A withering stream of justified bloggy outrage is pouring over the bow of the good ship M.S.S. (Massachusetts State Senator) Fred Berry for his theory that weaker, not stronger, ethics regulation is what the Senate needs.
Senator Frederick Berry, chairman of the Committee on Ethics and Rules, defended the bill, saying its authors were trying more than anything else to be evenhanded after listening to testimony that the Ethics Commission sometimes was overzealous.
This from the “House of Wilkerson.” David wiped away tears of laughter. Mass Liberal called the standoff between the Governor and the legislature over ethics reform “Showdown at Beacon Hill Gulch.” Hub Blog had this to say today on the general subject.
Berry is a resident of Peabody and has been in the Senate since 1983. Aside from two laudable years as a VISTA volunteer, work as a rehabilitation professional at the Hogan Vocational Center, a setting for adults with mental retardation, service as “Execuative (sic.) Director for Heritage Industries, which provides day programs for individuals with physical and mental challenges,” according to his official website, and a few years on the Peabody City Council — a part-time job that apparently pays about $7,500 a year — work in the legislature is the only job he has ever known. No wonder he thinks business as usual is the way things should be.
The only way to make legislators accountable is to challenge them at the ballot box. Berry represents the Second Essex district, which includes Beverly, Peabody, Salem, Danvers and Topsfield (some or all of zip codes 01915, 01960, 01961, 01947, 01970, 01971, 01923, and 01983). He is up for re-election next year. He kicked off his re-election campaign last year on 31 May. Interestingly, “Taking the stage to emcee the night was Berry’s close friend, former state Rep. Marjorie Clapprood. Among the other friends and colleagues who spoke in support of Berry were Lt. Gov. Tim Murray, Senate President Therese Murray, District Attorney Jon Blodgett and Mayor Kim Driscoll.” Berry’s website displays the following statement:
Senator Berry is my confidant and closest advisor. As Dean of the Senate, his counsel and advice are sought out by the entire membership. His first priority, however, has always remained with the people of the Second Essex District. He is their strongest champion and their fiercest defender. Senate President Therese Murray
So there you have it.
jimc says
Maybe Murray has me totally fooled, but she seems OK to me. Plus it doesn’t follow that Wilkerson’s corruption leads to Murray’s leads to Berry’s.
<
p>This bill seems bad, I’ll grant you that. But I’m not ready to dismiss it out of hand.
<
p>Dumb question: I know the Ethics Commission members are secret. But who appoints them, the governor?
david says
Uh, no. You can see a list of the Commissioners here. Re appointments, 3 are appointed by the Governor, 1 by the Attorney General, and 1 by the Secretary of State.
jimc says
I like the mixed appointment approach, that’s interesting. I’m surprised the Speaker and/or Senate President don’t get a slot.
david says
You can’t have legislative appointments to a body that has executive authority, which the EthComm does. (At least, it does for now.)
bob-neer says
I didn’t say Berry was corrupt. I said he is getting properly flayed in the blogosphere for being opposed to ethics reform (and, indeed, his laughable position that the Ethics Committee is if anything too aggressive); that he probably doesn’t perceive there is any problem because he has been in the Senate for so long he is out of touch on this issue — Wilkerson’s example notwithstanding; that Murray and others who support him should be questioned for that position given his stance on this issue; and that someone needs to run against him, or his unfortunate behavior is unlikely to change.
<
p>Sorry if I wasn’t more clear.
jimc says
<
p>… condemns the whole body.
<
p>Which is not to say you’re wrong, just that I think it’s a bit unfair to view this legislation in light of the Senate’s lapses.
<
p>
bob-neer says
The case of Sen. Wilkerson supports the theory that ethical matters in the Senate are going along just fine. Right.
jimc says
I did not espouse that “theory,” Bob, and you know it. All I said was that I don’t automatically dismiss this legislation. If you do dismiss it, I think you should do it based on principle not people. Laws not men, and all that.
<
p>
hlpeary says
Senator Fred Berry has been an outstanding Senator for the communities he represents…that’s how he has gotten re-elected by huge margins every two years. The event you site was packed with hundreds of Danvers, Peabody, Salem, Beverly and Topsfield people whom he has helped and hundreds who simply admire and appreciate him for his intelligence, political acumen, strength and determination.
<
p>Your minimization of Berry’s experience tells me how little you know about him. Berry has earned a solid reputation for responsiveness in spite of the fact that he himself has suffered with debilitating cerebral palsy all of his life. Make no mistake about it, if Berry did not have cerebral palsy which affects his speech and mobility, he would be Senate President right now.
<
p>Berry is a champion inside and outside of the State Senate for those who most need human services…not in “just words” but in deeds…Rather than use his stature to build a big campaign war chest (as so many others routinely do even when they have no opponent) Berry has instead raised money for charities on the North Shore for 25 years…tell any one of those groups that Berry is not effective and they will laugh you out of the room…he has raised over a million dollars and helped scores of local groups and organizations stay afloat and provide services.
<
p>As for Ethics Reform, you can’t blame Berry alone when every elected official on Beacon Hill shares some responsibility in this debate…In my opinion, the ethics reform proposals are all mute until real campaign finance reform is proposed and enacted. As long as politicians need to raise incredible amounts of money to run for office there will continue to be those interested parties who see donations as pavement on an access road. The higher the price tag, the fewer people can pay to play…and the more ethical challenges will arise.
<
p>
david says
It’s his committee. His committee released a truly wretched bill. Sorry, but that’s on him. He can make up for it by backing the folks trying to fix his mess. Let’s hope he does so.
hlpeary says
“Committee” reports are not one person’s opinion. And no matter what any Ethics reform bill says…whether the Governor’s, the Speaker’s or the Senate’s…there can be no real ethics reform without serious and enforced campaign finance reform first.
david says
We all know how the lege works. If the committee chair — especially one as close to the Senate President as Berry is — doesn’t want a particular bill or report out, it doesn’t get out. Plus, it’s not like Berry isn’t defending his bill. He stalwartly backed it in the Globe. Like I said, let’s see him back the efforts of those who would strengthen the committee’s work.
<
p>On campaign finance, the Governor has praised those provisions, and I don’t doubt that they’ll stay in. (My own view is that banning lobbyist contributions is probably unconstitutional, but that’s a different post.) But let’s not pretend that the ethics reforms aren’t needed.
hlpeary says
n/t
david says
I mean, I don’t mean to be a smartass, but that sure is how it looks. I will be delighted to be proven wrong when he throws his influence behind those who want to fix his committee’s bill.