Over the weekend Republican State Representative Dan Winslow had a very interesting take on the conflict between House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Representative Charles Murphy that sent Murphy from leadership to the back bench. According to the State House News Service, Winslow told WCVB-Channel 5′s On The Record that DeLeo’s sacking of Murphy and strengthening of the Greater Boston presence in leadership shows an urban-suburban split in the house. It may be that DeLeo’s tilt toward urban lawmakers is extreme but the legislature has long been the urban branch of state government and the governorship is the suburban branch.
Let’s look at the top dogs in the legislature recently. Robert DeLeo is from Winthrop in Suffolk County. Sal DiMasi was from Boston’s North End. Thomas Finneran represented Dorchester. Charles Flaherty hailed from Cambridge — three-decker North Cambridge, not Brattle Street Cambridge. Everett had no more devoted son than George Keverian. Thomas McGee called Lynn home. Senate President Therese Murray represents the Plymouth and Barnstable district, grant you, but she grew up in Mission Hill and Dorchester. Her predecessor Robert Travaglini was from East Boston. Thomas Birmingham represented Chelsea. William M. Bulger commuted in from Southie. These folks were raised in Massachusetts, most of them not far from the building they would come to dominate. When you look at their educational backgrounds you see Boston College and BC Law, Northeastern, Boston State, UMassBoston. The legislature is the urban branch. The culture is based upon relationships and longevity in the institution.
Now for the governors. Deval Patrick lives in Milton. He was raised in Chicago and came to Massachusetts to attend Milton Academy. Then it was Harvard and Harvard Law for Patrick. Mitt Romney of Belmont grew up in Michigan and came here to attend Harvard Business and Law Schools. Acting Governor Jane Swift was from the Berkshires, and Governor Paul Cellucci came from Hudson and attended BC and BC Law. Governor William Weld spent his formative years in New York then came here for Harvard and Harvard Law. He resided in Cambridge, but not the Cambridge of Charlie Flaherty. Michael S. Dukakisis is a lifelong resident of the suburb of Brookline and also a Harvard Law grad. So none of our recent governors were urban. Three of our last four governors (excluding Swift) are from out of state. Governor is a job for Harvard educated blow-ins who live in the suburbs.
Rep. Winslow may be right and the urban-suburban split could contribute to the change he hopes for in the house. I wrote on that topic the other day in DeLeo, Murphy, and the Next Speaker. But there may be another way to look at our two party system in Massachusetts. The Governor Party is managerial, suburban, Harvard educated, and open to folks who come here from other states for their undergraduate and graduate educations. The Legislature Party is local, urban, individualistic, goes to BC or other local historically working class colleges, and does not move far from home.
My understanding is Deval Patrick has been trying to sell his home in Milton and move to the “city” for a couple of years now. I’ll also note that Romney, Dukakis, Weld, and Patrick all live/lived “closer” to Boston City Hall than the current mayor of Boston(That’s MA municipal boundaries for you) .
Charlie Baker, the former gubernatorial candidate in 2010 also fits the profile for governors you suggest–he grew up in Needham, lives in Swampscott, and graduated from Harvard (and received an MBA from Northwestern). Election results show that he lost the cities but did very well in western Massachusetts and the suburbs of central and eastern MA.
I am an active member of my town Democratic Committee and served 2 terms as a School Committee member. I have created a sub-committee on “Good Governance and Accountability” which is looking at the governance structure of Beacon Hill–how it perpetuates “back room” and “old boy” methods of decision-making and maintaining power and control.
You have highlighted key geographical patterns and actors who have perpetuated a closed system of no accountability. What the urban legislators have at their disposal are well-oiled Democratic city committees which act as defacto campaign committees for those legislators. The culture of attending to the needs of a certain group of constituents is alive and well in the urban areas. It is this group that launches the future leaders of the legislature. One only has to review the membership of appointed and elected officials (as well as school and civil servant personnel hired by the municipality) in any of the Gateway cities and Boston to find that the power structure is made up of the small white minority who have been lifelong residents of the city. Legislators maintain power by catering to this small white population connecting them to jobs and other social assets.
It is curious to me that all appointed and elected municipal boards in Massachusetts are subject to the open meeting and public records laws while the executive and legislative branches are exempt. Until these officials are held to the same standards of “Sunshine laws” as a School Committee or a Board of Selectmen member there will be no accountability. The leadership will continue marginalize and dismiss members from leadership posts, decisions will be made out of the light of day and machine politics will prevail.
Interesting analysis. Thank you.
Mary, you raise a number of good points. I agree on Baker. By contrast look at Cahill, an urban pol. Twenty years ago he would have mounted a primary challenge to Patrick, but by 2010 there was no room for that and he went Independent. But he is not a member of the “Governor Party” and had no real chance.
I’ll be interested to see how reform movements like the one you are involved in take hold. The institutional and traditional strengths of urban politicians are signficant. As you mention they often have advantages by controlling the machinery of local government. This is another topic I could learn more about in the Gateway Cities. One thought that occurs to me is the remarkable victory by Mayor Lisa Wong in Fitchburg over a ward councilor favored by the old guard. Or Alex Morse, the 22 year old who beat the incumbent mayor in Holyoke in November.
When will the suburbans take control of the legislative leadership, and will they ever give it back?
There is one exception notable exception to this rule I have thought of and that is Sonia Chang Diaz who is the State Senator for much of inner Boston and a graduate of University of Virginia. Now to be fair a lot of the area she represents are the more upscale glamorous parts of Boston such as the Back Bay and Beacon Hill but she also represent basically all of Roxbury and Dorchester too. (I mainly make note of the Back Bay part of the district because the on few occasions I have personally met her have always been at some restuarant on Newbury or Boylston.) In the case of Chang Diaz you also have to remember she was only supported by the party establishment after her predecessor and primary opponent was caught on tape taking cash bribes. I also believe she is only 32 or 33 which makes her one of the youngest state legislators in either chamber.
Tim, I think your comment shows that these distinctions have their value but can be over stated. As you point out Sen. Chang-Diaz attended UVA, an elite school. I browsed around some and unless I picked up some bad info it seems she was raised in Newton. She would be more progressive than what I might think of as the traditional urban legislator. And she is definitley less male and less Irish or Italian.
Lets drill down even more…lets look at Greater Boston versus the rest of the Commonwealth in the House…the Senate has many exceptions and for those who know the Hill know that the Senate and the House operate very differently on many levels. I will just put a “Y” for “yes lives in Greater Boston” and “N” for the converse. Greater Boston to me is a community that is on the T line without being a commuter train…for instance Quincy is Greater Boston in my humble opinion.
Speaker- DeLeo Y
Maj Leader- Mariano Y
Spkr Pro-Tem- Haddad N
Asst. Maj Ldr- Rushing Y
2nd Asst.- Reinstien Y
Div Chair- Bradley Y
Div Chair- Moran Y
Div Chair- Donato Y
Div Chair- Story N
Ways & Means- Dempsey N
70% of the leadership team is made up of Greater Boston Reps. There may be some explanation that they want to have people who can get to the State House easier to preside over session or be at the building for one reason or another or the inverse may be true that these folks at just in the building more often and more able to climb the rungs of leadership through direct face to face relationships in the building…In fact if you look at the 3 folks in leadership who are outside of Greater Boston they are folks who have been in office for some time…
As a matter of fact of the 12 Reps in Boston every single one is either a Chairman, in Leadership or a Vice Chair. The 3 Vice chairs are Basile (a young guy who has probably the best vice-chairmanship there is for fundraising Financial Services so they are grooming him for something), Fox (a perennial gadfly) and Scaciaa (who has been a chairman in the past and in the House forever).
So Winslow should go further with his statement of rather there being a urban v. suburban it is more dynamic than that.
I see it a little different I think there is a Greater Boston v. Suburban v. Gateway City split in the House…
If only I had a team of research assistants to follow up on comments like this . . .
I’m thinking of the ability to look at the Greater Boston-suburban leadership ratio over time. The information above is pretty striking and then add that all the Boston reps have some sort of leadership or other.
I wonder how much the redistricting of urban districts has been affected by changing demography, number of seats, configuration, etc.
What are you counting as the Gateway cities?
The major Gateway Cities are Springfield, Worcester, Lawrence, Lowell, New Bedford and Pittsfield. There is a list of smaller ones and it was codified in the Gateway Cities Legislation…I can find it somewhere…but for instance the views of a Boston rep vs. a Springfield rep vs. a Wilbraham rep are very different…on certain issues…
I should really think a lot more about political geography than I do. If you find that legislation send it over or just a cite would help. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
Ah Pittsfield, we’ll always have Pittsfield.
Chapter 23A Section 3A
“Gateway municipality”, a municipality with a population greater than 35,000 and less than 250,000, a median household income below the commonwealth’s average and a rate of educational attainment of a bachelor’s degree or above that is below the commonwealth’s average.
Thanks Political Guy, I’ll take a look at it. Is there a ready made list of the Gateways somewhere?
Barnstable
Brockton
Chelsea
Chicopee
Everett
Fall River
Fitchburg
Haverhill
Holyoke
Lawrence
Leominster
Lowell
Lynn
Malden
Methuen
New Bedford
Pittsfield
Quincy
Revere
Salem
Springfield
Taunton
Westfield
Worcester
Pingback: The Governor Party – Managers I | MassPoliticsProfs
Pingback: A Mayor in the Corner Office | MassPoliticsProfs