Treating Amnesia in the William Bulger Era

The preceding post on this blog is entitled, “The Pursuit of Journalistic Truth and Justice.”  That pursuit is elusive at times, as Scot Lehigh’s article about William Bulger in the August 9, 2013 issue of The Boston Globe attests.  To illustrate, allow me to address its substance.

The article rejoices in how “Both Bulgers Can Soon Be Forgotten,” joining together the name of James Bulger, whose trial formally ended today with the jury’s guilty verdict on 31 of 32 counts, with that of his younger brother, William Bulger.

Lehigh proclaims that the end of the trial will “…help push the Bulger era further into Boston’s past.”

Yet, what is “the Bulger era”?  That question will be answered last.

First, let us address Lehigh’s assertions.  He blames Whitey Bulger for how he “managed to corrupt the FBI, turning the once-proud bureau into an enabler of his criminal reign.”  Yet during the series of congressional hearings by the House Committee on Government Reform, it was determined that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover himself was aware of impending murders and not only took no action, but also approved affirmative steps to ensure that the true murderer was protected while innocent men served decades in prison, some of whom died there.

Testimony from U.S. Representative John Tierney (D-MA) is excerpted below.

In short, James Bulger did not “manage to corrupt the FBI.”

As Tierney noted in 2002, it was an endemic problem — all the way to the very top.  Is it possible that the FBI used James Bulger and, by its failure to prosecute or act far earlier, had a hand in enabling him?  If J. Edgar Hoover himself knew of impending murders and failed to act — and subsequently protected those responsible, and even allowed innocent men to serve time, how did Whitey Bulger manage that?

Lehigh is simply wrong.  He misinforms us all.  The FBI was proud once, before the public knew what really went on behind its closed doors.  Why else would more than one member of Congress seek to remove the name of J. Edgar Hoover from its headquarters?  How much of that pride was an illusion?  Even U.S. Representative Dan Burton (R-IN), to his credit, lamented how his perception of the FBI was forever shattered due to facts which emerged during the Committee’s work:

Next, Lehigh calls William Bulger “dishonorable.”  This comes after the facts establish that members of Congress called J. Edgar Hoover dishonorable and call for the FBI headquarters to be scrubbed of his name.  Somehow Lehigh neglects to mention that.

Instead, he opines that William Bulger is dishonorable, because he told the truth to a grand jury and candidly stated in one random excerpt The Boston Globe chose to publish in December 2002, that “It’s my hope I’m never helpful to anyone against him.”   There was no context for when this was uttered, or what else William Bulger uttered during that testimony.

He also hoped “the worst of the charges would be proved groundless,” an unrealized hope as today’s jury verdict indicates.  Having a hope is not a statement of fact or even of intent; it is an emotion.  Imputing wrongdoing to a person’s feelings is a wrong unto itself.   Contrary to what The Globe assumed, that expression of hope was no refusal to cooperate.  Throughout life, a person hopes for many things, as much as the reality may be otherwise.

Importantly, omission is a common modus operandi of The Globe.  Beginning on page 222 of his memoir, While the Music Lasts: My Life in Politics, William Bulger describes one anecdote in which he sat for an in-person interview with none other than Dick Lehr and Gerald O’Neill from The Boston Globe‘s “Spotlight Report Team.”

Described in the first person, it was in the Fall of 1988 that William Bulger agreed to sit for an interview and respond to questions even though he was about to leave for vacation in Europe.  On that occasion, Bulger was also asked about the 75 State Street matter, which was investigated exhaustively by five levels of state and federal review.  Bulger also promised to provide follow-up information when he returned from vacation, and O’Neil promised not to print anything until continuing the interview upon Bulger’s return in twelve days.

Yet, it was a day or so later, while William Bulger was in Belgium, that Lehr and O’Neil authored a front page Globe report proclaiming, “Senate President William M. Bulger has benefited from a trust bankrolled with money that a Boston real estate magnate claims was extorted from him in 1985…”

In short, Lehr and O’Neil lied to Bulger and waited until they knew he would be out of the country to publish their report; are not lying and deceit dishonorable?

Lehigh lies to us, too.  Below is an affidavit submitted by HAROLD BROWN himself, expressly noting the “five levels of state and federal review” — investigations — and even his own statement sworn under penalty of perjury declaring once and for all (or so one would think) as follows: “The truth is simple: Mr. Bulger played no role in connection with my [75 State Street]  project.”  Instead of reading Scot Lehigh’s misinformation, go ahead and read the truth from Harold Brown himself:

Whom do we believe?  Scot Lehigh invokes “the allegation that he and his law associate extorted $500,000 from developer Harold Brown during the mid-1980s…” but here, we have developer Harold Brown expressly stating that William Bulger was not involved at all.  Do we believe Lehigh reporting on Brown, or do we believe Brown?  That journalistic truth is self-evident.

In our pursuit, we have choices about which way to go.  Reader, I hope you tread where the light shines brightest; it may be hard to see, but it is there if you dare to open your eyes.

Lehigh further associates William Bulger with John Connolly, to whom he goes so far as to poetically refer as a “fawning acolyte.”  According to the dictionary, the primary definition of an “acolyte” is “one who assists a member of the clergy…”  So now John Connolly was William Bulger’s altar boy.  Without citing any source, Lehigh recounts an anecdote in which John Connolly purportedly advised William Bulger to cooperate with federal investigators and agree to be interviewed.  How is cooperating with an investigation somehow insidious or dishonorable?  How does that support Lehigh’s point?

Lehigh also mentions Jeremiah O’Sullivan’s role in “the second investigation” but fails to mention the third, fourth, or fifth investigation — or the sworn statement of Harold Brown himself.  If Lehigh really knew the facts, he would report that O’Sullivan participated in the “tertiary” investigative review.  We learn that directly from Harold Brown.

Finally, Lehigh notes how “It’s also long been whispered…” that the indictment and subsequent trial of Senate Majority Leader Joseph DiCarlo in 1977 paved the way for Bulger to become Senate President.  Of course, Kevin Harrington was still serving as Senate President at the time and he chose Bulger to be Majority Leader prior to his own resignation in 1978.

This investigation into construction contracts with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts actually prompted widespread ethics reform and led to the establishment of the first Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for any state in the United States, to oversee state business.  The Ward Commission was a big deal at the time and issued a substantial twelve volume report  by the end of 1980.

In his capacity as Senate President, William Bulger played a pivotal role in pushing this oversight reform bill through.  To suggest that Bulger somehow masterminded the indictment of DiCarlo is to similarly suggest that Gerald Ford was secretly responsible for the investigation of Spiro Agnew which led to his own selection as President Nixon’s Vice President.  To say that Ford had a hand in Agnew’s criminal indictment and that it “paved the way” for Ford to become President of the United States would surely draw curious glances from any rational person.  Yet this is exactly what Lehigh proffers here in regard to William Bulger.  Think about it.  Does it make sense, just because he says it does?

Wrongdoing is wrongdoing, no matter who commits it.  DiCarlo was indicted because there apparently was evidence of criminal culpability; why is that nefarious in any way?  This lopsided logic suggests that those “whispers” which Lehigh mentions are perhaps attributable to voices in his own head.  Hopefully this posting will offer some level of help to him in understanding the extreme depth of his deficiency.

Also mentioned by Lehigh is “the phone call” in January of 1995 by which “Whitey and William arranged for a secret telephone call at the home of one of William’s associates, where it would go undetected by investigators.”

William Bulger spoke to that during his 2003 testimony as well during questioning by U.S. Representative Marty Meehan (D-MA):

Thus, the official record states that it was Kevin Weeks who arranged the call, without William Bulger having advance knowledge.  Given the central role which Kevin Weeks had in the Trial of Whitey Bulger, surely he could have spoken to that if asked; yet I am unaware of that question being raised by either the prosecution or Bulger’s defense attorneys.

William Bulger also explained the reason for his concern for his brother, drawing reference to his religious faith and “The Good Shepherd story” — that no one should be turned away; he also recalls “society’s right to protect itself and to impose severe penalties on anyone guilty of such deeds.”  Specifically, the story originates directly from John 10:11-12 in the New Testament in which Jesus Christ declares, “A thief comes only to rob, kill, and destroy. I came so that everyone would have life, and have it in its fullest. I am the good shepherd, and the good shepherd gives up his life for his sheep.”

There is no reason to believe his statement was not true, given his Catholic upbringing.  Where is the dishonor there?  The larger context of William Bulger’s statement follows:

Taking the facts into consideration, it is clear that what Lehigh presents as fact in support of his opinion, is, in fact, fiction.  He is wrong on Harold Brown, on the phone call, on the “once proud FBI,” and he is also wrong about “the Bulger era.”  James Bulger and William Bulger are two separate people.

Today’s jury verdict may speak to the legacy of James Bulger, but the era of William Bulger will not end.  Whether Scot Lehigh likes it or not — and true to the spirit of public service — the shadow of William Bulger is a part of the Boston landscape, from Hynes Convention Center and Symphony Hall, to the Public Gardens and Boston Common, to the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993, to the JFK Library in his own South Boston district, the Boston Public Library, the preservation and restoration of Castle Island, to the Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General.  That era extends to new generations of leaders through the William M. Bulger Presidential Scholarship and William M. Bulger Classics Award at the University of Massachusetts.  On the national level, there is also the William M. Bulger Award for Excellence in State Leadership from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

Like the story of his own life, the William Bulger Era is more than a name, and his living vision for the City on a Hill and its good people proves how that era is not a name at all.

In the Massachusetts State House on Beacon Hill, a portrait hangs in the Senate Reception Room depicting a bust of President Abraham Lincoln looking over William Bulger’s shoulder.  It is altogether fitting and proper that he has the last word here:

“I am glad I made the late race. It gave me a hearing on the great and durable question of the age, which I could have had in no other way; and though I now sink out of view, and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks which will tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone.”  — Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Anson G. Henry, November 19, 1858

The Pursuit of Journalistic Truth and Justice

As expressly stated in the “About” section, The Firmest Pillar Blog is dedicated to the principles of truth and justice.  These themes are then applied to current events.

One current event is the Trial of Whitey Bulger, which dominates the news on a nearly daily basis; very relevant is the tendency of media to associate James “Whitey” Bulger’s younger brother, William, with the criminal allegations for which he now stands trial.

Allow me make one thing clear: Those events, illustrated in large part by various news outlets, exemplify these themes of truth and justice.  Journalism is, by design, inherently about truth.  The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) notes clearly and unambiguously, “Journalism’s First Obligation is to the Truth.”

Furthermore, “Its First Loyalty is to Citizens.”  Also, “Its Essence is a Discipline of Verification,” “Its Practitioners Must Maintain an Independence from Those They Cover,” “It Must Serve as an Independent Monitor of Power,” “It  Must Provide a Forum for Public Criticism and Compromise,” “It Must Strive to Make the Significant Interesting and Relevant,” and “It Must Keep the News Comprehensive and Proportional.”  In theory these should form a solid foundation by which “Its Practitioners Must Be Allowed to Exercise Their Personal Conscience.”

These are noble and lofty principles which parallel the Code of Ethics promulgated by the Society of Professional Journalists.  Yet too often, I see skewed news coverage.  In a profession whose wellspring is truth, what does it mean when what is essentially a means to educate the populace does not comport with these principles?

Time and time again, news stories have played out and disseminate misinformation, or unverified information.  This is dangerous and wrong.  It is for this reason that the experience of William Bulger exemplifies this very theme, where assumptions have been made, where gossip becomes fact, and when repeated enough times, it becomes the reality which we do neither question nor notice; we simply live with it without thinking twice — and without seeing any need to think twice.

The views conveyed in this blog may at times be unorthodox; they may protest against the grain.  They may present a perspective which is so off the mainstream path that the Reader may even conclude this is a propaganda tool aimed to portray William Bulger and others in a positive light.  At all times, every effort is made to show the facts as they are and prompt the Reader to think deeply and to question that reality.  The news is forever filtered through its messenger; that is the nature of any secondary source, is it not?  Like it or not, it can only be seen through a veil.

Drawing from one early political theory text, it is in Plato’s Republic that Socrates depicts the beginning of enlightenment as “…human beings living in a underground den, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the den; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads…”

Socrates next describes the path of progress: “At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him…”

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, concludes, “But, whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort…[T]his is the power upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye fixed.”

This old idea equally applies today — the joy of reading the past is realizing that it’s not past at all.  In many ways, learning urges the questioning of convention.  It first requires that one must be open to it, to consider the matter at issue, to make conclusions, and then to “exercise personal conscience.”

That is what this blog strives to do.  There is no other agenda than to explore truth and justice; if any of the issues presented here contribute to contemporary dialogs, then I have done my part, however small; that is the only hope and the sole agenda.

While journalism “must serve as an independent monitor of power,” the field of journalism is itself a source of power.  Who monitors journalists?  With the First Amendment functioning often as both a shield and sword from interference, in the end the pen may very well be mightier than the sword.  It may also prove to be a potent tool in the pursuit of journalistic truth and justice — especially when wielded for good.

The Unusual Case of William M. Bulger abounds with voluminous material to illustrate situations where what is reported, simply does not reflect the actual facts.  Instead, false facts inherently adorn a false reality.  This is true even in instances when facts are readily and easily verifiable simply by consulting a primary source.

Going forward, there will be further discussions involving William Bulger, but there will be illustrations involving others as well. Every day, I come across articles which distort or misstate the facts.  Exploring these pieces is an apt direction to take.

To get closer to the light, one must open the window and pull away the shades, and that task is left for the Reader.  If you are reading this, surely there is some willingness to consider issues raised here and elsewhere.  That purview shall serve you well.

Finally, I must commend one British news outlet about which I posted previously.  After writing to The Independent, I have heard from its Deputy Editor regarding an article which is now corrected.  Many thanks to that publication for demonstrating a side of journalism which we do not often see.  Coupling the duty to report responsibly, it is also incumbent to take responsibility when due.

That message is below, in relevant part:

============================================================

Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your email below.

You are absolutely correct of course that we made a mistake with our headline, which referred to William instead of James Bulger.  The sub-heading was correct and the body of the article made clear that the man on trial was James, rather than his brother – who also featured in the piece as you know.

I am sorry about this slip, which we have now corrected, and hope you might continue to read the Independent, in spite of having had cause to write to us on this occasion.

With best regards

Will Gore

Deputy Managing Editor

London Evening Standard, The Independent, i & Independent on Sunday

=============================================================

When Howie Carr Looked Over Bill Bulger’s Shoulder

It was ten days ago that Howard “Howie” Carr published a scathing article attacking the Bulger family entitled, “Whitey In the Dock.”  He is a talented scribe, no doubt about that.  He also fails to disclose that he is scheduled to testify in the trial of James “Whitey” Bulger.

In this article, Carr employs dramatic and biting language, noting how “…the 83 year-old Alcatraz alum isn’t the only one on trial in the federal courthouse…” He asserts that this is not only the Trial of Whitey Bulger but instead, “The local FBI office, which aided and abetted Whitey’s reign of terror, is also in the cross hairs.”  He also suggests that “on trial in the federal courthouse” is another surprise defendant: “the state’s Democratic political establishment…”

Previously, I pointed out the flaws in Jeff Jacoby’s argument that, “Political Elite Should Shun Bill Bulger,” as well as the false headline stating that William Bulger is a “mob boss” currently standing trial, and suggesting that he is a “ruthless murderer.”  Now, Howard further claims that the Massachusetts “Democratic establishment” is something which William Bulger “ruled with an iron fist in his almost two decades as the state Senate president.”  Then, Carr asks the Reader to play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon: William Bulger worked with John McCormack, and John McCormack was in Washington, DC because he happened to be Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Like former Boston Mayor and U.S. Ambassador to Vatican City, Ray Flynn, McCormack was from South Boston.  Like William Bulger, McCormack was also an army veteran.  Next, Carr reveals that J. Edgar Hoover was the FBI Director who also had his own office  headquarters in Washington, DC.  Please note that Carr does not appear to go so far as to suggest that Pope John Paul II was involved with Whitey Bulger.  However, Carr has made connections  between Whitey and Georgetown University Law School Professor, former U.S. Representative, and former Dean of Boston College Law School, Father Robert Drinan.

McCormack also allegedly “kept close watch over Whitey during his 1956-1965 stint in prison.”  Now, if we just established that McCormack was based in Washington, DC, how did he keep “close watch” over Bulger, incarcerated in San Francisco’s infamous Alcatraz Island?  On top of that, Howard also points out that while Whitey was serving time there, “he took massive amounts of LSD in the CIA’s infamous drug experiments.”  Now if McCormack and Director Hoover had this “close watch” over him, why was Bulger subjected to these types of experiments?  Or perhaps that was why he had the great privilege of being fed acid like candy, as Carr depicts here?

Then Carr starts talking about convicted FBI agent John Connolly but refuses to refer to him by name; instead, he calls him “Zip” — not to be confused with the song from Mary Poppins.  Like a page taken right out of his nonfiction books, Howie gives us “Whitey,” Stevie “Rifleman” Flemmi, and John “Hitman” Martorano, as Carr entitled his book about Martorano’s life.  Published last year, the full title is: Hitman: The Untold Story of Johnny Martorano: Whitey Bulger’s Enforcer and the Most Feared Gangster in the Underworld.  On the cover, Bill O’Reilly even wrote his own enthusiastic endorsement declaring, “Howie Carr weaves a frightening tale of unlawful conduct, and it’s all true!”

However, it was also ten days ago that Martorano, who openly confessed to killing 20 people, “…testified that he split a $110,000 advance with Boston Herald columnist Howie Carr, who wrote on Martorano’s life. The killer testified that the title — “Hitman” — was Carr’s idea, not his.”  Martorano said that he was no hitman and merely murdered people free of charge to help out his friends, noting the following about Carr choosing the title, Hitman: “He thought it would sell better.”

The following day, Carr penned a reply, declaring, “And by the way, Johnny was absolutely correct on the witness stand yesterday. I did name the biography about him “Hitman” — actually, it was one of my neighbors in Florida. And yes, it is named ‘Hitman’ because I thought that title would sell more.”  Not to judge a book by its cover, but when its cover isn’t even true, what else is in a book with its higher purpose being to “sell more” and “sell better”?

Of course, Carr had to support Martorano, or else he could be on the hook for perjury, which could even taint his entire testimony.   Some may know about one expression used by the courts: “Falsus in unum, falsus in omnia.”  In other words, false in one thing, false in all.  So Howard proudly announced that his book title was just a big marketing strategy.  What does this suggest about his other books?  In the beginning, there was Brothers Bulger: How They Terrorized and Corrupted Boston for a Quarter Century, which suggests that William Bulger somehow conspired with James to “terrorize” Boston.  Now, was that title worded to “sell more,” too?

Bear in mind that this is in spite of the gentle and welcoming reception of Bill Bulger at former Governor and U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci’s funeral service recently.  Perhaps Mayor Menino was frightened of Bill Bulger, and that’s why he was seen on camera with him?  The view which Carr espouses suggests as much.  Most recently, Carr also published Rifleman: The Untold Story of Stevie Flemmi, Whitey Bulger’s Partner, released just over a month before the James Bulger trial began.

As the facts indicate, William Bulger hardly “ruled with an iron fist” and disagreed with his Democratic colleagues on many issues.  Readers of his memoir, While the Music Lasts, will be given a tour of numerous episodes in which William Bulger disagreed with his colleagues.  For example, he disagreed with then-serving U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on the issue of forced busing in the 1970’s.  Democrat William Keating (D-MA), who once served in the State Senate and now serves in the U.S. House of Representatives, even attempted a coup against Bulger on another occasion.

In addition to his book earnings and advances, Howard Carr reportedly secured a $7 million five-year contract with WRKO, his radio station.  Yet he wanted more money by 2010 and began to act out before he was suspended by his employer, WRKO, for “publicly and repeatedly using his program to bad-mouth the station.”  Ultimately, Carr even filed a lawsuit claiming he was a victim of “indentured servitude” and sought to be released from his $1 million annual contract.  Yet, he has often criticized William Bulger’s $900,000 severance package and $200,000 annual state pension.  As noted above, Carr’s WRKO yearly salary alone was more than 7 times what William Bulger ultimately collected after his own nearly four decades in public service, when he chose to leave his position as UMass President.

When did this all begin?  It was one rainy morning in Room 2154 of the Rayburn Office Building in Washington, DC.  The date was June 19, 2003 – a decade ago.  That was the day that William Bulger appeared before the House Committee on Government Reform and answered questions about the whereabouts of his brother.  Video footage of the hearing shows what appears to be Carr signaling and mouthing phrases to members of Congress during the hearing, particularly when William Bulger was being questioned by U.S. Representative Dan Burton (R-IN).

On that occasion, William Bulger unequivocally stated that he did not know where his brother was, as noted in a prior entry.  His words were, “I do not know where my brother is. I do not know where he has been over the past 8 years. I have not aided James Bulger in any way while he has been a fugitive. Do I possess information that could lead to my brother’s arrest? The honest answer is no.”

During more than one somber dialog about murders committed by members of the Winter Hill gang, drug dealing, and “gun running,” Carr’s face wandered from smirking gleefully, to what appeared to be signalling to members of the Committee, to sticking out his tongue, to vainly trying to reposition his combover.

It was that hearing which launched Howie Carr’s crime author career, and one cannot help but wonder what else he would do to “sell more.”  The motive is obvious: Money.

Is that why he couldn’t stop smiling?

William Bulger Is Not a “Ruthless Killer”

Last week, I wrote about a recent news article which falsely stated that William Bulger had “lost his job as president of the University of Massachusetts.”  Yet today, I stumbled upon an article which left me far more speechless.  Published by a London-based periodical, The Independent, the article’s headline and web page header boldly declare as follows: “Ruthless killer or Robin Hood?  Mob boss William Bulger to stand trial.”

What’s wrong with that picture?

I initially stumbled upon it during a routine Google search of William Bulger’s name, as shown in this screenshot:

As you can see, this website was listed on the first page of results out of more than 1.5 million hits.  The obvious problem is that, despite this misleading headline, the body of the article is about James “Whitey” Bulger, an older brother of William Bulger.

Why do I take a particular issue with this?

In short, William Bulger is a man who has committed more than 40 years of his life to public service from when he was first elected to serve in the Massachusetts State House of Representatives, to his election to the State Senate, and finally his leadership role as the longest serving Senate President in the lengthy history of Massachusetts.

Retiring from the State Senate, William Bulger went onwards to a new role as President of the University of Massachusetts in 1996, where he excelled and expanded that institution’s educational mission.  In the past, he has also served as a Trustee of the Boston Public Library, Member of the Boston Symphony Orchestra’s Board of Overseers, Trustee of the Museum of Fine Arts, and Trustee of Massachusetts General Hospital.

He did all of this — and more — while raising nine children who have produced a total of 33 grandchildren, living for most of that time in the same modest South Boston home with his wife of 53 years.  How can such a man, who has dedicated his entire adult life to improving the City of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, be confused for a “ruthless killer”?

It is quite impossible to imagine how the name of William Bulger could be confused with James “Whitey” Bulger.  When have we ever seen any other public figure’s name misapplied to the name of an accused criminal?  It’s like confusing Duke Ellington with Duke Cunningham, or William J. Jefferson with William Jefferson Clinton, or Bernie Madoff with Bernie Mac, or James Earl Ray with James Earl Jones.

Then, there are other family members like Victoria Gotti, daughter of Gambino crime family leader John Gotti.  For that namesake, Victoria secured her own reality television show entitled “Growing Up Gotti,” which frequently depicted the mischievous exploits of her three Gotti boys gleefully cruising around the grounds of their palatial mansion on ATVs.  As fate would have it, however, there was never any reality series in development for “Growing Up Bulger.”

The very fact is that the life of William Bulger epitomizes public service at a time when the airwaves, Internet, and ink media are regularly plagued by yet another report of government corruption.  Speaking of which, Bernard Kerik was recently released from the federal penitentiary.  This corruption pandemic proliferates all levels of government, from former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, to Connecticut Governor John Rowland, to former New York Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, to former New York Senator Hiram Monserrate, to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, to New York City Councilman Larry Seabrook.  In such a sea of misdeeds, why is William Bulger such a target — why does it sometimes seem that we have come to expect corruption in our public servants, more than we expect integrity and honor?

Whatever the reason, it is inherently wrong and blatantly irrational for an individual to be so demeaned, after representing the highest standards of conduct which public service demands of anyone within its province.  Indeed, the National Conference of State Legislatures has even honored one of its most prestigious awards with his name: The William M. Bulger Excellence in State Leadership Award.

Perhaps part of the problem in public service today is the frenzied focus upon the many ways by which the People’s duly elected representatives do wrong and violate the public’s trust, instead of showcasing the road where a virtuous public service career should lead.

William Bulger still led us all down that road, even when there were few who thanked him.

The Day UMass Lost William Bulger

 

In Boston, the trial of James “Whitey” Bulger is underway, as widely reported in the news.  One such story was published about a week ago by Asma Khalid at WBUR.  This article contains one glaring inaccuracy which is so often misstated that justice demands a proper recounting of the facts.  Specifically, this article illustrates how James “Whitey” Bulger is the older brother of William Bulger — the former President of the University of Massachusetts (UMass) and the longest-serving State Senate President in the history of the Commonwealth.  Why is this important?

Well, for those who remember and especially for those who do not, there was quite a stir ten years ago when William Bulger was subpoenaed to Washington, DC to testify before the House Committee on Government Reform about the whereabouts of his brother.  He clearly and unequivocally stated, “I do not know where he has been over the past eight years, I have not aided James Bulger in any way while he has been a fugitive…”

Yet this reporter, Asma Khalid, goes on to declare, “But that wasn’t an adequate defense: Bill Bulger lost his job as president of the University of Massachusetts.”  Yet this is wrong.

After he testified before the Committee, William Bulger attempted to return to his duties as President of the University of Massachusetts, but then-serving Governor Mitt Romney instructed the UMass Board of Trustees to fire William Bulger from his position as President, because the Board holds oversight jurisdiction over UMass.  In reply, the Board consulted legal counsel and concluded, “In fact the evidence is that the quality of our students, our fund-raising, and research funding have all increased dramatically in recent years…It is the consensus of the board, although not unanimous, that President Bulger has the authority to lead this institution going forward.”  In response, Governor Romney — clearly displeased that the Board of Trustees had refused to do his bidding — subsequently “…said he will begin replacing board members, one by one, until his appointees have a majority – not until 2006.”

Indeed, because Governor Romney chose to establish his higher education policy platform on the issue of whether or not William Bulger should be UMass President, William Bulger chose to resign for the good of the University of Massachusetts on August 6, 2003.  In his resignation speech, President Bulger expressly referenced Governor Romney’s actions, noting how “…the attacks on dedicated public citizens who serve on our Board are being revealed for what they are. And every effort will be made to assure that trustees will remain independent and will be devoted to the betterment of the University of Massachusetts — and to no one or nothing else.”

He pointed out that the Board members had a duty not to serve Governor Romney, but instead to advance the interests of the University.  He continued, “These assaults — politically motivated to be sure — come at a time when the University of Massachusetts, like many public universities across the nation, is struggling to cope with the effects of painful budget cuts.”

Finally, President Bulger expressly declared that he had made a difficult yet noble choice for the betterment of the University: “Although we have met the challenges and are up to the task of meeting more, I increasingly believe that the University and its Board of Trustees should not be subjected to further assault.  I hope that the step I take today will be helpful in our effort to provide a measure of protection for the University.”

Subsequently, even President Bulger’s decision did not save those UMass Trustees who would not kowtow to Romney, as they were eventually replaced by new appointees as of September 2006.

So now going back to Khalid’s article on WBUR, how exactly did Bulger somehow “lose” his position as UMass President?  Asma Khalid writes that he had not proffered “…an adequate defense.  Bill Bulger lost his job as president of the University of Massachusetts.”

That simply is not true.  To the contrary, Bill Bulger’s selfless act was a loss for the University of Massachusetts.