Wave Maker

Governor Patrick has responded to yesterday's story about is labor chief's political interference with the labor relations commission with the following statement:

""I don't know all the details, and I haven't talked to her," Patrick said about Suzanne M. Bump's discussions with the Labor Relations Commission. "But it sure doesn't sound like it" was inappropriate.

This is an astonishing statement, coming from a seasoned attorney and former Justice Department official.

Two commissioners of the Labor Relations Commission are meeting with the individual in charge of making their budget request. They state to this agency head that they have a serious backlog of cases due to staff shortages and they need more funds to increase staff levels.

The agency head responds: "We're very interested in the outcome of this particular matter that is before you."

Is there really any question in a reasoned person's mind that such an exchange (which Bump admits occurred) should raise a question of propriety? Is there a plausible explanation that is innocent? Well, maybe plausible, but barely so. Normal people see this. Why doesn't Patrick? And if he does see it, why does he make such an astonishing statement (especially in light of the burgeoning series of blunders out from which he is attempting to crawl)?

Years ago, the current Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, was Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. His Committee (well, he, really) was principally in charge of constructing the budget for the entire branch of the judiciary. Literally, trial court judges' salaries depended on his support. During this period of time, his private civil and criminal litigation practice flourished as he was retained to appear before trial court judges all over eastern Massachusetts. Imagine a trial judge hearing a Motion to Dismiss a criminal charge (say, oh, a DUI) brought by the Chairman of the legislative committee before whom the judge's pay raise is pending. Does the Chairman have to say to the judge, "I'm watching you?" No, he doesn't, and he knew it. Why I can envision him describing the scenario: he walks into the courtroom, whereupon the judge's mere sight of him causes an embarrassing scatalogical mishap.

This is a no brainer. And that is both a literal truth and a double entendre.