Host Rachel Miselman discusses the upcoming Suffolk County Supreme Court Clerk election, its candidates, the experience the position entails, & more.
WBCA Podcasts
Bostonian Rap
>> Hello, and welcome to Bostonian Wrap. My name is Rachel Meiselman. You are listening to me on WBCA LP 102.9 FM Boston. This is Boston's Community Radio Station. As always, we're going to go do a quick disclaimer, and then we're going to come back and jump right on in to tonight's show. >> The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff and management of WBCA or the Boston Neighborhood Network. If you would like to express another opinion, you can address your comments to Boston Neighborhood Network, 302-5 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02119. To arrange a time for your own commentary, you can call WBCA at 617-708-3215 or email radio at bnnmedia.org. >> Hello, and welcome back to Bostonian Wrap. My name is again Rachel Meiselman, and this is WBCA LP 102.9 FM Boston. So a lot has been going on. It seems like kind of a particularly strange time. I feel like that's true locally in regard to state politics and also what's going on at the national level. It's just a very bizarre time right now. I will start with locally. So we have an election for the Supreme Judicial Court clerk for the county of Suffolk, and we have, as I've talked a little bit about this race. But I think it's a race that's just so important that it just, it bears further discussion. So unfortunately, there aren't any Republican candidates. And I say, unfortunately, because it would be nice for people to have an array of choices, but honestly, for this particular race, politics doesn't really come into it. This is really about experience, and to be a bit brutal, you either have it or you don't. So there are two candidates. You have Alison Cartwright, and you have Boston City Councilor Eren Murphy. So Alison Cartwright has extensive experience as a public defender. So she has been practicing law for, I believe, wow, 30 years. It's really, it's, it's quite something. For 30 years, she has advocated for a wide variety of people and just has a really, really broad, impressive background. So she did her undergraduate work at the University of Michigan and did some graduate school work at the Michigan, at Michigan State University. She later attended Boston College Law School. And it's just ever since that point, well, I mean, undoubtedly before. But, but particularly since that point, 1992, when she emerged from Boston College Law School in 1992 with her Juris Doctor, she has really been making a strong impression upon her fellow attorneys and just a wide variety of legal professionals. She really has, her resume is, like I said, it's really, really something. Presently, she is managing in a managerial position. And she's overseeing a number of attorneys. And it's, it really is quite something. So I'm like, I'm looking at her, I'm going through her resume now. She's participated in law schools, the, like the Boston College Defenders Clinic. She, and then, you know, through that clinic, she's represented clients charged with crimes in the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court. This is just some of the stuff. Some of the work that she's done. So it's not, it's, it's not like she's just kind of, and, and I don't want to disparage this work, but she just didn't go to work in a law firm. And I think that there's a lot of excellent outstanding work that can be done in law firms. And I think that there are, I mean, I've worked with some incredibly impressive, sharp, hard-working people. But I think that a lot of her work has really, truly been around advocacy. And depending on which way you go, I want to do have your law degree. The goals are different. I mean, there are certain things that unite all attorneys. And that's, you know, the, the love of law, the respect for the law. And a regard for really trying to work to ones utmost to get the most desirable outcome possible for one's client. And I think that in trying to do that, really, I think that sometimes it involves really pushing oneself. I really do because it's about looking at something from all different perspectives. It's about considering all different kinds of possibilities. It's about creating a narrative, not one that's a divorce from reality, but one that tells the story. And then as the story unfolds, evidence is presented. And it's just really working to advance and protect the interest of one's clients within these parameters. And like I said, it's, it is, in some instances, it can be a tremendous intellectual exercise. I don't think it's easy being an attorney. I think that a lot of people seem to think that that's the case. But I actually think that it really, it requires a lot of discipline in a number of respects. And when I look at all the different things that Alison Cartwright has done, it's, it's very impressive. So again, she participated in Boston College's Defenders Clinic and she has defended people represented clients who have had appearances, who have been summoned to Dorchester, the Dorchester Division of the Boston Municipal Court. She got her legal career started with the Committee for Public Counsel Services. And it's the state's public defender agency. So there's been a lot of advocacy around or for, I should say, I had to really kind of think about that. Advocacy for people that maybe don't always feel like they have a possibility of accessing justice or being able to enjoy justice. I feel that if you look through her resume, I mean, obviously it's someone who is very highly trained and skilled, but it's, it's just what I'm talking about here. It's just the direction that she's chosen to go in. And, and again, let me underline that there are people who've gone the corporate route. And I think that that it can be very important to, in fact, it is very important, but it, what I'll say are the goals are different. So really Alison Cartwright has spent a lot of her life around advocacy for those who might, for those individuals who might not always be readily seen. She has, she's also worked for the city of Boston as an assistant corporation council. So really she's, there's been a variety, there's been a variety. But overall, I think there's been a strong advocacy for people who, who are not always seen by everyone. I don't want to get any emails or texts saying later, well, what's wrong with corporate law? There's nothing wrong with corporate law and it's incredibly important work. And I know some people who, who have been engaged in corporate law, who practice corporate law, different, you know, have different roles that they play with in corporate law. And they're doing incredibly important work. But I think that, I think that for me, when I'm just, if I'm going to talk about working as a clerk in the Supreme Judicial Court, I think that certainly I would find someone who's worked in corporate law very impressive. I would find someone who's worked in another branch of government, you know, as council. I would find that impressive. In short, I would find really, I would say anyone with a law degree and practicing, I do find it impressive because again, I don't think it's an easy career path. I think that it's a career that requires a lot of different skills, communication, both written and oral. It requires, I think, a great amount of nimbleness, if you will, intellectual nimbleness and flexibility. But I think, again, the reason why I'm stressing the advocacy that has marked a lot of Allison Cartwright's work is because I just think that in this particular role, I think it's an attractive background, a particularly, a particularly attractive background I have. Sometimes I think that right now that a lot of people don't have faith in the government and, you know, I've listened to a lot of the voices, you know, a lot of people weighing in on this particular race and I would agree with those that say, right here, you know, the judicial branch, it's kind of all that we have left in terms of impartiality or being able to hope for or being able to reasonably expect to receive or to enjoy interactions or to be met with non-bias. I think that's very important. I think that people just in general don't have a lot of faith and a lot of different things and certainly government is right at the top of the list. And so I think when a person goes into a courtroom, whatever level for whatever reason, it's often not pleasant. The idea that however many people might not have much faith in the courts, not having faith that they're going to be met fairly, that's something that's very, that's an idea that bothers me greatly. So we definitely want someone in that role that is going to work to uphold even just the appearance of impartiality in the courts. And certainly I think that Alison Cartwright would do that beautifully. Now I do, speaking of fairness, I do want to be fair because Alison isn't, they only candidated in the race, there is also Boston City Councilor Erin Murphy. So I mentioned her to be fair, but to be, to be further fair, I don't want to mention her and then proceed to disparage her background because Erin Murphy has an education. Erin Murphy has a background in education. She has a degree in education. She worked a number of years for the Boston Public Schools and if I'm understanding correctly different roles, she was both an elementary school teacher and then later on she did more administrative work. And I think that that should be commended. I think that education is the key to unlocking so many doors. It's the way to break down so many barriers and it's the way, it's the path forward for so many people. And so I'm always going to praise and have a certain level of regard for those involved with education, whatever it may be. So I say all that to, to underline that I don't think that Erin Murphy lacks an education. I don't think that Erin Murphy isn't educated. She is, of course she is, of course she is, but then there's the question. When you have people who are educated because politics doesn't really come into this race and I say that, notwithstanding the fact that there is an election, that must be one in order to hold this office, it's non-political and that one's political leanings don't come into the picture. Again, I come back to this idea of impartiality. I mentioned advocacy work and some people might argue, well, isn't that showing some kind of bias? And I would say no, because it's the idea of making sure that everyone can reasonably expect justice. This whole underlying theme of fairness, and again, I think, just kind of jump back a little bit, and these times when so many people are so distrustful, lack so much confidence in so many different things and institutions, I think it's important to have someone that has a track record of ensuring fairness and fighting for fairness for all people. I think that's incredibly important. And so, yes, the people that the average Joe would expect to have a fair shake in a courtroom would have a fair shake with judges, administrators, with a clerk heading it all. One would expect, sure, certain people to have, again, I'm choosing my words carefully, and I'll speak to that in just a bit. There would be this expectation that, yes, they would be fairness, but I think that again, and these times when so many people are so distrustful, I think it's important for the average Joe to understand that he, too, would have the same treatment in the Supreme Judicial Court, not just the judges, but also the administrative staff, and so it's very important to be impartial, but it's also very important to understand what the expectations for this office is. And I think that it's not something you can really pick up. I think you have to have the training. I do. When I say that you can't pick it, you can't just pick it up, okay, maybe someone who doesn't have a legal background, whether it's Evan Murphy or someone else, maybe he or she could pick it up in a certain amount of time, but then what happens to people expecting fairness and people expecting, hoping for justice, it's a very complex role. There are a lot of moving pieces to the role of Clark of the Supreme Judicial Court. I think that it's not just an administrative role. It's an addition to having to possess knowledge about what it takes to be an attorney and what it means to be an attorney. Just to understand the courts, to feel comfortable in the courts, it's important to have that body of knowledge. It's important to have that body of knowledge going into the role. Very important. And I don't think that when it comes to things like a courtroom or an operating room, we don't want, these are just two areas where we just, we don't want people to not be surrounded by people who have a certain body of knowledge. It's not just an administrative role. It's not the same as being Chief of Staff or Chief of Staff where, I don't know, maybe a Chief of Staff, I'll say it maybe at the State House. Now, I'm not saying that anyone can just walk into that role. I do think that that role requires a certain amount of knowledge and you have to have a certain level of experience and you have to have a resume, you have to have a resume. But I think that when you're talking about administrative roles, there are also levels of expertise and I think that you need to be, I think you need to be a seasoned administrator. And in addition, you need to have that body of knowledge, that understanding about the law, about the courts, about what it means to be an attorney, what it means to follow the rules and the regulations of the profession and what it means not to. It's just a very, very, very important role for all these different reasons that I'm, again, I'm choosing my words carefully as I said and I'm doing that because I want to be fair, I want to be fair and so I want to jump back to Erin Murphy's background. So it's not that she doesn't have an education, but you have to look at what she's been trained to do and her body of knowledge and how does that fit with the demands of being a clerk. I mean, just managing people, what is her background there? I have heard her talk about being an elementary school teacher and again, I respect that but managing four and five-year-olds, six-year-olds is not the same obviously as managing adults. So again, I'm trying to be very objective. I'm trying to be very, if you will, judicious and even-handed with my words and with my argument. So I'm being thoughtful here, at least I hope I'm, I hope I'm at least giving the appearance of that. Let me give you another example. There was a task force set up and so this is just to show people that whatever the role is, I think that people need to have the qualifications. We can't have people just put into roles. We can't just have people stand up and say, oh, I can do this, I want this job. Okay, well, what is your experience? What schooling have you had? What's your training? I mean, this counts. We can't just place people in positions because they have a can-do attitude, right? So whatever it is, we want to make sure that we have the best people in that position. We want to make sure that people can do the job, right? So, okay, so the other example, there was a task force that was set up. The Boston School Committee set up a task force to look at the admissions policies for the exam schools, for the three exam schools in Boston. So one of the chairs was Tenisha Sullivan. So Tenisha is not an educated woman. Certainly not. She's had access to a great education and she went on and she has gotten a law degree, so she's an attorney and she also possesses an MBA. But I remember there was one public testimony. And so I said, I express my respect because I do have respect, I have great respect for Tenisha Sullivan's educational background, right? Again, she's a lawyer and she possesses an MBA. She's a very well-educated woman. I've heard her speak on different occasions. There's no denying that she's had a professional formation and that she has a solid educational foundation. But guess what, I questioned her as a choice, as co-chair of this task force, because she doesn't have a background in education. She doesn't. She's not a product of the Boston public schools and she didn't grow up. From my knowledge, she didn't spend her childhood, any part of her childhood in Boston. So you don't have a background in education, you're not a product of the Boston public schools. I mean, how is it that you were made a co-chair of this task force? And so there were people that were offended by that, but they shouldn't have been because I'm consistent. And so someone might say, "Well, you don't like Tenisha's Sullivan." Well, I will freely admit that I don't agree with her on a number of things politically. That does not mean I do not have respect for her as a human being and that does not mean that I don't have respect again for her education. I myself am trying to be objective, right? So I trained, some of you know, I trained as a barrister, so I trained as a legal professional. And I will return to the statement that I made, that it's just not easy being a lawyer. It's just not. And maybe I'm not smart or capable enough. I say that, but it's just because it really does push you. It pushes you. And I think that being fair and impartial is so unbelievably important in this role. And I think it's just difficult in general for people to be fair and impartial. But what I think of Tenisha Sullivan is irrelevant. She is an educated woman, but my point, and I try to be as respectful as possible when I put it forward is, is she a good fit for this role? And so I get back to this race for the Supreme Judicial Court clerk for the county of Suffolk. Is Erin Murphy a good fit for this position? Respectfully, I don't think she is. What would be asked of her, I don't think that it would be something that she could just walk into this position and be able to execute the duties. One of the bigger roles, bigger functions of this administrative role, seasoned administrative role, highly seasoned is that she would be the gatekeeper of the lawyer profession. And I'm echoing what a lot of people have said, including Senator Edwards, very recently. She herself, of course, is an attorney, and you know, you have to have someone who understands what it means, and I'm paraphrasing, but you have to have someone who understands what it means to be a lawyer, the work that's involved, the expectations, it's a lot. This role is a lot. And to further be clear, I would say that I don't even think a licensed attorney who's only been practicing for a few years, because I do think you should be a licensed attorney. I'm just saying what I think. If you're not a licensed attorney, then I would say you'd have to be someone who has an extended and extensive career in the courts, right? But I think that ideally, the ideal candidate for this role is a licensed attorney, but not someone who just has just passed the bar. I'm thinking of someone who's been practicing for a good number of years and who has worn different hats as an attorney. Because again, it's a highly complex role. It's not just about showing up on time and bringing coffee and donuts for people and being kind and courteous, and I'm not trying to be a sarcastic or rude, but it just seems to be a misunderstanding, right? So, I'll kind of, you know, I'll jump back to maybe doing a lot of jumping back on tonight's show, right? But I'll jump back to one of the first statements that I made, and it's that we just were living in weird times. And it just feels really weird, like what's going on local, state, and national. So for me, what makes this race bizarre is that we're arguing about politics and we're making an argument, trying to make an argument for someone who has a background that doesn't correspond to this job description. I mean, for me, that's bizarre because when I was growing up, you either could do the job or you couldn't, and what determined whether or not you could do the job is the qualifications. You know, your educational training, your professional experience, that's what determined it. Now, don't get me wrong, someone could have a background for a position, a perfect background, and then not to the job well. And of course that happens. Unfortunately, that happens not infrequently, but just me being old school, it's just for me, this is bizarre. I mean, when we're talking about a role that demands impartiality, we're fighting about, well, what is this one's political positions? It doesn't matter. You know, and even the newspaper, well, this is a matchup between old and new Boston. No, it's not. It's a matchup between candidates who has the experience. And respectfully, I think only one of the two candidates does now. If Alison Cartwright was, you know, she and Erin were, Erin Murphy, Boston City Council, Erin Murphy, were applying to a position in the educational field, especially working around young children, obviously, I would question Alison Cartwright's decision to apply to that role. Again, I'm being fair. So someone might say, well, I don't think you really like Erin Murphy. Well, you know what, when I'm talking about this race, it doesn't matter what I think of Erin Murphy. The only thing I'm focused on is her resume. That's it. Right. And so when I was growing up, it was either you had the education, you had the background or you didn't. And just when the only thing I really feel like we have left, that even has the appearance of nonbiased. And when we have arguments being made that would threaten that, that that's, that, you know, that scares me. Again, I'm trying to be even, even handed in this, this segment, but in as far as I possibly can be, but this is a very important race. And what I would ask people to do is please vote. Now, obviously, if you pull the Republican ballot or your Republican or third party candidate, you will not be voting in the Democratic primary in this particular race. But if you are going to be, if you are a Democrat, and if you are, or if you're an independent, an unenrolled voter, you're not affiliated with any party and you're going to be pulling the Democratic ballot, I respectfully ask you to vote. Well, I'm always going to urge people to vote in every race that they possibly can. But I urge people, I encourage people to vote in this race. And I also encourage people to look at the background, backgrounds of these two candidates. You might not have the same opinion as I do, but I would hope that what the takeaways from this discussion are that this is a role candidates aside, that is not entry level, it's not an entry level administrative job. There are a lot of moving parts. It takes someone who's highly seasoned. It takes people, it would take someone with different skill sets and who really quite frankly has to possess a certain body of knowledge and that is an understanding of the profession of lawyers and a sound understanding of the courts. So please pay attention to this race, please get out and vote, and that's that. That's what's weird for me on local level. On state level, what's weird for me? Oh my goodness. A lot of things are weird for me on state level. I think that I think that there is, well, it's pretty pronounced, particularly around here too. It's a multiple level, but this one party thing that we've got going on here in Massachusetts, and for those of you who listen to me often, enough, you know that this is something that I would like to try to change, and I'll say this, even if you're, let's say we're all Republican, let's say it were the reverse, so it was all Republican, I would still want to have a strong Democratic party because I think that that's what the people deserve, and at the end of the day, it all comes down to the people and what the people need and what the people deserve. But what bothers me is that when we have people that are all saying the same thing and we don't have different points of view, we're not getting things done. Or a solution that we could have otherwise found, we find much later, much longer after the fact because we weren't listening, or because we weren't considering, or because we didn't even think that we had to do either one of those two things. And so what is interesting to me is you have people like State Senator Peter Durant, who was a state rep for a bit, for a long time, he's someone who's respected, he's been around for a long time, he's now a state senator, and he, along with Brad Jones, state rep Brad Jones, you know, another Republican, state rep Paul Frost, they were calling for changes in the shelter policy. They were calling for changes. So what's interesting is one of the things that they wanted to do, let me try to give you a bit of a timeline here. So the right to shelter law was, Massachusetts is unique in that it had this right to shelter law. And it essentially said that people who were coming here, families, but not just families, even individuals that they had to, you know, receive some assistance for shelter. So I'm going to actually, I'm going to read a little bit of something from the Republican Party, so the Massachusetts Republican Party. So just in time for the election, the Healyider School Administration is making changes to the emergency assistance shelter system that Republican leaders, including minority leaders, Jones. So Brad Jones, Bruce Tar, who's a state senator, have been advocating for over the past year and a half. However, these changes still come too little too late as Massachusetts taxpayers have already spent over a billion dollars to hold up the emergency housing program. Mass GOP chair, Amy Carnavali, commented on the governor's sudden policy shift stating, "The Healyider School Administration is finally implementing some of the measures we've been advocating despite repeated opposition from the Democratic supermajority. While it's good to see some necessary steps being taken, it's frustrating to consider the significant amount of money that has been wasted reaching this point." And then the statement from the state party goes on as these changes could have been enacted when Republicans first spoke out about the migrant crisis. However, the Healyider School Administration and the Democratic supermajority prefer to placate their base rather than address the crisis at hand. Their sudden shift now exposes a clear hypocrisy in their stance, prefer to play politics rather than making tough decisions for the betterment of the Commonwealth, Carnavali concluded. Now, I would say that there might be something to that. I mean, I certainly support chairman Carnavali very strongly, and I support her staff, her team. She's got a very, very good team. But to play a little bit of devil's advocate, although I agree that these changes could have, should have come at a long, you know, a long time ago, what I'm going to say is that a lot of times what seems to happen, and this for me is so bizarre because when I was growing up, I just, I just thought that there were just different voices, or maybe I just didn't know any better, but it just seems that people just don't listen, or they choose not to listen. They hear things and they let it go in one ear out the other, and I don't understand that. If you want the best government possible, I don't understand how you shouldn't take the time to listen. So there was an article in Axios. So that publication said Massachusetts Shelter Policy Changes, Miramast GOP Proposals. So I think that the Republican Party should get credit, because what happens so often in this state, and certainly in the city of Boston, is that people bring up ideas that make suggestions, and they're ignored, until people, until someone, or several someones decide that the ideas are good, and then they enact them, or they try to implement them. And it's like, okay, so you think the idea is a good, well, how about crediting the people who brought the ideas forward? I mean, I just don't understand. So in this Axios article, the journalist, so it's Steph Solis writes, "Governor Murray Healy shocked housing advocates by cutting stays to overflow a family shelter sites." So that was something that certainly a lot of Republicans in the Massachusetts legislature have been advocating for, all of them actually, that the stays in the overflow family shelters be cut, and these are among other changes that the Massachusetts Republicans have proposed for months. This is what Steph Solis wrote, "Then she goes on to write, 'Why it matters, Massachusetts plan to reign in its family shelter system and network of overflow sites could leave families on the streets," advocates say. But the moves announced by Healy on Tuesday so far face no apparent opposition for Beacon Hill leaders. So you have advocates saying one thing, but you have, with all due respect to the advocates, you have a lot of politicians who are finally facing up to the reality. So then she goes on to write, starting August 1, "Family's qualified for, but waitlisted from family shelters are limited to five days in an overflow site." And it just goes on to give the timeline, and it's just cutting the length of the stays in addition to other suggestions that have been advocated, have been pushed by Republicans in the state. It's just, respectfully, they should have been implemented a long time ago because it's just, I think, Boston and Massachusetts are incredibly resource rich. But our resources are not infinite. And we've gotten to the point in this city because Boston, by far and away, has housed the largest number of migrants. But Boston and Massachusetts, the state as a whole, have started, there have been now efforts to take money from other sources, from other areas, and put it towards housing migrants. And we want to be compassionate. We want to be welcoming, but we have to consider our infrastructure. That's incredibly important. And we have to look at, I mean, I spoke about the right to shelter laws if it's something in the past. It's not. So I shouldn't have done that. It's more speaking, if I'm speaking about it in the past, it's more taken into consideration the changes that have been made. And I think that if we're going to have this law, we need to be cognizant about our infrastructure. We need to think about what we can reasonably handle, what we can reasonably hold. And we just, we can't overburden, or we can't burden our infrastructure. And so what's odd for me, weird, is that it just took, it took so much for the Democratic majority and this administration to listen to Republicans. I think that if, again, we want good government, we need to listen to all voices. And when we have ideas that are going to work or that they're going to take us a step closer to solving a problem, an admitted problem, then we need to give credit. So it's just as often as I spend in the political arena, I still find it a bizarre place to be. I just, I don't always understand the behavior and the rationale. So yes, Massachusetts has this right to shelter law, but we just, we can't, we can't just accept people coming in families, you know, individuals. We have to balance being welcoming and being a place where people recognize as one where they can receive help, where they can have a better life with being able to take care of the people who are already here and understanding what our infrastructure can handle. And the last bit of the show, I did focus heavily on municipal level tonight. So there'll be other times when I talk more about other, you know, what's going on in this state, what's going on a national, but there was a heavy focus, deliberate focus on municipal level, but the last couple of minutes or so, I want to just throw out something that I find, you know, again, weird times odd about national level. We in this state, in this country, rather, the idea of anointing somebody. I don't obviously have any say whatsoever, and it's not my political party, but what I'm hoping is that there will be some kind of debate and that Kamala will not just be crowned the Democratic nominee, that doesn't strike me as being in keeping with the Democratic process. And that's what I'll say about that. And I did. I had wanted to say a lot about food insecurity. I wanted to say something about that. And so what I'll say is I'll encourage you to check out Project Hunger, I'm sorry, Project Honda, Project Bread, they're doing a lot of interesting things. There's a lot of advocacy going on. And next week, I promise I will keep my word and I'll talk a lot about food insecurity because that's something that certainly demands a lot of our attention, my attention, our attention as well. Thank you so much for hanging out, and I look forward to hanging out with you next week. The preceding commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff and management of WBCA or the Boston Neighborhood Network. If you would like to express another opinion, you can address your comments to Boston Neighborhood Network, 302-5 Washington Street, Boston, Massachusetts, 02119. To arrange a time for your own commentary, you can call WBCA at 617-708-3215 or email radio@bnnmedia.org.