DAs Debate

The debate between Mark Mastroianni and Steve Buoniconti is easy to summarize. Mr. Buoniconti asks us to vote for him because of his "vision" and because he is the "candidate of change." I'm not joking; he really said both of these things. Mr. Mastroianni's pitch is a bit more conventional. He asks us to vote for him because of his skill and experience as a trial attorney.

Basically, Buoniconti is trying to make the DAs office appear to be something other than the county's top cop. With the exception of angrily taking exception to a her characterization of his prosecutorial experience in an exchange with Republican reporter Stephanie Barry, Senator Buoniconti repeatedly tried to downplay the prosecutorial duties of the DA, preferring instead to see the position as "a prosecutor & more." Ostensibly, he's the "and more" candidate. Buoniconti has adopted the proposals of several of his primary challengers, despite the fact that these same candidates are now supporting Mastroianni. When asked how he would make his many ideas about "community prosecution" work, Buoniconti simply said that he "wouldn't rest" until they worked, and that he would make his people work "very hard."

On the other hand, Mr. Mastroianni made the case that all of the community programming being promised by Buoniconti is laudable but futile if the DAs office is not able to earn the respect of the community by doing its primary function, prosecutions, very well. While Mastroianni essentially supported the "ideas" Buoniconti is relying on, Buoniconti has essentially conceded that Mastroianni is the better attorney.

The panel of questioners tried to frame the race as one between a candidate focused on the courthouse and prosecutorial professionalism and a candidate who wanted to expand the scope and visibility of the DAs office in the community. What they likely realized, but were too polite to articulate, is that Buoniconti's community rhetoric, which is indistinguishable from his rhetoric as a state legislator, is a strategy of necessity. Buoniconti cannot run for the county's top prosecutor position as a trial lawyer because he isn't a trial lawyer and when he was he failed to distinguish himself. Buoniconti even tried to argue that the DA is NOT the top trial attorney, but rather is a manager and leader of a large complex organization, an angle that he avoided in the primaries because all of his opponents had much more leadership and management experience. Though he still compares badly with his November opponent on this score, he has no real choice because he compares even more unfavorably with Mastroianni on trial court experience and success.

Now that the race is down to two candidates, Buoniconti's inexperience and lack of knowledge about the DAs role are increasingly apparent. To win, Buoniconti must succede in running out the clock and winning the media coverage battle. Mr. Mastroianni, who has apparently raised quite a bit of campaign cash since the primary election, has to be very aggressive in highlighting his own experience and his priorities for the DAs office.

Both candidates will use "contrast" ads and charges in the weeks ahead. Buoniconti tipped his hand on this tactic during the debate, arguing that Mastroianni's success as a defense attorney and his work for high profile criminal defendants would "delight" criminals who would see a Mastroianni election as a win for criminal defendants. He claimed that he "couldn't wrap his head around" how Mastroianni could "turn on a dime" and go from criminal defense to criminal prosecution. This approach is sensible politically, given Buoniconti's serious credentials and experience disadvantages, but it also illustrates his lack of understanding of the criminal justice system. In fact, he is unintentionally (one hopes) discrediting the criminal justice system by implying that defense lawyers are not seeking justice. He's making a purely political argument, driven by electoral motives, and he's actually illustrating how talented a trial attorney Mastroianni is when he attacks him for defending high profile criminal defendants. Obviously, such defendants usually get the most talented attorneys and Mastroianni's knowledge and experience on both sides of the criminal justice system over the last twenty years is obviously more important for a DA than Buoniconti's undistinguished tenure as an ADA and his decade long immersion in Beacon Hill politics.

Buoniconti even tried to claim that Mastroianni's defense work would cost the county too much money because he would have to recuse himself from prosecutions of former clients, while there would be "no such conflicts" if he were elected. Despite the mack truck sized opening here, Mastroianni didn't pounce on the myriad of political conflicts of interest weighing down the state senator. Instead he merely referred obliquely to the fact that he has to keep defending clients to feed his family, while Buoniconti gets "checks" for doing nothing.

This was, of course, a reference to Buoniconti's "work" for the Hampden County Retirement Board, a job the board admits was given to him in order to leverage his influence on Beacon Hill. When questioned directly about this obvious conflict of interest and blatant example of influence peddling, Buoniconti was indignant, but not informative. At one point he tried to deflect criticism by pointing out that the guy who had the job before him was someone who deserves great respect. He didn't happen to mention that his predecessor in the HCRB job was also a state legislator hired for his influence on Beacon Hill. Nor did he remind the audience that the Retirement Board admitted that they hired another (non-politician) attorney to handle the board's "more complicated legal work."

Senator Buoniconti has been over matched in every debate so far in this race. Last night was only different in that his incompetence was more obvious. All of his responses were canned, rehearsed, and light on relevant detail. He rhetorical weapon of choice all night was the glib cliche. He completely avoided elements of questions that required knowledge of prosecutorial procedures. Mastroianni, on the other hand responded to the law professors questions in a lawyerly, intelligent way, trying to be precise. Nobody in that audience, even Buoniconti's supporters, could possibly believe that he is more qualified and a better attorney than Mastroianni.

I wish the law faculty at WNEC were willing to judge last night's debate because although both candidates have WENC law degrees, only one of them represented the law school well last night.