Walsh was coming off a rough patch. His image as a New Mayor for a New Boston had taken a hit, courtesy of Globe reporting showing the Old Way of doing business was still in vogue in his City Hall. My colleagues Mark Arsenault and Andrew Ryan found that Somerville attorney Sean O’Donovan, a high school buddy and former law partner of Gene O’Flaherty — the mayoral buddy named as the city’s top lawyer — had suddenly become the go-to guy for a comically wide array of clients with business before the city. E-mails showed how members of the administration had helped O’Donovan set up meetings with city officials to pitch products sold by companies he represented.

It seemed like they kind of did, way back in January 2016, when Mayor Marty Walsh called me to share some joyous news: He was going to introduce tough new rules on lobbying at City Hall, so that citizens would know who was trying to influence the government that serves them.

OK, this is getting ridiculous. Do Boston’s leaders care about reform or not?

It looked bad, and super retro. So, even though Walsh said O’Donovan had gotten no favors, the mayor vowed to let the sun shine in at City Hall via new rules forcing municipal lobbyists to make public their campaign donations, clients’ names, matters they push, and when they speak to public officials.


“It’s a different world today,” Walsh told me then. “People expect more transparency and openness and . . . as an administration we’ve got to [keep up] with the times.”

I was delighted. I wrote a column calling it a good and essential move for the city. Full of hope, I waited for the new world to arrive.

Luckily, I didn’t hold my breath. More than two years later, the new lobbying rules haven’t materialized. In February 2016, Walsh sent a home rule petition to the City Council, which must approve it before it goes to the Legislature. But it sat there, without a hearing, for almost a year.


After the Globe pointed that out, the council held two hearings, in January and April 2017. Then things got complicated. And slow.

Councilors disagreed on whether the new rules should come in a home rule petition or a city ordinance. Others thought the rules were vague and too narrowly drawn. Councilor Michael Flaherty is one who believes they should cover city officials besides elected representatives. He rightly suggests that some appointees are more powerful than councilors, and that meetings with them must also be tracked.

“I want to make sure if we’re going to do this, we’re going to do it right, and it’s going to cover how city business is actually conducted,” Flaherty said on Friday. “It’s not a simple document that you vote up or down.”

Flaherty says the council has also been busy with a bunch of other issues over the last year, like trying to regulate Airbnb and dealing with marijuana legalization.

Did those matters draw the interest of lobbyists? Good luck finding out!

Walsh, meanwhile, issued a statement Friday that isn’t actually consoling for those hoping for quick action. He has no intention of leaning on the council. He said he “looks forward to continuing to work with his partners in the City Council to ensure that this proposal is sent to the State House.”


There’s a fine line between respect for the process and foot-dragging.

We live in an era — thanks to the self-dealing circus in Washington — in which people are pretty cynical about government. Distracted by that very same circus, most citizens aren’t watching local government closely.

All the more important, then, that we have clear rules protecting the public’s right to know who is trying to influence their leaders. Citizens also deserve leaders who follow through on their promises, and promptly.

No way should this reform effort be going into a third year. It’s time to get it done.

Make me smile again, Mr. Mayor.