State House Roundup: Exeunt Delahunt, Et Al.

U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, left, with then-House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi in October 2008. (Josh Reynolds/AP)

U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, left, with then-House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi in October 2008. (Josh Reynolds/AP)

THE STATE HOUSE — Electoral intrigue is, just like money in politics, like water on pavement.

And just when the voyeuristic horde — junkies, operatives, reporters, aspirants — thought that Massachusetts’ elected class was going to let them down, Congressman Bill Delahunt rose to the occasion.

Certainly, the ascension of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown had roiled the issue of incumbency plenty, frightening officeholders into wondering whether they could stave off voter discontent and, alternately, whether they could share in the Brown legacy, which has proved so desirable that it’s engendered a comical parade of efforts to carve out a share.

But what was really needed was a prominent pol in a prominent office — not the state Senate — to jet, and unleash a gusher of consequences.

And the Delahunt decision not to run again, after 40 years in politics, provided precisely that. Calls flew from Provincetown to Quincy, voting patterns were scrutinized down to the precinct level, fundraisers were enlisted, and sabers rattled. For just the third vacant U.S. House seat this decade, the race is also the second one this year for an open federal office — heady, nearly hedonistic times for the commonwealth’s oft-staid political chain of being.

Calls flew from Provincetown to Quincy, voting patterns were scrutinized down to the precinct level, fundraisers were enlisted, and sabers rattled. For just the third vacant U.S. House seat this decade, the race is also the second one this year for an open federal office.

Similarly, House Speaker Robert DeLeo assented Thursday to the inauguration of a different sort of donnybrook, one that’ll probably be uglier than the congressional race. DeLeo says he wants two casinos and four racetracks featuring slot machines. This is what is known in games of chance as an “ante,” and over the next several months will shift shapes numerously.

Gov. Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray were both a bit chilly toward the speaker’s plan, Patrick warning that DeLeo, who has long sought slots for Wonderland and Suffolk Downs, must traverse a “steep climb” to convince him of their worthiness. All three support expanded gambling.

It’s the sternest test to date of DeLeo’s skills, which he plied a year ago between the lethal shoals of gas taxes and toll hikes to the island oasis of a sales tax hike. He’s got a chamber to persuade, and opposition by two other leaders who don’t face the same instability — and, to be fair, general lunacy — among their own troops, whose ranks will look vastly different next year, as incumbents this week continued trucking for the exits.

“We’re kind of on novel ground here, and I think it’s going to be a hard sell,” said one senior House Democrat, speaking anonymously to discuss the speaker’s prospects with the bill. “If (Patrick and Murray) line up against giving slots, and it looks like they already may have, then it’s going to have to be a concession they give to DeLeo, and the concession will only be if they really want casinos. I’m not sure they do.”

During the bill’s lengthy gestation, DeLeo had time to line up a few arguments. Unemployment hit 9.5 percent this week — gambling is his answer. Blue collar jobs have evidently not been aboard the boats floated by major investments in life sciences and elsewhere — the speaker’s manufacturing fund filled with gambling dollars is his answer. Legislative lethargy during recent months on big-ticket items, January’s education bill a notable exception, becoming an issue — and gambling is his answer.

“If DeLeo rolls this out as his major initiative and it falls flat, major injury there,” the House member said. “People are skittish on this. If it looks unpopular on this, they’re going to get real skittish.”

On the pedestrian front, the Legislature continued its onslaught of raging populist causes like authorizing longer leases for yacht clubs on state land (Senate), harmful material transmitted to kids via text and email (Senate), and banning the practice of cutting out vocal cords of dogs, also known as ventriculocordectomy or, more gently, debarking (House). After hours of pleading for empathy with canines over the gruesome devocalization efforts, some lawmakers confessed they wished their colleagues had a bit more firsthand experience with the procedure.

The House also passed, 100 to 56, a bill empowering the financially puckered city of Lawrence to borrow $35 million and work with a state overseer to recover. Passage came only after lengthy debate, and GOP complaints that leadership had quashed discussions of a stricter proposal to place the city under control of a state board. The bill moves now to the Senate, where Democratic leaders look more askance on Law-town.

The Senate voted to target risky driving by permitting police officers to pull over texting drivers, banning handheld devices for teens behind the wheel and subjecting seniors 75 and older to recurring mental and physical screenings. Interesting election-year legislation, and one subject to change when it goes into conference with the House bill, which goes further in outlawing handheld devices for all drivers, but does not crack down on the vehicular activities of the Greatest Generation as aggressively as the Senate.

On Wednesday, Patrick budget chief Jay Gonzalez informed lawmakers the state’s AA bond rating, a good one, had been affirmed by all three relevant bond ratings agencies. On Thursday, the state received word it had passed the initial round of vetting for access to as much as $287 million in additional federal education aid.

The busy week helped avert reproachful eyes from the administration’s fumbling of the additional $5 the Registry of Motor Vehicles started charging Monday for in-person transactions that could have been conducted from afar. Gov. Patrick about-faced on Tuesday, suspending the fees, probably a shrewd move, deciding not to tax folks already engaged in one of the least enjoyable services offered by state government.

STORY OF THE WEEK: DeLeo re-opens the bidding.

BUY ’EM, COLLECT ’EM, TRADE ’EM WITH YOUR FRIENDS: “Unlike my past letters on the horrible economy and dire fiscal situation of the Commonwealth, I am writing to ask for your assistance,” House budget chief Charles Murphy wrote to committee colleagues Monday morning.

Murphy, whose aides have also invited members to “join him for lunch,” continued: “As you know, I have been Chairman for about a year now, and I have spent countless hours in my office taking meetings and trying to craft the best budgets possible. Over the past year, I have noticed the framed portraits of past House Committee on Ways and Means members hanging throughout the Ways and Means offices.”

The framed portraits do, indeed, adorn the budget panel’s walls, handsome depictions of fiscal mandarins past. “To my knowledge, the most recent portrait was done in 1985. I believe it is time for an update. I have arranged with the House photographer for the design and production of a 2009-2010 House Committee on Ways and Means portrait.”

No taxpayer dollars will be expended in the effort, Murphy said. “There is where I need your help,” he went on. “Over the next few weeks, I would kindly ask you to arrange with the House photographers to have your headshot taken at your convenience and no cost to you … Once all of the committee members’ photos are taken, I will deliver prints to each of you.”

Unaddressed in the missive are inevitable interest in whether or not constituents can purchase these handy mementos, whether they could be offered in a set — own the Ways and Means Committee! — and what fair market value might be. For instance, Murphy did not discuss whether a portrait of Rep. John Quinn, Democrat of Dartmouth, in mint condition might be more valuable than one of Rep. Thomas Conroy, Democrat of Wayland, in fair condition. Stay with the Roundup for ongoing coverage of this and other committee activities, such as its efforts to close a budget gap somewhere in the $3 billion neighborhood.

RATE OF RETURN: Rep. Karyn Polito, long eyed as statewide GOP candidate, on Monday made her top-line proposal in a newly announced campaign for treasurer the exclusion of future elected state officials from the public pension system, and said she would pull her own contributions from the centralized fund and deposit them in a private investment account.

Only problem, it seems, is that she probably can’t do that without changing the law. “Right now, active employees or active members of the state retirement system can’t withdraw their money until they sever their employment or leave,” said State Retirement Board Executive Director Nicola Favorito. “Elected officials have a choice of joining, if they’re not already in, but once they’re in their funds are with us.”

Polito said Friday that she was working to determine whether she could withdraw, and said she would file legislation if it turned out she couldn’t. Polito also appeared to gaffe Monday when a reporter asked whether she might not make out better with the private account. Polito, who as treasurer would oversee all state pension funds, replied, “You’d have to ask my husband about that. He’s probably better able to answer that.”

Unsolicited campaign tip: When a reporter asks a question about the candidate’s personal life that directly pertains to the candidate’s suitability for office, it is nearly always best for the candidate not to defer promptly to a third party. Polito explained Friday that her husband has a 401(k), while she does not, instead banking with an IRA. She said Friday she wanted to establish a “private retirement account” similar to a 401(k). She added that 401(k)’s are “a solid and good tool for individuals to prepare and have a nest egg in their retirement.”

URL WINNER: Eric Steinhilber, the Barnstable Republican who was challenging Sen. Robert O’Leary for the Cape and Islands District, and who now finds himself running for an open seat in a field that will likely populate rapidly now that O’Leary has been stricken with Potomac Fever, is rocking the euphonic Web address electeric2010.com as his campaign Web site.

WBUR Topics · Boston · Politics
Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on wbur.org.
  • Judith

    It’s pathetic that the legislature refuses to address the fiscal problems of our Commonwealth, instead debating issues like leases for yacht and banning dog de-barking.

    Re: bark softening, I have retrievers, so I am accustomed to quiet dogs. They are bred to be quiet since a barking dog scares away game. The first time I heard a bark-softened dog I was shocked. Then the owner explained to me that she had to bark-soften her dog or euthanize it because of noise complaints from her neighbors.

    De-barking might not be the choice I’d make for my dog, but I am unwilling to take that option away from another owner. Is it better to kill a dog rather than bark-soften it? I think not.

    More people need to mind their own business. Those who want to ban bark softening should be forced to deal with a screaming dog and complaints by neighbors before they are allowed to define it as cruelty.

    Most importantly, the legislature should focus on the problems of the Commonwealth, not on ridiculous “feel good” nonsense! Wake up, people!

  • EASW

    If the legislature would keep their noses out of things that should not concern them such as debarking, the Commonwealth would be better off. This is a veterinary decision; the Mass. Vet Medical Assn. opposes the bill–yet the legislators seem to think they are more knowledgeable–yeah, right! Just as in human medicine, the medical decisions are best between doctor and patient or patient owner. Hopefully, the Senate will behave more responsibly and not knuckle under to animal radical organizations and their minions and the media hype!

  • Genevieve Wallace

    When did congressmen and legislators attend vet school? Who gives them the authority to make veterinary medical decisions? I have a foxhound that is debarked. It was either give her up or have the decibel level lowered so I could keep her. I wish people would mind their own damn business. The government has health care, insurance, crappy schools, and unemployment to deal with instead of crusading “do gooder” BS ! THIS IS A DECISION BETWEEN VETERINARIANS AND OWNERS !!!!

  • alice in LALA land

    These “lawmakers’ need to BUTT out of medical decisions.. what a crock of chowder…..

  • Dr. Rosset

    The House has been bamboozled by the animal rights movement whose sole intent is to remove ownership of all domesticated animals and remove your property rights. Bark softening saves lives by allowing the bark pitch to be lowered. The dog knows no difference and continues to bark but the pitch is lowered. This is a case of the judeas goat leading the reps to do something that is going to come back and bite them. Are they reading to mandate that all housing associations and neighbhors have to put up with barking dogs so people can keep their beloved pets or are they willing to let up to 6 thousand dogs be killed because their owners can no longer keep them due to barking. Note that anyone who tells you that the dog can be trained is not exeperienced enough with dogs to know better. Also note that all animal rights zealots tell you that you shouldn’t have such a dog. That is clear indication that they don’t want you to have a pet unless its on their terms which adopt a mixbreed and keep it like they want not like you want. These people are HSUS animal rights zealot and this is another cult taking over America. These are non animal loving people who want to end your right to own a pet or to eat meat. They have taken over the SPCA, HSUS and started out with PeTA and the ALF. These are not animal welfare people and any company that succombs to their demands is working at idiot speed since the general public knows this now. Farmers know what is best for their animals not HSUS. Also note every chicken farmer in California is moving out because the HSUS will not let them do anything other than raise cage free chickens which makes their eggs dangerous and not profitable. That alone should tell the public that these people want to end their days of being able to eat meat.

  • Dr. Rosset

    Notice that even the writer has fallen into the trap of calling a medical procedure gruesome. For the writer’s information the picture of the lab with a big set of stitches on the outside was for cancer of the throat not bark softening. This is typical of animal rights people to misled the public. It is done inside the throat and is not at all dangerous if it is done properly. What is gruesome is mandatory spay and neuter where the dogs organs are ripped out. And HSUS is pushing to have it done when they are as young as 8 weeks which means the puppy has no hormones to tell its body how to grow or to mature the brain. So you have a perpetual puppy unable to learn. They promote this surgery which has no health benefit for the dog or cat but only benefits their plan to remove all domestic pets from human contact. 93% of all pets are neutered or spayed in this country so in ten years if this keeps up their will be no more dogs and very few cats. Something to think about regarding feral cats. If feral cats are wild and not just lost family pets as everyone seems to think, we should be thinking about them differently.  We would not think of interfering with a wild species.  Animals in the wild often are slimmer and incur bites from other species.  But here is an interesting bit to think about with PETA’s movement to euthanize all feral cats, in doing so they are removing one of the main predators of rodents from the community.  Mice and rats are prolific breeders. You can see on youtube a documentary of a rodent infestation in Australia where the mice had literally taken over the landscape.
    You couldn’t open a door without mice spilling out. This farm in an isolated region had no predators and no cats. Scientific studies show that the feral cat’s diet is 98% rodent. If we neuter and spay, plus remove feral cats either by killing or placing their kits in homes what do you think will happen to the rodent population? Here are some things we do know culled from various experiments and studies on rodent and feral cat populations.

     “Man can reduce rodent populations and keep them low by permanently eliminating their food, water, or harborage only if he also increases
    the predatory activities of foxes, cats, birds, and snakes”.  Report on rodent control and its limiting factors – World Health.

    “the removal of cats had unintended consequences, such as on Macquarie Island where the removal of cats caused an explosion in the number of rabbits and rats which harmed native seabirds.[9][10] The removal of the rats and rabbits is scheduled for 2007 and is expected to take up to seven years and $24 million dollars.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_cat
     Mice and rats are still there because they keep coming from nearby boats. People forget rats and mice can swim great distances if they need to.Â
    “Plague is the “Black Death” that once killed 25 million people in Europe, Asia, and Africa.  No major urban outbreak of plague has occurred the United States since 1924.  However, a reservoir of the disease exists in wild rodents of the western states, where the bacteria are transmitted from one rodent to another and sometimes to man by the bite of rodent fleas.  There is always the danger that domestic rodents will become infected, and that they, in turn, will carry the infection to human population centers.  The disease is often fatal to the rat and the flea, and the death rate in untreated human cases is extremely high (26, 63, 77, 78, 100).” Â
    According to Responsible Wildlife Management, we have seen our fair share of
    the plague epidemic here in the United States, with the most recent large
    reported occurrence in Los Angeles between 1924 and 1925. More documented
    cases have been found within the United States; however, only 10 to 15 people
    are affected annually and they are scattered amongst rural cities.  According to the World Health
    Organization (WHO) approximately 1,000 to 3,000 cases of the plague are
    reported annually, mostly localized in or surrounding Africa, Asia, South America,
    and the United States.
    Rome, Italy is perhaps the city with the largest feral cat population in the world; its population has been estimated to be between 250,000 and 350,000, organized in about 2,000 colonies, some of them living in famous ancient places such as the Colosseum.[2] Some historians believe the Romans’ affection for cats dates from the Roman Empire’s conquest of Egypt, where royalty kept cats. Others believe that Rome was spared from devastating outbreaks of the bubonic plague by the city’s feral cat population, which kept Rome’s rat population low, thus reducing a key plague carrying vector. Whatever the case, Rome’s affection for stray felines remains strong.
    If we kill off feral cats or reduce their populations we may bring about unintended consequences such as what happened on the Macquarie Island.Â
    We know too little to assume that feral cats don’t contribute to our well being.
    What we do know is this legislature knows too little to be making laws about dogs and cats based upon animal rights people who lie about everything to push their agenda of no more pets.

  • doggirl

    This bill is a bad idea. People don’t seem to understand what the purpose of debarking is. It is not for the owners, it is for the neighbors! The owners don’t want it, it’s the neighbors who demand it, using the Animal Control Officer and the courts. It is used as a last resort when training and other methods have failed. People seem to think that if you ban it, noisy dogs will be left alone – WRONG! They will have to be either euthanized immediately, or dumped in shelters, where dogs with a history of barking are very unlikely to get adopted – at least not for long. This bill will kill a lot of dogs and break a lot of owners’ hearts. I work in rescue, and I know of dogs that have gone through owner after owner because of barking, and others that have been horribly tortured by inept attempts to shut them up. Check out this website: http://www.illinoissheltierescue.com/debark.html

  • Gael S.

    It seems Mr. O’Sullivan condemned this practice as “gruesome when it is obvious that he fits right in with those house members who “confessed they wished their colleagues had a bit more firsthand experience with the procedure.”

    This simple and quick procedure carries few risks other than those involved with any surgery involving anesthesia. In 30+ years in dogs, I have known of two dogs that had negative results from the surgery. One was due to the procedure being done incorrectly and the other resulted in the death of the dog from a bleeding disorder known as vWD that is inherent in that specific breed.

    It truly saddens me when I think that this potentially life saving procedure might be outlawed in MA because of the intentional dissemination of misleading and outright falsified information such as the use of photos to depict surgical repair following bark softening surgery that was, in reality, surgery to treat throat cancer in that particular dog.

    Research done by veterinarians in the late 1990′s proved that excessive barking was a major reason why dogs with behavioral issues were surrendered to shelters. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing how many dogs surrendered for barking were euthanized as a result, but in reality, isn’t even one too many.

    Outlawing bark softening removes the opportunity for a problem barker to remain in their home, forces veterinarians to violate patient confidentiality and promotes the agenda of animal rights groups whose sole intent in supporting this bill is the gradual elimination of domestic pets from American households.

  • Eden Springs

    “…the practice of cutting out vocal cords of
    dogs, also known as ventriculocordectomy or, more gently, debarking…”

    Wish you’d had a bit more “firsthand experience” with that practice yourself. For starters, contacting the Mass Veterinary Medical Association to learn the TRUTH.

    To begin with, the vocal cords are not ‘cut out’ of the dogs; the dogs are still able to bark, growl and in very way communicate as before, only at a lower volume; it’s not even a permanent fix for some dogs as the very obnoxious can even “bark back” their original volume.

    You’d also have learned that it’s much less invasive and requires a shorter recovery time with far less potential for negative side effects than that surgical procedure beloved by animal extremists: gonadectomies (also known as spay/neuter). Interesting how a minor procedure is judged “cruel” and “barbaric” when they will actually help pay for the other which deprives the dog of far more than its voice.

    If you’d contacted the MVMA, you’d also might have learned a) how few are performed each year; b) who the REAL clients of such procedures are; c) how this simple surgery actually SAVES THE LIVES OF DOGS; d) the MVMA’s position on this bill (that the Legislature shouldn’t practice veterinary medicine and the MVMA won’t try to enact laws).

  • http://www.exposeanimalrights.com Elizabeth

    Some points the Massachusetts dog owners might want to consider about bark softening:

    - the operation presents substantially less health risk than S/N
    - is not invasive, does not involve “ripping out their vocal cords”
    - does not “deprive dogs of their only means of communication”
    - does not make them depressed or destructive, frustrated or aggressive

    The people whipping the public into a frenzy about the supposed horrors of bark softening are not experts in dog behavior, do not understand how dogs communicate, and rarely have experience living with more than one dog at a time. People who think dogs are unable to communicate if they have had their barks softened are attributing human characteristics to dogs – “how would you like it if YOU could not speak to anyone” – as though barking at maximum volume were the only communication dogs are capable of. Dogs that have been “debarked” do not know that anything is different in their lives, except that their owners do not yell at them every time they express themselves by barking.

    Prohibiting bark softening is simply a tactic to make dog ownership more difficult for more people, a step toward the ultimate goal of animal rights extremists: ending all relationships between humans and animals.

  • Michele

    I am the Rescue Chair for my national breed club. I take into my home 75-80 dogs each year, get them current on vaccinations, spayed/neutered, tested for heartworm, do comprehensive blood panels on these dogs to make sure the person taking them home knows as much about the animal’s health and temperament. Dogs that come into rescue generally come to us for a reason. Sometimes it is not their fault, but sometimes it IS because of something they are doing which makes them difficult to live with. Some dogs are born with the need to bark incessantly, for no apparent reason. Dogs that come in to my rescue, come here as a last chance for them. When dogs have behavioral problems that can be worked with, we do all we can to work with the dog. However, there are times when no amount of training will keep a dog from barking. Outlawing a humane procedure, performed by a veterinarian who knows what they are doing, takes away the ability for these dogs to find a home. In essence, you are sentencing these dogs to death by outlawing bark softening. Bark softening DOES NOT change the personality of the dog. Whether or not they are still capable of making a noise (and most of them are still capable of barking at a reduced volume), these dogs will still bark, still assume the same body language to broadcast their intentions to other animals in the area, and DO NOT suffer from debarking. I would never suggest bark softening as a first option, because it IS surgery. However, pets routinely undergo surgery (spay/neuter) when they and their reproductive organs are healthy, and if animals can be sterilized when doing so does not make them any healthier, I would think an animal lover like you would prefer to allow an animal a chance at a home, as opposed to sentencing that dog to death because you have never had a dog of your own that was a nuisance barker, and don’t understand that this procedure is not the horrific act those choosing to sensationalize it claim it is.

    I sincerely hope you will reconsider your support of the one procedure that will allow nuisance barkers to not be destroyed.

  • Michele

    Please read a veterinarian’s take on bark softening.

    http://www.naiaonline.org/library/A_Veterinarian's_view_of_bark_softening.html

More stories in 'Politics'
UNDERWRITING
Most Popular
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
This site is best viewed with: Firefox | Internet Explorer 9 | Chrome | Safari