The new Democratic governor of Massachusetts is learning that he cannot cruise through the next four years on charisma alone. His first self-admitted "screw up" in office put Deval Patrick in the limelight this week, and the publicity was not positive. As Republican critics and various media sources questioned Patrick's excessive spending - from the roughly $12,300 spent on new office draperies to a $72,000 yearly salary for his wife's new aide - the governor apologized for some, but not all, of his expenditures.
It is ironic that this taste for luxury spending should mar the reputation of a man who had promised on his Web site to "cut wasteful spending" if elected to office in April 2006. Patrick might learn a lesson from his predecessor Mitt Romney, who was driven in a Ford Crown Victoria rather than a new Cadillac DTS, which leases for $1,166 per month.
At least Patrick assumed some responsibility for the new car and offered to pay the difference between his new ride and that of Romney's out of pocket. He should be commended for this action but only with muted accolades - a refusal to acknowledge the inappropriate use of tax payer money would have been unacceptable. Unfortunately, the governor has not realized the weakness of his defense of the money spent on his wife's new aide. Although previous administrations have not included a personal staffer for the first lady, Patrick insists that such a position is needed for "official business."
The criticism offered by Brian Dodge, executive director of the Massachusetts' Republican Party, was right on the money in this case. Diane Patrick was not elected governor, Dodge argued, so she shouldn't be entitled to a chief of staff who draws $72,000 a year from tax payers. Most recent governors have made no such arrangements for their spouses, though the last Democrat to hold the office, Michael Dukakis, hired staff to support his wife. That aside, Patrick's emphasis on and commitment to fiscal responsibility seems incongruous with his latest behavior.
Although such lapses in the governor's judgment should not be condemned too harshly - he is, after all, in his first few months of such a powerful political position - what is perhaps more worrisome has been Patrick's recent reaction to the media's inquiries. Frustrated that reporters seemed more concerned about his personal spending than his policy maneuvers, Patrick urged the media to redirect their attention to "what it is we are concentrating on."
The governor should realize that his use of taxpayer money is worthy of media attention. Being elected to run a state does not mean that he can run the media, which is only doing its job. As for Patrick's implicit assertion that it is only the media, and not the public, who are interested in this expenditure debacle, we suggest that the governor find a wider sample survey of his electorate.
Ultimately, Governor Patrick must realize the new weight carried by all of his actions. Being the chief executive of a state entails more publicity than his previous post as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights during the Clinton administration. Having control over tax payer money is no small responsibility and Patrick must be ready to explain all of his expenditures. He should be more comfortable with the constant questioning from reporters who will continue to report on any unusual behavior from the governor's office.
We hope that Patrick remembers the grassroots message he sent during the gubernatorial campaign, tones down his spending and can quickly return to a focus on governing. This week's blunder can be a learning experience for the fresh face in office.
