Sam Obar 180

Here is an interesting fact for Sam Obar 180 readers to ruminate about:

The Administrative Contact for ScottBrown.com, Senator Scott Brown’s official campaign website, is E.M. Collins Landscape, Inc., based in Walpole. Hmmmm?

Programming Note: I am pleased to announce that Walpole Selectman Cliff Snuffer will be making his second appearance in a year on the Sam Obar Show on WDIS Radio on September 18, at 4:00 PM.

Tim Cahill’s surprisingly-energetic campaign for governor seems promising at first glance. Using words like “middle class”, “fighting for you”, and “I’m from Quincy,” Treasurer Cahill presents himself as a regular working-class guy who is seeking to turn Beacon Hill around and make it work for citizens again. It is infinitely clear how badly change in leadership is needed at the State House. But while his campaign speeches may make regular voters think he really is fighting for all of us, a vote for Tim Cahill is undoubtedly a vote for a worser Commonwealth.

Mr. Cahill has been State Treasurer for a total of eight years, after a number of years as Norfolk County Treasurer and Quincy City Councilor. Before holding elected office, Cahill ran his own small business, a café in Quincy. He has labeled himself in this race as a fiscal conservative – a title that is becoming increasingly more trendy for politicians to have as the economy sinks and the national debt soars. Yet Treasurer Cahill’s record reflects anything but fiscal conservatism. As a Quincy City Councilor, he supported property tax increases, some intended partially to pay for contractually-mandated pay raises for police, firefighters, teachers and other city employees. “You hate to vote for a tax increase. But if we want the projects and ball fields, this is as fair as we can be,” then-Councilor-at-large Cahill said at the time. Mr. Cahill’s proclamation that a tax increase is “as fair as we can be,” is not fiscally conservative. Between 1997 and 1998, while Cahill was supporting property tax increases, the Quincy city budget went from just $143 million in 1997 to $150 million in 1998, an increase of an outrageous $7 million. As much as Treasurer Cahill would like to try to claim that his years on the Quincy City Council set his fiscal conservatism in stone, the facts clearly indicate otherwise.

Mr. Cahill’s position on higher taxes continued to be troubling even long after he became State Treasurer. In 2006, he endorsed Deval Patrick in his bid for governor because he thought Patrick’s stand on not cutting the state income tax to 5% “took courage.” The voters in 2000 had approved a decrease in their income taxes to 5%, but the legislature stepped in a few years later and froze it at 5.3% to cope with a state budget that wasn’t keeping pace with revenues. Supporting a 5.3% income tax when the voters clearly stated they wanted it at 5% means Treasurer Cahill is not only in favor of high taxes, but also is willing to ignore the will of the voters. The Treasurer stated on The Sam Obar Show recently that he supported the governor’s position because he thought that Patrick would stand firm on his pledge to cut property taxes. But, once again, he conveniently ignores the fact that the voters had clearly said they wanted a cut in their income tax – and they never got it. So Treasurer Cahill isn’t willing to support a tax cut even when the citizens vote for it, and he’s not willing to tell state government to tighten their belt even when the voters clearly want government to do so.

The Treasurer’s attitude towards the state budget during this campaign is also concerning. While making speeches and issuing press releases blasting the state’s current governor for what he refers to as “reckless spending,” and “the Administration’s inability to live within its means,” he presents no real solutions for spending cuts he himself would make if elected governor. His attacks on Governor Patrick’s budget are vague and offer no solutions. The Treasurer has claimed that he can’t propose any budget cuts he would make until he is in the governor’s office, but he has spent the last eight years as State Treasurer overseeing exactly where our budget goes – how much comes in and how much goes out and to where. His opponent, Charlie Baker, hasn’t even been in state government since the 1990s, yet he has been able to come up with a set of about $1 billion worth of cuts he would make immediately if elected governor. The Treasurer, even though he calls himself a “fiscal conservative,” and has been running the State Treasury for the past eight years, remains unable or unwilling to offer any of his own cuts.

His position on local aid is equally concerning. Even while he can’t point to other spending cuts he would make, Treasurer Cahill has announced that he will not be afraid to cut local aid in order to balance the state budget. In other words, he will be cutting local aid, but then when people complain, he can say that he never broke any campaign promises. He can then avoid taking any blame for the fact that communities on their own will be forced to raise property taxes as a result of lower local aid numbers. Even a threat by Mr. Cahill to put cuts to local aid on the table will have a measurable impact on communities. Cops, teachers, and firefighters will lose their jobs as municipal officials try to plan their budgets around Mr. Cahill’s commitment to possible cuts to local aid.

Treasurer Cahill also brings with him a lot of allegations of corrupt activity, most of which Mr. Cahill has either admitted to or danced around. One concerning issue is that the Treasurer has the lowest contributor disclosure rate for any statewide candidate. According to a Globe analysis, “occupation and employment information and perhaps the potential business interests of 36 percent of his major donors since 2002 have not been reported.” The Boston Herald and Boston Globe have each taken turns hitting the Treasurer for what they see as apparent “pay-to-play” schemes, in which Cahill’s campaign contributors are being given state contracts even as they donate thousands of dollars to Cahill’s war chest. He is currently embroiled in a lawsuit over alleged pay-to-play at the State Lottery. Cahill also shrugs off reports that one of his friends, Thomas J. Kelly, apparently told a company seeking a state contract to donate to the Cahill Committee in order to obtain the contract. Mr. Cahill doesn’t seem concerned that Kelly was also hired by this company to apparently take advantage of his relationship with Mr. Cahill and help them get a state contract. There are numerous reports of companies doing contracted work with the State Treasury’s various departments also contributing heavily to the State Treasurer, and Mr. Cahill seems unfazed about the obvious alarm bells these contributions should be setting off. In response to Boston Globe coverage of patronage at the Probation Department overseen by one of Cahill’s friends, John O’Brien, Mr. Cahill blamed the Legislature for allowing the Probation Department to have lax oversight, rather than calling for O’Brien’s resignation or for further investigation of the department. When asked to respond to the fact that a company seeking a state contract once held a fundraiser for him netting $20,000, Mr. Cahill said that he feels that happens all the time on Beacon Hill and he doesn’t see it as a big deal. It was precisely this type of cozy relationship between a company seeking a state contract and a politician that got former House Speaker Sal DiMasi indicted – political corruption deserves no place on Beacon Hill and Treasurer Cahill’s no-big-deal attitude toward it is a problem. He can’t reform Beacon Hill if he doesn’t think there’s a problem in the first place.

Treasurer Cahill’s campaign for governor is definitely exciting – he is the first independent in a long time to have a strong chance of being elected governor. The race is only just now heating up, and he has millions of dollars still remaining in his campaign fund to launch an aggressive campaign come autumn. But voters shouldn’t be fooled by his every-man approach – a Cahill administration on Beacon Hill may mean we’ll have our first governor in awhile who doesn’t own a multi-million dollar home, but it certainly does not mean that we will have a governor who is actually going to keep taxes low and make government leaner.

I want to again thank State Treasurer Tim Cahill and his campaign for scheduling my interview with Mr. Cahill on Saturday on The Sam Obar Show. I had a great conversation with him and his staff both on and off the air, and I respect him tremendously and will continue to hold him in high regard even if he doesn’t win the governor’s seat in November. Best of luck to him.

Massachusetts State Treasurer Tim Cahill, an independent candidate for governor, joined me live in-studio on The Sam Obar Show yesterday.

Here is the audio of the interview, available in .mp3

Take a look at some pictures that were taken of the interview in the newly-furnished Sam Obar Center, courtesy of Alice Obar:

Tim Cahill and I discuss the issues in the race.

Tim Cahill and I share some concerns about our state.

Tim Cahill makes a point.

My new friend Tim and me in The Sam Obar Center.

Here is a video of one question I asked him about the Massachusetts universal healthcare program, which Treasurer Cahill claims is hurting the state budget:

It’s never too early to endorse a candidate for Congress. In the November election, and the September Democratic primary, I am supporting Stephen Lynch, Democrat, for the 9th Congressional District. More details, as well as other endorsements, as the election gets closer.

This was then-Worcester Mayor Tim Murray in a TV ad in 2006, running for Lt. Governor on a ticket with Deval Patrick:

This ad, while well-intentioned, now serves as a glaring example of why the Patrick-Murray administration does not deserve re-election this year. Governor Patrick has let down our cities and towns during the past four years by repeatedly cutting local aid, and, in the case of Walpole, prison mitigation money. Property taxes go up in Walpole every year, too. So much for property tax relief.

This week, we learned that Governor Patrick is considering whether or not to approve a state budget that includes a 4% cut in local aid. I urge him to make the right decision and to send it back to the legislature for revision.

This year, once again, Walpole will not be getting prison mitigation money from the state. This is money that the town should be obligated to receive because we host a prison in our town. Perhaps it’s retribution because Patrick lost in Walpole in 2006.

To be fair, one of his gubernatorial opponents, Tim Cahill, has also stated that he will cut local aid if elected this year. In fact, Cahill has boasted about it. He will have a lot of explaining to do when he comes on The Sam Obar Show in August.

The only candidate for governor this year who has promised to restore local aid and prison mitigation money and not cut it in future budgets is Republican Charlie Baker. I have not yet decided whether to endorse him yet, however.

Upon my invitation, Tim Cahill, Massachusetts State Treasurer and Independent Candidate for Governor, will be coming to Walpole to campaign on Saturday, August 7, 2010. He will also be making a stop at The Sam Obar Center at the WDIS Radio Studios in Norfolk to do a live radio interview on The Sam Obar Show on the same day at 4:00.

Treasurer Cahill is looking forward to visiting the people and municipal officials of Walpole, joining the ranks of fellow gubernatorial candidates Charlie Baker and Deval Patrick who have campaigned in town already this year. As of right now his exact itinerary for the day is still being worked out, however you are welcome to send me any suggestions for events he should go to and businesses he should visit and I will forward them to his campaign.

Treasurer Cahill is the only independent candidate in the race and is the first independent in recent history to have such a strong chance of being elected governor. He has focused his campaign on fighting for the middle class and has touted his working class roots.

SPECIAL SAM OBAR SHOW/WDIS MEET AND GREET

Please sign up here if you would like to attend a meet-and-greet with Treasurer Cahill at the Sam Obar Center in Norfolk at 3 PM on August 7. You will be able to meet him before his live interview and have a chat with him about the issues you are concerned about. The meet-and-greet is free and comes with no obligations to contribute to his campaign or vote for him. However, sign up is required only because space is limited and you will only be allowed to come on a first-come, first-served basis.

Find out more about Mr. Cahill’s campaign here.

PLEASE NOTE ALSO THAT BECAUSE MR. CAHILL IS OUR SITTING STATE TREASURER, HE WILL OF COURSE ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING HIS WORK AS TREASURER, AND HIS VISIT TO WALPOLE AND NORFOLK IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO HIS GUBERNATORIAL CAMPAIGN.

Thank you for the interesting comments and results of the poll I put up here. You can still take the poll. Do you think that Nancy Mackenzie should be Chairwoman of the Board of Selectmen? Take the poll here

Walpole Selectwoman Nancy Mackenzie is a qualified and competent individual who is quick on her feet, well-spoken, and well-rounded. She understands Walpole issues very well, grew up in Walpole, and has remained in Walpole with her family ever since. She has experience on the Master Plan Implementation Committee, the Zoning Bylaw Rewrite Committee, the Planning Board, and she has stood up to bad business like Allied Recycling, and has repeatedly stood up for the common taxpayer and resident struggling to pay their bills. I trust Mrs. Mackenzie as a selectwoman and as a town leader.

I can understand why many may not view her in the same light. Her major downside is that she is married to a Walpole police officer and is part of the Board that has a certain level of control over the Walpole Police Department. She was elected to the Board in 2009 on a promise of recusing herself on votes regarding issues affecting the police department. She told The Walpole Times in 2009 that “she vowed to recuse herself from any police matters, if elected.” She told the Times at the time that “ethics (are) very important […] I would never do something that would jeopardize that.”

She appears to have given mixed promises, whether intentionally or not. Her 2009 candidate profile more specifically states that she would recuse herself on only financial issues affecting the police department, and appears to leave open the possibility of voting on other police issues not related to money. Regardless, Mrs. Mackenzie is in a precarious position. Mrs. Mackenzie should vow publicly as a Board member that she will recuse herself from any and all discussions and votes regarding any police department issues. Her decision to call the State Ethics Commission for advice on whether or not to partake in the process of hiring a new Deputy Police Chief was a smart move on her part, and I commend her for doing so. But ultimately she should go the extra mile and voluntarily recuse herself from the process regardless of the Ethics Commission’s advice. Even though her husband is not involved in the process at all and is not seeking the position, he undoubtedly knows some of the candidates who are and there is no guarantee that Mrs. Mackenzie has not had more than one discussion with him in the past about those individuals. Further, even though she claims that she won’t vote on financial issues affecting the police, it is not just financial issues that would affect her husband and present a conflict of interest. Any policy or decision handed down by the Selectmen to the Police Department would likely affect her husband either directly, indirectly, or even in the future. By continuing to pick and choose which police issues are appropriate for her to vote on, she has the appearance of impropriety. For her own sake, she is opening herself up to controversy that indicates that she is not voting in the best interests of residents and could result in her being thrown out in the next election. She should not be choosing which police issues she should vote on – she should either vote on all or none at all. As a fan, supporter, and concerned citizen, I urge Mrs. Mackenzie to recuse herself from all police department issues. Rather than continuing to exert her energy on trying to defend her decision to stay involved in the deputy chief hiring process, she should simply leave the process altogether to avoid even a slight hint of a direct conflict of interest.

On the other hand, I fully back Mrs. Mackenzie in her recent election to Chairwoman of the Board of Selectmen. I am not employing a double standard.

Out of five members of the Board, one person has to be Chair. Chris Timson was Chairman last year, and in my opinion should not be eligible for another year. Two members, Eric Kraus and Mike Berry just joined and are not qualified to be Chairman. The only two reasonable choices for Chairman of the Board this year was either Nancy Mackenzie or Cliff Snuffer. Either is qualified. As long as Mrs. Mackenzie recuses herself from police issues, I see no reason why she should not be able to serve in this position.

Furthermore, it is hard for everybody on the Board NOT to have a conflict of interest in a small town like Walpole. This is a small town that is close-knit with a number of townies who have grown up in Walpole like Mrs. Mackenzie. It is nearly impossible for members of the Board of Selectmen or any other town board to not have some personal connection, whether familial or other, to a town employee. I will use the example of Town Moderator Jon Rockwood, who I greatly respect and admire. He is married to a Walpole school teacher, yet also has sole authority to appoint members of the Finance Committee. This committee oversees the town budget, including the school budget. By the reasoning that is being applied to Mrs. Mackenzie’s situation, Mr. Rockwood therefore has an egregious conflict of interest and should not be permitted to appoint members of the Finance Committee. In my opinion, however, this logic is incorrect. Both Mr. Rockwood and Mrs. Mackenzie were elected fairly and have every right to hold the positions they presently hold and make the appointments they presently make. Just because they are married to town employees does not mean they can not serve their town. There are probably a number of other town officials in similar situations. Take, for example, the number of town employees who are also Town Meeting Representatives. RTMs, also, control the town budget, so would that mean that town employees should not serve as RTMs? I think not. As long as they recuse themselves from direct votes about their particular town department or employment with the town, I see no reason why they can not serve.

I would also argue that as Chair of the Board of Selectmen, Mrs. Mackenzie really does not have very much greater authority than any other member of the Board. She is a member of a Board of five people – everyone on the Board has the chance to share their thoughts and concerns. She is not the only one making serious decisions regarding the future of the community. She is part of a team effort that works collectively to move the town forward. The only major power that she has as Chair that I can see is that she runs each meeting. According to the Town Charter, the only real individual control she can exercise is being able to appoint, along with the Chairman of the School Committee and the Moderator, two members to the Tri-Country Regional Vocational Technical School Committee. To me, this seems insignificant and not a huge issue.

The only way Mrs. Mackenzie can be sure that she does not open herself to controversy over her husband would be if she publicly and officially announced that she would hereafter abstain from discussion or votes on police issues. Financial issues, personnel issues, and any other issues as they relate to the police department should be far off-limits to her. The Ethics Commission may not view her involvement in certain votes to be a problem, but she should still do what’s right for Walpole and recuse herself. Meanwhile, she should continue serving as Chairwoman and doing what’s right for Walpole.

Update: My interview with Walpole Selectwoman Nancy Mackenzie is now available for download here.

If I can just gloat for a moment, I would like to announce that the Sam Obar Twitter Feed was the first news outlet to announce the results of the selectmen’s race and to make a projection for the police station loss. I had the selectman’s results apparently before even Keith Ferguson at The Walpole Times got it on to his own Twitter feed. I also saw the police station results for precincts 6 and 7 and was immediately able to project that the chances of the police station passing were bleak.

Here are the results of today’s town election:

Eric Kraus and Mike Berry earned two spots on the Board of Selectmen, while the Robbins Road police station was resoundingly rejected 80% to 20%.

Question 2, regarding the listing of pesticides on foods, was approved. It is non-binding, so still does not necessarily mean anything for our local restaurants and food stores.

Here is reaction from Walpole 2020, the group that was advocating for the defeat of Question 1:

This is a 100-decibel message from the voters. I don’t think we’ll see half-baked override proposals from the town any time soon, and that’s a good thing for the taxpayers.

While we are happy that this proposal was soundly rejected, we sympathize with the police and fire departments. Unfortunately, the board of selectmen pursued a plan full of holes, and when citizens raised questions, those elected officials refused to respond. This loss falls squarely on the Board’s shoulders.

The citizens had too many concerns that remained unanswered on Election Day, and they were equally turned off by the board’s failure to listen and adapt.

We are encouraged by the commitment to listen from the new board members and hope it’s a new day at Town Hall.

Here are my thoughts:

Congratulations to Mr. Kraus and Mr. Berry for well-run campaigns. I look forward to seeing both of you do great things for this town in the next three years.

Mr. Kraus, I am particularly enthusiastic about your desire to bring more economic development to Walpole. Your attitude of “We CAN bring good businesses to Walpole - here’s how” is much-needed on this Board that clearly lacks good ideas for attracting new businesses. Good luck.

Mr. Berry, you have done an excellent job running this campaign and getting out your message to the voters. Please bring more transparency to the Board. I will hold you to your promise of holding office hours, and I hope that your colleagues on the Board will join you. Good luck.

To Patrick Shield, who, for the second year in a row came up short, you have an incredibly upbeat and enthusiastic attitude. You were one of the few candidates who over the past few months regularly stood out on the Common, and in various other parts of town, to wave to passing motorists and hold campaign signs. You were the first one to reach out to my radio show to ask whether you could be on it to announce your candidacy. You were the only candidate this year who maintained a website. You jumped right into the selectman’s race with an incredible amount of enthusiasm almost as soon as nomination papers were available earlier this year. I also noticed you stood outside the high school polling location today even in the hot, humid weather, continuing to smile and showing a lot of optimism. You have an incredibly bright future, and I hope you will not give up and will KEEP FIGHTING for what you envision for Walpole. Please run again in the future, and I know you WILL win. GOOD LUCK IN YOUR FUTURE!

To David Sullivan, the incumbent selectman, keep fighting for the senior center you are so passionate about.

To Bill Hamilton, hey, you tried. And failed, for the second year in a row. Perhaps you should start a blog or a radio show to air your thoughts on the direction the town is going and has been going in. I would be happy to set you up.

To James Taylor, sorry. I truly would have liked to have seen how much of a joke Board of Selectmen’s meetings would have turned in to with you on it.

On the police station:

The Walpole voters have spoken once again and have stated they DO NOT WANT a Robbins Road police station. I urge Selectman Cliff Snuffer to get behind an initiative to put a combined facility downtown. YES there is space. YES it will cost more - but the town may be more likely to make that investment if they feel it is a quality investment. YES it can be done.

Let’s not disappoint our police department again.

I am sorry to every one of our police officers who has had to go to work every day in a poor facility. I am sorry that we let you down. There is still hope. Let’s all get together to support a combined facility.

On the voter turnout of less than 35%:

I was very disappointed by the low voter turnout. I had predicted a turnout of 53%, at least, but was utterly surprised at the lack of interest by voters. Perhaps I am a political amateur, and have yet to see real elections, but I truly thought that there would be a higher turnout given the significant issues at stake in today’s election. If you didn’t vote, you can’t complain. How embarrassing.