Damned if you do, damned if you do

The Boston Globe is reporting this morning that Pittsfield Mayor James Ruberto and former Red Sox General Manager Dan Duquette are being hauled in on ethics charges for not conducting an illegal transaction:

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission is holding a hearing today in a controversy involving Mayor James M. Ruberto of Pittsfield, former Red Sox general manager Daniel Duquette, and a pair of tickets to the 2004 World Series.

The commission's investigators allege that Duquette's sale of two tickets to the 2004 World Series to Ruberto at face value – when they were commanding as much as $2,000 apiece -- violated the state's conflict of interest law.

Here is the problem with that charge: If Duquette had sold the mayor the two ducats at $2,000 each, he'd have been in violation of the state's anti-scalping laws. In fact, if Duquette had got $250 each for the tix, he'd have been breaking the law.

And we all know what would happen if it wen't the other way. What do you think woulld happen if someone found out that politician X got two tickets to a Bruins-Thrashers game on a snowy Thursday in January for half-price. Do you think think the fact that scalpers on the street were only selling them for half-price would help him or her out?

So I guess the moral of the story is that officials subject to the ethics law--at least as it was written in 2004--can only attend sporting events where they pay full price for a ticket and where the street value of the ticket is no greater than full price. So if you are a pol looking to go to a Sox game, best to find a cold night in May when the Royals are in town so you don't have to go before the ethics commission.

Recovering

Last weekend, I had a couple of the largest traffic days in the history of this blog, thanks to the interest people have in Leominster mayor and city hall Romeo Dean Mazzarella. Seemed like a great opportunity to capture a bunch of new readers. An good aggressive week of blogging could have done wonders for the enterprise.

Then, nothing.

There is a reason. On Tuesday, I went in for fairly major surgery. Nothing life-threatening, and nothing that wasn't planned, but having a doctor cut you up and staple you back together takes a toll no matter what.

Not having any surgery before, I figured that it wouldn't be too tough to at least keep writing in tthe aftermath. I was so sure of that, I brought a netbook along to the hospital so that I could keep up with this site while I was waiting to come home. I didn't have the first idea what was coming.

What I found was that even though I felt better than I thought I would, I couldn't concentrate on writing. I was on a schedule (still am to an extent), where I had to eat at a certain time, drink at a certain time, breathe deeply at a certain time, walk at a certain time, to the point that I was thinking so much about that stuff that I couldn't concentrate on much else.

My recovery has been flying along. I feel great -- actually I feel a lot better than I thought I would -- I'm starting to get out for walks a couple of times a day, driving again, you know, everyday stuff. Hopefully I'll be able to get back in the saddle of this site as well.

Anyway, in case you've been wondering why No Drumlins went dark, there you go.

Flooding getting worser and worser

While watching out my picture window to the East to see if any part of Clinton remains above water, I got this alert from the National Weather Service:

FLOODING WILL BE AT LEAST AS WORSE AS IT WAS 2 WEEKS AGO. THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROLONGED PERIOD OF URBAN AND SMALL STREAM FLOODING FROM THIS AFTERNOON...LASTING WELL INTO TUESDAY MORNING.

Maybe we ought to start requiring our meteorologists to get an English minor English minors minors in English along with their degree degrees.

Mayor Mazzarella's Mad Libs are "Ready for You!"

A quick update on the love shack that is Leominster city hall...the Telegram moved the ball ahead on the story this morning by reporting that the controversy may have begun when Mayor Dean Mazzarella's ex-girlfriend/secretary popped him in the kisser on the steps of city hall:

The mayor's defense of his actions followed months of rumors that his ex-girlfriend, Stacia L. Venturi — upon discovering his relationship with Lisa L. Vallee, the economic coordinator — slapped Mr. Mazzarella on City Hall steps on Jan. 19, the day of the special election to replace the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

The mayor denied that Ms. Venturi struck him, but acknowledged she was upset upon finding out through a series of office e-mails about his relationship with Ms. Valle, who is married. Mr. Mazzarella noted using city e-mail was a mistake, and said they should have communicated via personal e-mail....

“I take full responsibility for everything I do,” he said. “I am not a womanizer.”

Look, tensions were high on the day of the special election, perhaps it is just as simple as one of them supported Senator Scott Brown and the other was a Martha Coakley voter.

But anytime the mayor has to come out and state "I am not a womanizer,"...well, that's just not good. I don't imagine people of Leominster will be thrilled with the description of Mozarella's current girlfriend as "who is married," either, if they weren't already aware.

Anyway, this morning's regularly scheduled post is "Ready for You!"

---

Scott had the brilliant idea of turning the emails that recently surfaced between Leominster Mayor Dean Mazzarella and his city hall paramours into a series of Mad Libs. I've created these from the text of the emails, as presented in the Sentinel and Enterprise, you just have to fill in the italicized terms. Feel free to complete them in the comments.


Subject: Poster Board

Paramour: Where is the (noun) for (name of friend #1)? He is (verb) at 1:00 today. Also we need a few (plural noun) for the (noun).

Mayor: It's at my (place). Stop in and see (name of  friend #2) and he will give you (plural noun)…If you wait until I get back, I can (verb) you at the (place).

Paramour: You've got enough to do already. I'll be sure to let you know if I need (noun) and what happens with (friend #1) and the (noun) too. You are too (adjective) to me.

Mayor: Tell you what. Let me know when you get to (place) and if I can, I will (verb) you there.

Paramour: OK. You got it, (term of endearment).


Subject: Co-workers

Paramour: That was by chance (adjective)! (Name of co-worker) came in here and asked me for a (noun) ... ugh, didn't want (pronoun) to feel (part of the body) so I kept it (adjective). He said he (past-tense verb) me; he's (adjective) but we knew that already. I'm thinking of you, can we (verb) later tonight after (name of event).

Mayor: He is (adjective). We can (verb) sooner if you want. You can call me on your way to see (group of people). 4 p.m. Before you go to (place) is fine. Or you could (verb) me when you get out. I stay in (place) until I have to go to (event) so just (verb) me on my (noun). Does any of that work?

Paramour: Nice. 4 p.m. is good. I will absolutely (verb) you to (verb) your (noun) at 4 p.m….

Mayor: (Verb) me at my (place) at 4:00. I have to run out and get some (noun) for my (place).

Leominster Mayor Mazzarella loves the ladies, is "Ready for You"

There is nothing wrong with loving the ladies, except that both of the ladies Leominster Mayor Dean Mazzarella is (or has been) loving work in city hall. Well, that and that he's emailing them using his city hall account. From the Sentinel and Enterprise:

LEOMINSTER -- Mayor Dean J. Mazzarella defended his decision to enter into a personal relationship with the city's economic development coordinator, saying his typical "18-hour days" leave him no time for a personal life outside of work.

"What you have here is simply a guy who works all day who basically met two people ... in the matter of 17 years," Mazzarella said Thursday afternoon during a telephone interview that his private attorney sat in on. "I didn't plan on the second one, but it happened and when we realized it was serious, we kept it professional."

Mazzarella insisted he has done nothing wrong and hasn't violated any city law or policy and believes his decision to date Lisa Vallee, the city's economic development coordinator -- after having a long-term relationship with another city employee and his former secretary, Stacia Venturi -- hasn't hurt his ability to manage other City Hall employees, nor did it put the city at any legal risk.

That's all. Just a hard-working lonely guy who only leaves city hall to sleep, so if he's going to have affairs, the only place to have them is in city hall. To make it more interesting, he sends emails back and forth with his partners using his official email account. Like this one exchange with Ms. Vallee:

"(City employee) came in here and asked me for a hug ... ugh, didn't want him to feel these boobs so I kept it quick," Vallee wrote in the e-mail. "He said he missed me, he's weird but we knew that already. I'm thinking of you, can we talk direct later tonight after ur council stuff. 10 p.m. ish or whatever."

Mazzarella, according to the e-mails provided, replied at 11:03 a.m., "He is weird. (Portion redacted). We can talk sooner if you want. You can call me on your way to see your kids. 4 p.m. Before you go to PTO is fine. Or you could call me when you get out. I stay in my office until I have to go to council so just call me on my cell. Does any of that work?"

And then Vallee responded to Mazzarella, "Nice. 4 p.m. is good. I will absolutely call you to hear your voice at 4 p.m."

Awwww. Isn't that sweet? Frankly, I'd like to find out more about this creepy city employee who cruises city hall looking for hugs so that he can feel the ladies' boobs. Seems like having a serial harasser in city employ might warrant a follow-up investigation from the Sentinel.

The Sentinel has published a handful of the emails (in keeping with the Sentinel's policy of finding a way to screw something up in every story, they've run them out in an html file instead of scanning them and posting PDFs, so good luck). Looks like Mazzarella was also carrying on conversations with his ex at the same time, for what that's worth.

But the best part of the story might be found at the end of each email. In the one email the Sentinel did post as an image, the signature lines of Mayor Mazzarella and Ms. Vallee include the slogan "Leominster: Ready for You!"

"Ready for You" indeed!

Is Scott Brown trying to save face with amendments that aren't his?

When I was putting together my earlier post on Scott Brown's bad day, something that he told WAAF's Greg Hill in his on-air therapy session caught my eye. According to the Herald's account of the interview, Brown claimed that he was going to be trying to change the bill today:

Brown said he is offering several amendments to the “fix-it” bill. Among them is a proposal to repeal a 3 percent tax on medical devices. Brown said there are more than 200 medical device makers in the Bay State that would lose their profit margin if the tax is put in place.

The Herald took that and published this later in the day:

Brown was preparing to file an amendment today that would repeal the medical-device provision, as part of an overall Republican plan to bombard Democrats with amendments as senators vote on a “reconciliation” bill that would make changes to the health-care reform package.

This puzzled me, because I was sure that I saw the list of amendments yesterday. It was my understanding that the debate started last night and the list of amendments needed to be in before the debate started. So I couldn't figure out how Brown was going to file an amendment today.

To satisfy my curiosity, I went to the Senate web site and looked up the list of amendments. I found three things:

1. Scott Brown is not the primary sponsor of any amendments, never mind "several amendments to the 'fix-it' bill."
2. Scott Brown is only listed as a co-sponsor to Senator Pat Roberts's amendment to repeal the medical device tax.
3. All of the amendments were filed yesterday, March 23.

So what's the deal, Senator? Do you think that tacking your name on as a cosponsor to someone else's bill covers you when you tell the media that you are going to be filing several amendments? Do you think voters won't notice when you over-promise then take credit for someone else's work?

We notice.

Scott Brown's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day

It has been a really rough 24-or-so hours for the extremely freshman senator from Massachusetts. He doesn't seem to be handling it particularly well.

First, people are starting to realize that Brown's election ended up being the kick in the pants the Democrats needed to actually pass health care reform. I noted it, Massachusetts' top political blog subscribes to the same theory, even the head Scott Brown cheerleaders at the Herald ran a story today wondering what the hell is going on with their hero, complete with an expiration date stamped on his forehead:

“We start to wonder whether we helped a RINO (Republican in name only) get into office,” said Tea Party activist Jeffrey McQueen, who raveled from Michigan to campaign for Brown in the final days of the Jan. 19 special election that rocked the nation.

“If it wasn’t for the Tea Party movement, Scott Brown wouldn’t have gotten that seat. We expect to see a true conservative in there.”

In fact, Democrats now say Brown’s election as the so-called “41st vote” to block Obama’s health-care overhaul inspired them to seek procedural means to bypass GOP efforts to derail the bill.

“Scott Brown’s election actually delivered health-care reform, because we didn’t need the 60 votes to make it happen. He delivered a significant victory in that,” [Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman John]Walsh said.

Brown did what any distinguished politician would do when confronted with controversy, he called in to WAAF to whine:

Host Greg Hill asked the Wrentham Republican to respond to Democrats’ criticism that he’s “insignificant” and GOP fears that his election killed their fight against President Obama’s health care overhaul.

“That’s good. Let them keep thinking like that. That’s what they thought last time and here I am doing the people’s business,” said Brown. “They can try to, you know, twist and manipulate and, you know, destroy the message and destroy as much as they want but the bottom line is people are very angry.”...

“You know they can try to pooh-pooh my election and try to minimize it and all that stuff,” Brown said. “I get what they’re trying to do. But the bottom line is they are going to start to carve out folks who are disabled and have some very serious medical issues and say, ‘See the Republicans want to take this away.’ ”

I'm not sure exactly what he means, but I think he's saying that Democrats are going to accuse Republicans who favor repealing the bill as wanting to take away new safeguards for people with preexisting conditions, wanting to take away the right to keep health care and not fear losing it if a patient becomes sick, and wanting to take away tax credits that help seniors cope with the Medicare "donut hole" and help small businesses purchase insurance for their workers.

If that is what he means, then he is right to be worried. Well, he doesn't have to be worried if he favors those provisions. But in yet another mistake, he came out yesterday in support of full repeal. So when we accuse Brown of wanting to take away new safeguards for people with preexisting conditions, wanting to take away the right to keep health care and not fear losing it if a patient becomes sick, and wanting to take away tax credits that help seniors cope with the Medicare "donut hole" and help small businesses purchase insurance for their workers, it is because that is exactly what Brown is calling for when he calls for repeal.

But that is not all. Brown is being widely ridiculed for taking a Walsh tweet and some internet speculation and turning it into a fundraising pitch against a 2012 opponent who is isn't an opponent. From the Senator's fund raising letter:

It's only been a couple of months since I've been in office, and before I've even settled into my new job, the political machine in Massachusetts is looking for someone to run against me. And you're not going to believe who they are supposedly trying to recruit--liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow.

I don't know if this was enough to raise any money, but it did get a response from the TV host:

"It's completely made up by [Brown]," she told Bill Wolff. Normally the executive producer of The Rachel Maddow Show, Wolff took the host's chair as Maddow recused herself "for the first and probably last time."

The bewildered Maddow found herself in two unexpected positions: a guest on her own show and a fundraising catalyst. "The fear of Rachel Maddow is what he's raising money on in Massachusetts," she observed before joking, "Massachusetts donors, open your wallets! Maddow's coming!"...

"Why didn't they just call and ask me if it was true before sending out the fundraising letter?" she wondered.

So to recap, in the last day or so Scott Brown has

• been blamed for health care being passed
• been called out for not being able to fulfill his promise to stop it
• been ridiculed by the Boston Herald, of all publications
• called for insurance companies to be able to deny coverage to children and sick patients
• complained that he is being accused of calling for insurance companies to be able to deny coverage to children and sick patients
• tried to raise money on the fear that a TV personality might run against him
• been ridiculed for trying to raise money on the fear that a TV personality might run against him, and
• complained to a DJ on a rock music radio station that he's being treated unfairly.

Hell of a day, Scott. Hell of a day.

Will Health Care Reform be Scott Brown's legacy?

If Senator Scott Brown represents Massachusetts for decades he will have an opportunity to forge his own legacy as a Senator, but if he is voted out of office in 2012 the health care reform bill passed this week will be his legacy. The bill--especially the House provisions included in the reconciliation package--would not have become law without him.

If you go back to the first of January, the question was whether or not the House would accept the Senate bill as it was written and whether the Senate would approve any changes the House might propose. Because there had been 60 votes for the Senate version, the Senate held all of the cards in that negotiation. Majority Leader Harry Reid had worked like crazy to get a bill that could hold together 60 votes. He was not going to compromise with the House and risk losing his super-majority. At the time there were three options:

1. The House would pass the Senate bill as is, making the Senate bill the law of the land and shutting out House provisions.
2. The House and Senate would try to find a solution in conference that would keep all of the House votes and not lose even one Senate vote.
3. The two chambers could not come to an agreement and the bill would die.

In reality, the only way health care reform was going to be passed was with option 1. Even at that, the Senate bill was unacceptable to the pro-life Stupak group and was also opposed by liberal House members who didn't think it went far enough in it's provisions. Any change to make it more pro-life would have lost liberal votes in both chambers. Any change to make it more pro-choice would have shut out the Sutpak bloc. Any liberalization of the terms of the bill would have lost votes in the Senate.

With the landscape as it was in January, it was going to be either the Senate bill or no bill at all.

But as we know, everything changed on January 19. With Scott Brown's election, Senate Democrats no longer had 60 votes. That meant leadership also didn't have any leverage with the House. If there was going to be health care reform, it would have to go through a reconciliation process that only required a simple majority.

That change put the ball squarely in Nancy Pelosi's court. Now the House had the upper hand in negotiations. It didn't matter anymore what conservative Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson an Blanche Lincoln thought about the bill because their votes wouldn't matter anyway. Pelosi realized that this was her chance to enhance the bill is whatever way she needed to get House Democrats behind it. As long as it was palatable enough for 51 senators, it would work out.

So Pelosi crafted a sidecar bill that made the final product more progressive. The reconciliation bill increases premium subsidies to low- and middle-income families, expands Medicare payroll taxes to capital gains and dividends, closes the prescription drug "donut hole" for Medicare recipients, eases the excise tax on high-cost "Cadillac" insurance plans, and strengthens efforts to move Medicare reimbursement money away from for-profit Medicare Advantage plans and back to doctors and hospitals where it belongs.

The result is that the bill is more progressive than it ever would have been if Martha Coakley had been elected.

If Scott Brown is unlucky enough to take to the floor of the Senate on January 2, 2013 to give his farewell speech, he'll talk about what he has done for Massachusetts. But he won't mention his greatest legacy: ensuring that the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 became the law of the land.

Forum tonight with Sheriff candidate Scot Bove

Scot Bove, Democratic candidate for Worcester County Sheriff, will speak at an open forum hosted by the Sterling Democratic Town Committee tonight at 7:00 pm at the Butterick Building Room 205, 1 Park Street, Sterling. The committee will hold it's monthly business meeting following the forum.

This is the first of our committee's series of candidate forums. Future forums will include other candidates for office, including candidates for sheriff, state representative, auditor, treasurer, and hopefully governor. If you are in

Each of our forums will be televised on Sterling-Lancaster Cable TV and will be posted on You Tube (and here) as well.

Hopefully you can come down to town hall to catch the discussion later tonight.

Health Care debate: Send in the clowns

I can't say that I am a C-span junkie, but I've been known to watch proceedings now and then. Whether for or against the health care reform bill that passed the House tonight--and I am in favor of it, although it could be a lot better--I think everyone can agree that tonight's vote is historic. This will probably go down as one of the most important acts of legislation of the post-war era, and I decided that I was going to watch the debate and the votes tonight.


After watching four hours of "debate" it's easy to see why people think congress is broken.

I must have heard somewhere around 100 speeches this evening and there isn't a dime's difference between them. Every Republican had the same set of talking points. Every Democrat read from the same script.Same thing over and over and over again.

Why? Because of the television cameras. Every last representative has to get up and say their one minute--even if it is the same thing as the previous speaker--so that the local TV station has video of Representative So-and-So imploring his or her colleagues to vote the right way.


Regardless of how our founding fathers thought Congress should work, the fact is that the all of the negotiations are completed behind closed doors. By the time a bill is called for a vote, the speaker knows exactly how many votes she has. Everything done in the chamber is done for the cameras.

So if you tuned in tonight and thought, "wow, what a bunch of clowns," that's why. While they may or may not all be clowns, they have certainly turned the floor of the House into a circus.