations of politicians, not the politicians themselves.
Not a Scott Walker move at all..
By Bob Leponge
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 3:52pm
I'd be fine with making it a rich, generous defined contribution plan.
Just get rid of the current abuse-prone morass, and make it simple.... you earn pension credits steadily as you work, and when you retire you get all of them, and it doesn't matter if you work 6 months or 40 years; it doesn't matter what your salary was in the last year you worked, or what your job title was, or any other crap.
where is it different?
By Jeff F
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:56am
It is a disgusting story of cronyism, true. But I'm a bit confused over your repeated assertion that it's a particularly MA kind of thing. Exactly which states do you think are less corrupt?
Go West by Northwest
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:27am
My dad worked for the State of Oregon, which was set up by people fed up with 1850s corruption in the northeast. Some of the anti-patronage stuff was built into the structure of the state basic legal system!
The rules were quite extreme by MA standards. In one very low-population area, he had to completely remix two road crews because you weren't allowed to supervise even your second cousins! Nevermind that most of the people in the area were at least distantly related (area 2x the size of MA with 20,000 people).
Other things that went on were transfers away from spouses (weren't allowed to be in the same department or in "promotional" conflict within a chain of supervision). You couldn't get your kid hired to flag traffic - the application had to be independent and outside chain of command, etc. There were a lot of rules to stamp out nepotism.
Not sure that it is so clean on the political appointment side, but I do know that there are far fewer appointed jobs for politicians to fill (cabinet yes, statehouse janitor, no!), and far more civil service career jobs in city and state government. What would be considered acceptable here in terms of using office budgets to promote your "self"brand would land you in serious trouble for campaigning on the state's dime, too.
I'm not sure if other states were set up by those fed up with this same shit, but at least one was.
Corruption
By BostonDog
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:38am
Are you aware Oregon's governor just resigned due to a criminal corruption case?
The problem with local (and national) authorities abusing their power isn't limited to one state or another. Anytime you have an official who has little media oversight coupled with an apathetic voting populace you are going to find this sort of shenanigans. Most voters couldn't name a single elected official besides the state governor and US president -- How many people in this state still think Ed Kennedy is a senator? The politicians feed off this apathy.
The only real solution is for good media coverage and people to vote out people who do slimy things.
What annoys me more is the pension games. There should be no pensions -- Social Security coupled with automatic investments (401b, 403b, etc) should be all anyone should get. I don't mind public servants being paid reasonably well provided that there are powerful and well funded anti-corruption investigators. If they are convicted of abusing their power they should pay back their salary as well.
Who is Ed Kennedy?
By bosguy22
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:51am
You mean Ted?
Exactly
By BostonDog
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:56am
My point exactly
And did you see what that corruption case was?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 10:12am
It wouldn't even be considered to be close to an issue in MA, let alone cause for resignation.
Just like the sorts of patronage bullshit that landed a former OR governor in hot water twenty years ago had people scratching their heads out here. The national press couldn't figure out what the big deal was.
Some states have "low corruption" because they simply accept these things as "business as usual" and don't call anyone to account on it. That isn't the same as not having corruption. Read the news articles on the subject, not just the headlines. What Kitzhaber and his GF did wouldn't even make the papers out here.
ugh
By bibliotequetress
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 7:05am
Murphy should be able to hire whomever he wants for his support staff.
Having said that, Murphy's choices say volumes about him.
And following so closely on his bloviation about Amy Ryan, his tetchy reaction and noxious hypocrisy gall more than usual.
Ugh, uh..no.
By Fred.
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:57am
Ugn, no he shouldn't, not when taxpayer dollars are paying for this bullshit.
They're still his staff, like it or not
By bibliotequetress
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 4:12pm
This is different from appointing the head of the Boston parks department or the chief of police. In theory, Murphy's staff should be assisting and serving Murphy, and only Murphy, so that he can do his job efficiently.
That Murphy has chosen staffers who are are either not competent to fulfill their mission, or are ethically compromised, shows that Murphy does not care about his own job enough to find staff who will help him do it well.
A good staffer is a boon, often doing the research or helping with outreach that a pol does not have the time or the skill to do. Frankly, whenever you see a politician so boneheaded that you cannot imagine how he has risen to become, say, senator from Pennsylvania, look at his staff.
No vote for him
By Anon
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 7:40am
I met this man once and he was very unimpressive. I think he must only get reelected because his name is Murphy.
First Sentence - Correct. Second Sentence - Borderline Racist
By John Costello
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 8:12am
Just saying. Eddie Murphy would be a reverse Reggie Cleveland All Star here, but anon, I perceive your second sentence to be charged with racial language.
Did the good people of Baltimore keep voting of Kweisi Mfume because he was black or because, warts and all, he was a good politician? Say what you will about Murphy. Terrible public servant, really, really good politician.
yeah right
By Cappy
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 8:24am
People never vote for someone because they have name recognition like Flaherty, Walsh, O'Malley, Murphy, Mctavish, O'McDonald.....
Keep telling yourself that.
The wonderful world of the idealist.
Reality is so so so different.
Wait for it.......Menino
By John Costello
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 8:41am
You know, the son of hard working immigrants from Durris in County Cork, just south of Bantry.
While we are at it, please go on about State Senator Nick Collins and his accomplishments over the past two years.
You proved it!
By Cappy
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 8:50am
You are right. Not every pol has an Irish name. You win.
Geez, glad I waited for it.
PS. You throw that racist word around a little too easily. Oh sorry "Borderline Racist"
Another example
By bosguy22
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:03am
Of people not knowing what the word "racist" means.
Yes, Another Example
By John Costello
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:10am
Of people not understanding that certain words or phrases can mean different things to different people.
I stopped worrying
By Cappy
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:13am
about what stupid people might think when I realized that stupid people might think almost anything could be offensive.
Vote Eddie Murphy for Mayor of Boston!
Seinfeld nailed it
By relaxyapsycho
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:18am
http://www.ew.com/article/2015/06/08/jerry-seinfel...
Small problem
By MostlyHarmless
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:15am
"Irish" isn't a race.
Says you
By Waquiot
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:26am
If somehow you could build a time machine and go back to Boston in 1850, a lot of people would disagree with you. Go to 1900 Boston instead and find out about the Italian and Jewish races.
Of course, there would be much better things to do with a time machine, but none of them would apply to your comment.
Yes
By MostlyHarmless
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 1:44pm
I said Irish isn't a race, not Irish wasn't a race.
Do try to keep up.
P.S. You will find "race" is often a lazy way of referring to "ethnicity", particularly by governments.
So what is a race?
By Waquiot
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 2:24pm
I mean, according to the Census Bureau "Hispanic" is not a race. Arabs are considered an ethnicity instead of a race, although they are from an area spanning Asia and Africa.
Since people mention "Irish" in the same vein as "Blacks" or "Asians," couldn't it be construed that in that situation either all three are races or none are?
The reality is that "race" is more of a social construction than people would like to believe.
Sure
By MostlyHarmless
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 2:48pm
Race is indeed a social construction - in fact, race is entirely a social construction - but just because people call many things "races" does not mean they treat everything they call "race" the same way.
To answer your question, see here.
In other words...
By Jeff F
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 3:02pm
...'race' is whatever MostlyHarmless decides it is.
To be fair
By Waquiot
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 3:53pm
I think that is the universal definition.
Well
By MostlyHarmless
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 5:12pm
That's kind of exactly the opposite of what I said.
But, if you insist, it's me and, you know, the overwhelming majority of sociologists, anthropologists, and ethnographers. It's kind of one of those important things to our society, so there's a few smart people thinking about it.
My family's passports listed their race as "Irish"
By anon
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:53am
You may not acknowledge that race can be more than skin tone, but that doesn't mean you are correct.
The thing is
By MostlyHarmless
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 1:42pm
Race is way more than skin tone. At its most fundamental level, it's the one drop rule and the inescapability of the categorization.
If one side of your family is Italian and the other Irish, you whichever of those things you want to be. If your grandmother five generations back was Irish and the rest of your family is Polish-American, then you're Polish-American, or probably just "American".
If one side of your family is black and the other is white, you're black. If your grandmother five generations back was black and the rest of your family is white, you're black.
That's race.
There are some people who
By Dot net
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 8:27am
There are some people who have successfully switched race after that many generations. It usually involved moving, and getting away from areas that looked so closely at racial family history. It's a complex thing. The one drop rule isn't totally monolithic and unsurmountable.
No
By MostlyHarmless
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 10:39am
That's not changing, that's successfully hiding it.
The one drop rule isn't universal, but if you want to get away from it you're going to have to move to Brazil.
The "one drop" rule....
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 10:56am
... is no longer a part of any US law (and did not actually become part of any state's law until the early 20th century). Until then, even the deep south resisted legislatively defining racial identity.
Sorry
By MostlyHarmless
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 2:35pm
We've been talking about social practice, not legal definition.
I have never met anyone....
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 2:55pm
... who thought that having even the slightest trace of African ancestry made someone "black" -- have you?.
You must be fun at parties.
By Dot net
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 1:28pm
You must be fun at parties.
Correct
By MostlyHarmless
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 2:36pm
I am all the fun at parties. Or, I'm certain I would be, if I ever went to any :(
The one drop rule is bullshit
By Waquiot
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 11:29am
I remember back in the 1990s reading about a woman who "discovered" she was "black." I mean, how can someone wake up one race and go to sleep another? That shit don't make no sense.
However, it does show the arbitrary concept of race which, going back to Costello's comment, means that someone can consider the Irish a distinct race just as well as someone can consider Hispanics or Blacks a distinct race.
Half right
By MostlyHarmless
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 2:37pm
Yes it's arbitrary. No, that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all.
And why
By Waquiot
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 2:48pm
isn't it a free for all?
I mean, since it is a social construct, one can decide what is or isn't a race based on whatever criteria they want.
Here's a clue
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 5:35pm
If you get to decide whether you are or aren't, it isn't race.
Huh?
By Waquiot
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 7:36pm
If others decide what is or isn't a race, doesn't that cancel the race out by the nature of "someone" deciding it is a race or not.
I'm still trying to figure out how Aryans and Jews are no longer races, and to which race Arabs, who are found in Asia and Africa, are.
To Australian Aborigines...
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 8:04pm
... the opposite of red kangaroos are gray kangaroos.
I _think_ this has some bearing on the manner in which our culture (and others) defines "races".
Maybe more words help
By Sock_Puppet
Thu, 06/11/2015 - 4:59am
Race is socially constructed, but that doesn't mean each person gets to make it up for himself. Society constructs it, not the individual; society makes it matter. Race isn't something you get to choose to be, it's something you can't help being.
If _you_ get to decide about it, put it on or take it off like a hat when you go out the door, it's not race. It's affiliation.
If....
By Michael Kerpan
Thu, 06/11/2015 - 7:49am
... you are someone who has mixed ancestry -- and your physical appearance (and circumstances) allow, you CAN pick your race.
I'm almost there
By Waquiot
Thu, 06/11/2015 - 10:04am
Yes, an individual cannot decide what society marks as a race, but a group can self-identify. Hence, if enough claim that "Irish" is a race, they would be, even if all who claim it are Irish.
If enough claim -
By Sock_Puppet
Fri, 06/12/2015 - 8:33am
If enough claim - and at one point, as you mention elsewhere, they once did - that Irish are a race, they could be a race. But it takes more than people choosing to portray themselves as a race, it requires other people to insist they are a race.
I agree with you that the Irish were constructed as a race once upon a time, and treated, mistreated, and indeed oppressed as a race, in Britain and in America. I agree with you that this qualifies as racism. I hope I won't offend you if I say one of the most misconstrued events in history was the so-called potato famine: there was no potato famine, there was instead a calculated, generations-long attempt at genocide of the Irish on the part of the English, and the potato blight was just its most successful chapter. The creation of the Irish as a race was associated with - indeed, required for - this genocide.
http://www.irishholocaust.org/officialbritishintent
When we say that race is socially constructed, we also say that inequality and oppression is an inherent part of this construction: race is always and in every case constructed for one group to oppress another, which is of another "race." This is the situation in which the Irish were a race. Just as a group can be constructed as a race, given the right social conditions, that construction can also fall apart in the lack of those conditions. There is no longer, and hasn't for a long time been, such a situation regarding the Irish, and voilá they are no longer a race. Irish is now just one of dozens or hundreds of white ethnicities, with which people may choose to affiliate themselves or not. To the extent that you have a race, it's just white.
You can't make the Irish a race again through self-identification. A hundred willing volunteers, a thousand, ten thousand, a million couldn't make the Irish a race again, no matter how many step-dancing lessons, black puddings, shamrocks, or other signifiers of Irish ethnicity were selectively applied. What would be required to make the Irish a race would be other people abusing you and discriminating against you because you're Irish, no matter how you wer dressed or how you chose to act. You can walk out the door today in a scally cap and a green shirt and nobody knows or cares if you're Irish, Polish, English, or Mexican. The day you walk out the door and people look at you and say "damn Irish," then you're a race again. Which shows no sign of happening soon.
Race - The Power of an Illusion
By theszak
Fri, 06/12/2015 - 8:51am
Race - The Power of an Illusion
http://pbs.org/race
Not to beat this horse too hard
By Waquiot
Sat, 06/13/2015 - 11:06am
But when I saw this Washington Post article today (and no, I wasn't searching for it) I chuckled a bit.
For the life of me I cannot figure out how Chinese, Japanese, and Korean are races, Slav, Italian, and yes Irish aren't, and, according to the Census Bureau, Hispanic is definitely not a race.
But it is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
Interesting article
By Sock_Puppet
Sat, 06/13/2015 - 12:28pm
And it's nothing to do with the eye of the beholder, racist childhood rhymes notwithstanding.
I suggest that the history of race definition is the history of oppression. Observing its evolution is observing the evolution of oppression. Japanese, Korean, and Chinese remain separate races for ongoing political reasons far from our shores.
I suspect most Japanese would be utterly horrified if you suggested they were the same race as Koreans. Look up "zainichi;" there are Koreans living in Japan since 1910 who still aren't treated as citizens. Han Chinese also need to be a race, because how else could the Han continue genocide against non-Han peoples living in Greater China? Every time you hear "race," somebody's getting shafted.
Aren't they all Asians?
By Waquiot
Sat, 06/13/2015 - 1:08pm
That's what most Census reports will list them as, regardless of what they were thinking when they answered the form.
You gotta reply. It will be comment #100. You gotta do it.
shhhhh
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:11am
never wake a sleepwalker. keep your facts to yourself!
How is it not racist?
By Waquiot
Thu, 06/11/2015 - 10:09am
I got all tripped up yesterday.
Say I made the statement that all Puerto Ricans should be deported from the United States. Of course, it would be an ignorant statement, as all Puerto Ricans are United States citizens, but how would the statement not be racist? Since there is no concept of "ethnicism" in the English language, racism is the concept that comes closest. When the Irish were facing discrimination in Boston in the 1850s or in England in the 1970s, how was it not racism akin to what the Asians faced in California in the 1850s or in England in the 1980s?
Probably
By Michael Kerpan
Thu, 06/11/2015 - 10:40am
"invidious ethic prejudice" would be a more accurate description of what you are talking about -- but it is more wordy -- and the acronym IEP has already been assigned to something entirely different.
Costello don't
By bulgingbuick
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 9:55am
waste your time with the haters. We've assimilated and there are groups that refuse to do so and hate you for it.
Good reasons
By Kathode
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 7:44am
to vote for Annissa Essaibi George for City Council at Large this fall. Time for a change!
A developer's wife?
By John Costello
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 8:33am
Doug is a good guy, and I am sure Annissa is a great person, but do you want a person who has the primary mission on developing real estate in one of the fastest changing areas of Boston having their wife on the Boston City Council?
Ok, Bryan Fuller then, maybe.
By Dot net
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:02am
Ok, Bryan Fuller then, maybe. Military vet, MBA, and CPA. He can't be worse than Murphy. Thanks for the link, the Szak!
Annissa Essaibi George on City Council
By Anonymous
Wed, 06/10/2015 - 12:15am
I don't see any conflict between Annissa Essaibi George on City Council if her husband is a developer. Maybe if she was at the BRA.
Why is his legitimate job a negative?
By abby normal
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:17am
So his job is to develop real estate? Last time I looked that was more respectable than drug dealer...or perhaps politician.
Do we question why so many lawyers become politicians? Perhaps that should be the career we should watch out for. Oh, Bob is a lawyer, don't trust him to be a politician, he will change all the laws to be in favor of his clients and he probably just wants a hack job as a lawyer or some sort of legal clerk.
We should just elect poets I guess or yoga instructors.
I'm not talking about
By Kathode
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 9:35am
what her husband does, John. It's what Annissa does -- she is a teacher, a mother, a small business owner, she is active in her community. I'm voting for her because of her accomplishments and skills, not for what her husband may or may not do.
He owns and controls her?
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 10:19am
Really?
John
By JohnAKeith
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 12:52pm
C'mon.
Rotting from the head
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 06/09/2015 - 7:50am
I'm telling you
Pages
Add comment