Guess whose not doing the shooting

Boston and Beyond



Guess who’s not shooting up the South End?
(This article appears in the August 16th edition of the South End News, on news stands in Boston Massachusetts. The web link is www.southendnews.com)



by Kevin John Sowyrda

contributing writer



Thank God that gun permits have plummeted by25 percent in the Bay State and 30 percent in Boston, as recently reported by the Boston Globe. Quincy Police Chief Robert F. Crowley thinks we should be celebrating: "Fewer firearms on the street makes life safer for everyone. The average citizen who has a gun 24-7 I don't believe has the experience, knowledge, and training to know when and if they should use a firearm."



Really? We’re all safer since fewer law abiding citizens — who’ve been fingerprinted and background-investigated — have firearms in their homes, holsters or pocket books? After all, these are clearly the criminal minds of intent, the scum of society who’ve got one hand on the steering wheel of their Ford F 150's and the other out the window shooting up Blue Hill Avenue.



Yup, we're all better off.



Who’s kidding who? Angel Ortiz was just 23-years-old when he was gunned down on East Brookline Street June 10 by someone with no sense of shame or value for life. Think the shooter was a licensed gun owner? Doubt it.



With a tablespoon or so of our sarcasm tucked away, we called the brain trust at the Schroeder Plaza Police Headquarters for comment. We got Officer Dotten on the phone, God help us. We asked Ms. Dotten for her first name for purposes of this column, and she said, "It's Officer." I guess that means her title is Officer Officer Dotten.



Anyway, our “Q&A” with Officer Officer Dotten went as follows:



Q: Is there any correlation between crime in the city and licensed firearms owners?

A: [Long pause.] I'd have to research that.



Q: Have there been any gun shootings linked to licensed gun owners?

A: [Another long pause — longer than the first.] I'm not aware of any … ah … but there may be information on that. That would have to be researched.



Q: Can you tell me how many people in Boston have firearm permits?

A: You'll have to submit a Freedom of Information Act Request for that.



By the way, that's public agency speak for, "Go take a hike!" I knew the answer anyway. It’s a little over 4300 according to the police source I frequently use when the Boston Police media office is acting like, um, the Boston Police media office.



And with that, our very special quality time with Officer Officer Dotten had come to an end. Now I know how the White House Press corp feels.



Anyway, since there are no tomorrows in my life but only today's deadline, I'll just proceed with the obvious theme of this column, that being that as long as the perpetually misguided continue to celebrate meaningless statistical facts like a drop in the numbers of licensed gun owners in our midst and attribute them to reductions in crime, real criminals will continue to enjoy a great belly laugh at our lack of a working, public policy compass.



Only God knows why the political leaders of our day work so hard, each and every day, to not find the solution to rampant crime. At least Mayor Menino got it right. "We're pleased that the number of gun owners has decreased in our city, but the real issue is illegal guns, and we need more laws to deal with illegal guns in our cities,” the Mayor told the Globe.



Good. Now let’s get the focus back on what really reduces the rates of crime in the city. Which is, well, I’m not sure. And that, I think, is the point. We don’t know. No one knows.



What we do know, however, is that the idea that a reduction in gun permits by law abiding citizens reduces crimes rates is absurd.

Don't blame me, blame Jerry Williams.

> Don't blame me, blame Jerry Williams.
> by Kevin John Sowyrda
>
> Did Jerry Williams have any idea what he was doing when he gave birth
> to the Hub's media version of Frankenstein? Do you think he's rolling
> over in his grave right now? I suspect the answer to both questions
> is a definitive affirmative.
>
> Williams was the radio giant of Boston during the Dukakis era of
> politics, and had the temerity to organize a successful repeal of the
> seatbelt law about twenty years ago; proof of his media muscle. In
> 1989 he decided to start a segment on his highly rated afternoon radio
> show on WRKO. He called it 'The Governors,' which was a rather
> sardonic group-commentary on the day's political issues. The round
> robin on 680 AM featured Williams, some anti-government lady from out
> of state whose name never mattered, and Boston Herald Columnist Howie
> Carr, known in the print media as a conservative yuckster
> who delighted in "gotcha" political commentary.
>
> Carr and Williams had nothing in common. Speaking even as someone who
> once appeared on Jerry's show only to be eaten for breakfast by the
> host, I can tell you that Jerry Williams was probably the most
> honorable and socially progressive radio voice Boston ever heard,
> second only to the great Gene Burns. His issues of concern were taxes
> and government waste, not who consenting adults were spending their
> time with. Were Jerry still alive today I'd bet the farm that he'd
> have put the same energy into supporting Gay marriage as he had
> successfully committed to killing that seat belt law, which simply
> went against his civil libertarian credentials. Those were the days
> when Boston talk radio had something to say, but those days were
> ending.
>
> It didn't take long for Carr to learn the ins and outs of Boston
> radio. He had a superb teacher and mentor, and like many students he
> finally became the teacher. Williams was unceremoniously booted out
> the door by WRKO in favor of Carr, who became a grating voice of
> socially conservative diatribes, to such an extent that Carr's
> missives frequently made anything Don Imus may have said, pale in
> comparison.
>
> Imus is now in exile in Arizona, and Carr has decided to jump the S.S.
> RKO and take over the morning show at Boston's FM talk station 96.9,
> which had carried the Imus syndicated program until the shock jock was
> fired by CBS Radio in April. Tongues are wagging, and here's why.
>
> First, 96.9 will now solidify its reputation as a place on the
> dial with few progressive oasis. There will be two bookends, both
> leaning about as far to the right as Attila the Hun. You'll Howie in
> the morning, hardly a Socrates of the airwaves who has previously
> stated that the best reason for killing Gay marriage is because it
> will trigger a Gay Community appetite for legalizing bestiality. And
> then there's Jay Severin in the afternoon. Severin, most infamous
> for having been exposed by the Boston Globe for falsely claming to be
> a Pulitzer Prize winner, is basically a carbon copy of Carr; but
> perhaps with better pronunciation and dictum and a greater tendency to
> lisp, which has created all manner of rumor. Squished in the middle
> of this jihad of nationalistic, misogynistic and homophobic talk will
> be progressive commentator Jim Braude who co hosts a midday shift with
> another Herald columnist who writes about things no one cares about.
> But she lives in Brookline, so she can't be all that bad.
>
> On the other end of town is the now hemoraging WRKO AM, which just
> lost their best rated, premadona Gay Basher (they had no qualms with
> the Gay Bashing) while already suffering an identity crisis as it
> tries a plethora of co-hosts to stabilize the sinking ship called
> Finneran's Forum, the station's morning drive time show.
>
> The 'Forum' is perhaps the last hurrah of former Massachusetts House
> Speaker Tom Finneran, who came hat in hand to the station for work
> after he was fired from his $416,000 a year job as head of the
> Massachusetts Biotechnology Council. The council's board of directors
> apparently wasn't too overjoyed by Finneran's guilty plea to
> obstruction of justice charges. Finneran is presently serving his
> eighteen months of unsupervised probation, which means he can make it
> to the RKO Brighton studios where station management actually thought
> it was a smart move to give this guy a job.
>
> Carr felt other wise. The two conservatives - both have showered the
> Gay Community with insults too numerous to catalogue - have shared
> little in common beyond their parochial views of modern life. They've
> been ardent foes for years and their recent on air war was no
> publicity stunt, despite what some in town have suggested. One
> insider at RKO told me that Carr took Finneran's hiring as, "the last
> straw," at a station he, Carr, was no longer comfortable at.
>
> The lack of comfort could stem from the fact that, like it or not, the
> bombastic conservative of Boston talk has become a player (the
> Arbitron Ratings sadly prove it) and outgrown what is seen by many as
> a failing media outlet. RKO's signal is basically inaudible at night
> time in much of New England, and the station's only real profitable
> programming has been Carr's three to seven o'clock drive home shift.
> Further, Carr's book on all things Whitie Bulger, a New York Times
> best seller, has made the scrappy commentator a tidy pocket of change
> as much as it's elevated his status on national media outlets like Fox
> News. RKO no longer has the stage to support the weight of such
> ambitious "talent," which hardly appreciated his nemesis being made a
> colleague; or his afternoon show being frequently shortened by the
> Boston Red Sox games, now being aired on the station.
>
> What to look for and what to do? First, Finneran and Carr are now
> going head to head for the morning drive time advertising dollars.
> Bet another farm, but this time on Carr. Finneran's ratings are
> already at the bottom of Boston Harbor, and this is the death knell.
> Second, send all the Excedrin you can muster to commentator Jim
> Braude.
>
> Sadly for Boston, he's about to feel very out of place both at the
> office, and in a local radio industry that continues to lean more and
> more to the right.
>

Camp Romney

Boston and Beyond (available in copies of the SOUTH END NEWS at Boston news stands through July 5, 2007.)


Kevin John Sowyrda

The media has shown a fancy of late for a staffing problem at Team Romney, where everybody is presumed to be as straight as they are straight shooters; with at least one exception that is. It appears that coatholder-in-chief Jay Garrity may have been a Mall Cop in another life; which is to say that he’s obsessed with pretending be to a real and bonafide member of the constabulary. To that end, Garrity has been caught with his badge off — or on — as various law enforcement officials investigate him for pretending to be them. Garrity is also charged with flashing in public — his blue lights, that is. Mr. Garrity is now on leave from Camp Romney, which translated from politic speak means his next job in the Byzantine world of campaigning will be licking envelopes for the Mississippi State Republican Party.
But there are bigger staffing skeletons in the multi-million dollar operation which is the presidential campaign of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Just as the media made quite the fuss about contender John Edwards hiring two staffers who in another life had written allegedly anti-Catholic commentaries as bloggers, the press should be quite interested in two of Romney’s top advisors who were the de facto managers of the Massachusetts state treasury when it suffered a $10 million embezzlement scandal, the worst in state history.

Eric Fehrnstrom and Beth Myers were hardly shrinking violets at Treasurer Joe Malone’s office when nearly $10 million was heisted from the taxpayers. Fehrnstrom, recently identified by the Washington Post as “always at Romney’s side,” was deputy state treasurer and Myers was chief of staff when the office they ran was pilfered of enough cash to buy a sweet pad near Romney’s grotesquely opulent manse at Lake Winnipesaukee.


Though the Edwards camp was excoriated in the mainstream media for retaining two bloggers who dared to differ with arcane Catholic dogma, there’s been no article I can find in the mainstream media, blogosphere or any other sphere regarding the fact that Romney’s two campaign chieftains had day-to-day control of a public agency where cash was quite literally carried out the front door by political loyalists appointed by them, and the elected treasurer, Joe Malone.


When it was revealed that the cronies of Malone, Myers and Fehrnstrom had been siphoning cash over an extended, six year period, the three quickly became objects of derision in the press. Although none were charged with any crimes, in the court of public opinion, they were seen as guilty of a comical level of mismanagement.


When asked by the Associated Press if he and his top managers were “guilty” of not keeping a proper eye on the store, Malone, a life long Republican, said that he did not have a preference for “micro managing” and that he trusted those working under his chain of command. So much for Reagan’s famous advice, “trust but verify.”


When all was said in done, prison sentences were handed out and the only thing we can say regarding Malone, Fehrnstrom and Myers is that their careers were suddenly in cryogenics. When you manage an office so well that a cool $10 million is slipped by your nose, it tends not to endear you to the employers browsing your Monster.Com resume posting.


But then came Mr. Ethics, Mitt Romney. His Excellency’s first move as governor was to resurrect Fehrnstrom and Myers to run the executive suite on . Myers would become an alter ego to Romney as his thoroughly loyal chief of staff. (It was Myers who was widely reported to have played an instrumental role in advising Romney to abolish the advisory commission on LGBT youth, which had been a meritorious invention of one of Romney’s Republican predecessors, William F. Weld.)


As for Fehrnstrom, he became the highest paid communications director in the history of the governor’s office, and was sometimes making news more than giving the governor’s reaction to it. On one occasion at the offices of New England Cable News, Fehrnstrom was accused by one of the station’s producers of attempting to assault another on-air guest, longtime North Adams Mayor John Barrett. Not much came of the incident, except to reinforce Fehrnstrom’s reputation as a petty, political scrapper.


But today, the petty political scrapper and the ultra conservative chief of staff to a state treasurer, and then a governor, are quite literally running the day-to-day operations of a presidential campaign. They do so with humble people like me still wondering if they were merely guilty of an abysmal level of managerial ignorance.


Either way, the press has a bigger story in Fehrnstrom and Myers than they’ll ever have in the coat holder who likes to play cop.

John Tobin's proposal merits support

The new city hall shouldn't be
Windsor Castle on the waterfront
by Kevin John Sowyrda

Note - This is an advance copy of Boston and Beyond which will appear in the South End News (southendnews.com) on news stands in Boston this Thursday.

It's shaping up to be the Taj Mahal of Boston, a new city hall to replace the 1962 architectural monstrosity that never passed for one except in the eyes of the less than sober architects who gave birth to that thing; they being Edward Knowles, Gerhard M. Kallmann and Noel McKinnell - all of whom should thank God that creating nauseating physicality is not a capital crime, though I'm sure the Landmark Commission would like to change that.

Mayor Menino finally agrees with this writer and so many others that Boston needs a city hall that can be navigated by pedestrians who left their GPS devices in the glove compartment. Good for the mayor to finally jump on our bandwagon. Great idea, Your Honor. But Mayor Menino seems inclined to build the new complex on highly coveted and valuable waterfront property in South Boston with significant amenities for city councilors. Bad idea, Your Honor. The waterfront should be left to developers who will build and then contribute needed tax dollars to the city treasury. The new city hall should go exactly where citizens can best reach it and be built in the most economical fashion possible with austerity and accessibility being the watchwords for the project.

If bureaucrats desire fancy offices, let them have the sensibility to do what former Councilor Paul Scappichio did - quit and join the private sector.

But the political bellies are nonetheless rumbling with hunger. Political support for the new seat of municipal government at a fabulous waterfront perch has been garnered only with the promise of handsome garnishments. It's common knowledge that many city councilors are communicating regularly with the officials who've already been given $100,000 for initial design concepts. You can bet your property tax bill that members of that august legislative body will want bigger offices, because in politics size really does matter.

First, the mayor should scuttle the waterfront property concept before the feeding frenzy gets out of control. The land is simply too valuable for a government building and the mayor's theory that public sector construction there will stimulate further development is not backed up by the facts. Has the Moakley Court House achieved that goal? Sam Tyler of the Boston Municipal Research Bureau put it this way when I picked his brain on the subject earlier this week. "I don't think we need city hall at Dry Dock Number Four to encourage development. It will develop itself."

So I give you the Tobin plan. The front bencher on the city council, John Tobin, was absolutely the first voice in the city calling for a new municipal headquarters. In an interview this week Tobin told me that the new city hall should be built where the present city hall is today, complete with a sizable, cash generating underground garage. One political observer I spoke with noted that the vast expanse of concrete at city hall plaza can accommodate construction of the new building while the one being put to pasture continues to serve constituents. When construction is completed, the city will have plenty of turf to sell to anxious developers sure to be interested in premium downtown property where public transportation is already excellent, thanks to the Green and Orange lines of the M.B.T.A.

Wherever the new city hall goes, not all the city departments of the day need go there. It would be wise to create a new city hall with a new attitude about government - that only those departments truly worthy of taxpayer support should be brought along for the new ride. Hence, departments like intergovernmental affairs can be left behind for the demo crew. The last time I checked we have a plethora of state reps, a few congressmen and two able senators who are all well equipped to liaison with the state and federal governments. The money saved should go to hiring more cops.

And no space will be needed for the utterly absurd Office of New Bostonians. First, there's nothing for the staff there to do since no sane person is moving here. Second, the money saved is better spent on more cops.

Other departments best left to demolition foreman are the Women's Commission and the Rental Housing Resource Center. These departments may have highly noble mandates, but the money is still better spent on more cops.

If the new city hall is built with economies of scale and architectural sensibility first in mind, it will change Boston's downtown for decades to come. The mayor should immediately adopt Tobin's vision, which merits support.

City Manager for Boston

Issue Date: 4/5/2007, Posted On: 4/4/2007

Boston and Beyond


Kevin John Sowyrda
kevinsow@aol.com
Crime is “not out of control” and, “this city works” and “the bad guys don’t control the city,” Mayor Menino told the people of Dorchester earlier this week. Between gun shots and belly laughs, that is. Had he continued to share his eccentric view of the world at large, he probably would have added that Elvis is alive, the Celtics play mind-boggling basketball and that he’s soon to be beaming up to the Mother Ship for advice on a presently doomed reelection bid — which would explain his present politically catatonic state of mind.

Mayor Menino is not well, anymore than the city is well. This is the nature of politics given the fact that leaders and their spheres of influence have purely symbiotic relationships. When the mayor is sick, the city is ailing; and when the city is failing, so too is Hizzoner.

With a nearly 50 percent increase in the Hub’s murder rate compared to that of last year, the mayor’s painfully oblivious attitude and his moribund intent to paint a Norman Rockwell picture of a mountain of crime scenes is disturbing, at best. I’m beginning to consider the possibility that Hizzoner just rented the new Marie Antoinette movie staring Kirsten Dunst and simply took to heart the Queen’s blissful oblivion amidst popular suffering, figuring maybe that little Austrian was on to something. But the mayor must have missed the movie’s ending, don’t you think?

Today’s suffering will be ignored by our leaders only at their peril. The suffering can be seen in the faces of victims’ families who seem ill satisfied by a figure head at city hall who wants us to eat cake. After all, Hizzoner is hardly affected by pedestrian life in Boston — given the many armaments I suspect are tucked underneath the JC Penny suits of his around the clock body guard detail.

Accordingly, putting all hyperbole in a lock box for however brief a moment, we should consider the following. It’s time for the city to self-revolutionize and form an entirely new government structure which has the expertise to address the mounting challenges of the day.

The era of boss hog politicians running the melting pots of America should be over and give way to the growing trend of professionalizing municipal government. This wave of depoliticizing local services first began in the Commonwealth in the 1950s. Since then there has been a gradual march to reform and improve city and town governance by vesting executive powers in appointed public policy wonks, as is the case in Cambridge which is administrated by City Manager Robert W. Healy. If you ever wondered what people do after graduating from the Kennedy School of Government, now you know.

Boston should just do it. An appointed, ceremonial mayor — from the ranks of the city council — would be just fine for the mundane tasks of ribbon cutting and parading handsomely at holiday occasions. But a qualified city manager, given a lengthy contract for cover from undue political influence, will clearly alleviate the growing anxiety in the neighborhoods that there’s no one at the City Hall helm who has the intellectual power, the imagination or the political independence to lead the Hub through the tough times ahead. Imagine a city chief executive forbidden to raise campaign funds. Imagine a city chief executive who doesn’t have to worry about what the pollsters say or what the developers want him to do. Imagine a city chief executive who can actually speak the English language.

I’m not holding my breath for things to change in Boston overnight. I sadly anticipate that Menino’s failure to lead during this crime crisis will continue long after my hair turns even grayer. That’s why those citizens who are able to will continue to pack up the U-Haul and head for the ’burbs because many people think that Boston is no longer a safe home for families.

But before the Diaspora of the middle class reaches a critical stage, Boston needs to terminate business as usual. The overtly strong mayoral form of government has done little to improve life in Boston, and a significant change in the city charter is long overdue.

It would be difficult for present circumstances to be any worse under the changes I propose. And I’m the first man who will support Tom Menino for the position of ribbon cutter and parade marcher at large.