It is now a matter of public record that a long standing “quid pro quo” arrangement existed between the head of the state’s Probation Department and the Massachusetts Legislature.  So long as the legislature supported the Probation Department’s budget, House and Senate members were allowed to have their pick of personnel appointments.  The Governor and the Boston Globe would have us believe that this situation is an aberrant condition simply requiring realignment to correct.  The truth is the relationship that was revealed between the Legislature and the Probation Department is the way the legislature conducts all its business.  The situation is such that even the Governor cannot changed this, unless he is willing to change the state constitution.  The fact is that the legislature dictates personnel decisions not only to the Probation Department but to each of the Sheriffs’ offices, to the State Police, to the Department of Transportation and throughout the state’s court system.  It has done so for some time.

Why is this?  Massachusetts is a Commonwealth.  Consequently, most of the funding for state agencies and departments comes through the General Fund, which is completely controlled by the state legislature.  Given the reality of power and politics on Beacon Hill, legislators vigorously exploit the advantages that accrue to those holding the purse strings.  Rights to patronage appointments are regularly traded for increased agency budgets.  This is particularly true with regard to the House and Senate leadership.  Jobs means votes, votes mean continued influence for those in office.  It is this linkage that provides incumbent legislators with the seemingly invincible insulation from public recall.  They are literally protected by an army of indebted state employees, who will support them in every election.

In 2006, when Deval Patrick ran for his first term as Governor, he made a campaign pledge to the people of Massachusetts to put 100 new police officers on the streets in order to stem public concerns over crime.  He never fulfilled that promise.  In fact, his administration has presided over the greatest degradation of the state’s public safety sector in recent history.

In retrospect, the political controversy that linked the Governor, in his first election, to attempts to aid and assist convicted rapist Ben LaGuer, was the tip off to the direction his head and heart would take on the question of public safety.  The Governor takes a hard left view of criminals.  Like most liberals, he starts with the premise that they are victims of social injustice, who are more misunderstood than malevolent.  But Governor Patrick takes this view to even more extreme lengths.  He and his administration regard the law enforcement and correctional community as reactionary elements, who prey upon offenders obstructing their efforts to reintegrate into society.  The Governor has made it his personal crusade to protect offenders from the wrath of these elements.