Wouldn't it be wonderful if just once we could have an attorney general in Massachusetts that actually wanted the job? Think back in recent history about every one of our former A.G's over the past 51 years and the hallmark of all 8 out of 9 of them was that they all ran for something else. It isn't a perfect record because the current A.G. hasn't had an opportunity yet (that is certainly in the wings if a senate seat is soon vacated).
I only went back 51 years because convenient web history wasn't available on the AG before Ed McCormack but I am sure the trend doesn't end there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Attorney_General
Of course they have the right to want to move up in the world but isn't it rather unseemly for the chief law enforcement officer of the state to be always on the look out for a political opportunity? Doesn't it bring to mind that the political advisers of each of these people might have been thinking what is that one big case that we can exploit to give our candidate an edge?
Was the Fells Acre case, Microsoft suit, and the Big Dig adhesive case all examples of political decision making? Perhaps non prosecution is political as well, such as no conspiracy charges in the cover up of the church pedophile cases or why have the Feds been making cases in Boston corruption but the state isn't?
We can examine a smaller example right here in Burlington. Back in July the Friends of Mary Cummings Park filed a complaint against Boston for its egregious breach of trust. Four months later a letter comes back assuring them that Boston is not selling the property but does not address the issues of the squandering of funds nor does it explain why if Boston is not attempting to sell the property why would they file ANR plans in Woburn and Burlington to grandfather zoning development rights?
Additionally, it makes mention that they see no reason why Boston shouldn't be able to demolish a building on the property but fails to mention that if Boston had been doing its fiduciary duty, demolition of a trust asset would be unnecessary.
Contrast this with the response from the A.G.'s office over the recent announcement by Brandeis University that they were going to sell off assets and close the Rose Museum. Within a day the A.G.'s office had this to say by Emily LaGrassa, director of communications for the state attorney general;
"Ms. LaGrassa said that in the case of Brandeis, the attorney general would review wills and agreements made between the museum and the estates of donors to determine if selling artworks violated the terms of donations."
Could it be that it was politically expedient for the AG to get right on top of this issue because she will garner a lot of public attention? Aren't the issues of donor rights the same for Mrs. Cummings as they are for the donors to the Rose Museum? Or is the difference the size of the constituency and the amount of publicity the deciding factor? Apparently, in Massachusetts, adding to the public stature of the AG has always been added to the scales of justice in the decision making process.
