Election day yielded some ripple effects for leadership in Massachusetts cities—for example, the pending decision of Worcester Mayor Tim Murray, lieutenant governor-elect, on whether or not to remain in local office; and the decision of Springfield City Councilor Angelo Puppolo, State Representative-elect for the 12th Hampden District, to step down from his local position as of January 3.
In Puppolo’s place will likely be the next-highest vote-getter in the 2005 election, newcomer and East Forest Park resident James Ferrera, a finance manager at Marcotte Ford in Holyoke. While running for City Council, Ferrera was cited saying that he would attend one meeting per week, at least, at a neighborhood council or civic group. I wonder if that’s still the case.
State-wide, there’s the taxing toll situation. On one hand, Governor Mitt Romney is saying he’s going to push through to have the I-90 tolls eliminated west of Route 128, "assuming a legal pathway is open." On the other hand, governor-elect Deval Patrick is advising caution, saying the tolls are necessary right now, and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, which had already voted to eliminate those tolls, "didn’t do its homework." (The MTA’s pending financial and legal review is expected at its upcoming November 15 meeting.)
Perhaps most on Springfield residents’ minds, though, is what our new governor intends to do with the majority state-appointed Finance Control Board, which is currently set to expire in spring 2007.
At the early October gubernatorial debate in Springfield, the four candidates were asked by ABC 40’s Ray Hershel, "How would you rate the performance of the control board to date, and if elected governor, would you continue the control board for the foreseeable future?" Patrick’s response, as transcribed by the Globe:
I think the control board has been helpful to Springfield. It’s been a very difficult time, it was necessary for the state to engage, I will say as governor that there is no way that I will let Springfield fail and I want to be a partner with Springfield to help it revive itself. The endgame, however, has got to be for Springfield to stand on its own two feet, to have its own government, to be self-determined and that’s where we got to go. Now the question of the length of the current control board, I’ve got to look at that and I want to talk with local officials to see what they need in order to ensure that they’re in a stronger and sustainable place. Springfield is stronger today, but it’s not out of the woods yet, and I can tell you that as governor I want to be an active part of saving Springfield for Springfield and the entire state.
An October 4 Globe editorial attempted some myopic analysis on the subject:
[Kerry] Healey was crisp and specific in her response to a question about improvements in Springfield under the Finance Control Board established to stabilize its teetering finances, saying the city had narrowed its deficit from over $40 million and was on its way to a balanced budget.
Patrick, by contrast, was more general and broadened his answer to look ahead. Unfortunately for Healey, though, the control board itself does not appear particularly popular in Springfield.
[Grace] Ross scored a point when she contrasted Healey’s earlier call for respecting the people’s will in rolling back the state income tax with her support for a control board that undemocratically dictates local policy.
I would say it’s not necessarily the case that the control board is unpopular. When Ross and Christy Mihos both said during that debate that they would, out of hand, dismiss the board, because governance belongs in the hands of the local people, my jaw dropped. Had they not been following the Springfield news, or visited any Springfield officials? Why would they think such a statement would go over well with Springfield voters? From what I can see—and this is relatively well-documented in the media—Kerry was exactly right in her assessment, and she could have made more of it, too.
In an inflammatory October 3 post, WRKO’s Scott Allen Miller broke down the debate and criticized Patrick for receiving the endorsements of both Mayor Charles Ryan as well as the Springfield police union, pointing out that these entitites are diametrically opposed when it comes to their stance on control board governance. What sort of message are we meant to get from this—as we are, indeed, relegating to simply looking for clues?
It’s not that we need to know a precise answer from Patrick right now, today, on what he would do with the board. It makes perfect sense that he would want to take some time, mull it over, talk with various leaders, and assess the situation on its own merits, outside of the spotlight of a campaign. The issue is contentious, and people are invested, even if it looks as though they are asleep. Springfield residents are alert as ever, but we’re also understated, and we’re used to being given the shaft. Thus, we’re also leery of rhetoric, easily assuming that it’s just another hollow promise.
But to lead Springfield residents—and, let’s be fair, the entire region here that relies on Springfield to be a functioning city, with above-the-board politics and a healthy economy—to believe that no temperature has been taken, or that the facts haven’t yet been laid out on the table—that’s a tough pill to swallow. We need to know more about what Patrick knows about Springfield’s situation. We need to see that he’s done his homework to this point. I would go so far as to say that we are on the edge of our seats, wondering if the pendulum is swinging heavily, and just how far.
