Commonwealth Magazine reports today that Dan Wolf is leaning against challenging in court the absurd Ethics Commission ruling that forces him to choose between divesting himself of all his Cape Air holdings or leaving public office. Here’s why:
[Wolf] said he’s “certainly leaning against” that type of action because of his belief in the role of the Ethics Commission as a watchdog of state government…. “It doesn’t serve the public for me to be in court against the Ethics Commission.”
Wrong, Dan. If you think they are wrong, it absolutely serves the public for you to take on the Ethics Commission in court. Of course, the Ethics Commission is supposed to be a “watchdog of state government.” But, to beat a metaphor to death, watchdogs can sometimes jump the fence that keeps them where they’re supposed to be, and then go on a rampage through the streets, biting innocent people who weren’t intruding on their territory at all. When that happens, somebody needs to get that watchdog back inside the fence. And that seems to be basically what’s happened here. That unwelcome task has fallen to you.
It’s important that the Ethics Commission – an unelected and basically unaccountable group of individuals whom at least 99.9% of MA residents (including me) cannot name – be free from interference in properly carrying out its mandate. It’s equally important, IMHO, that the Ethics Commission not go beyond that mandate, in the process depriving the people of MA of the services of honorable public servants. As you yourself asked, “‘How does getting me out of the state Senate and out of running for governor serve the public good?'”
Answer: it doesn’t. So, Dan, get your lawyers to draw up the papers. If the Commission was right, the courts will say so, and you can then step away knowing you really did have no other choice. If they were wrong, you’ll have done the people of Massachusetts a service. Win-win.
those wild dogs could end up in a pub, wreaking havoc and causing mayhem.
…if he’s fine with it ending his political career. Running for governor while suing the ethics commission seems like a good moral move, but a poor political one.
I’m thinking he’s not about to walk away from the company that he spent his life building.
Why? Because he’s suing the Ethics Commission? I think the average MA voter likes the idea of a successful businessman running for office, and I also think that average voter wouldn’t be too bothered about the fact that Cape Air deals with Massport. It certainly didn’t seem to bother the voters of Wolf’s Senate district. I mean, it’s not as if Wolf’s ownership of Cape Air is a big secret – to the contrary, it’s his political calling card.
But given that it’s a commission that is largely designed to ensure that our public officials act ethically, there could be some downside to suing such an entity.
It might be entirely satisfying to go after them, and maybe he’d win eventually, but I think you are seriously underestimating the difficulty in winning that communications battle. Remember Cherokee-gate? This seems harder.
I can’t speak for David, but yes… I do. I remember that it had zero impact on the Liz Warren campaign because Massachusetts voters are a lot more intelligent than the Brown campaign and media gave them credit for.
I have confidence that any opponent trying to make use of this bogus story would have similar success as Brown did if that’s what they decided to push in their campaign.
Not to me. I just don’t see voters getting all riled up about a tussle with nameless, faceless bureaucrats over whether a successful businessman should be able to hold public office. But I could certainly be wrong.
Globe (behind a paywall)
Ryan, not disagreeing that ultimately the voters saw through it. But the story sure lingered a lot longer than it should have because of a mismanaged response. Had it not been for the video of the tomahawk chopping staffers and Brown being a one-note pony in the debates — not to mention the 3rd party ad ban which may have been the real savior here — it might have been even tougher.
I really like Dan and if he runs he has a great shot at earning my vote and help. But let’s not kid ourselves about how hard this is. Yes, you can blame faceless bureaucrats, but those bureaucrats are appointed by the governor (and AG and SecSt), so attacking them isn’t easy.
Again, not saying it can’t be done. Vennochi nails the issue. How does a progressive Democrat come out against ethics? Or in favor of ethics but against the Ethics Commission?
By saying the EC made the wrong call, which is not at all the same thing as saying that ethics are bad.
Is it something that has be be done carefully? Sure, in the context of a political campaign.
Would it be a horrible contradictory act of hypocrisy? Don’t make me laugh.
you’ll see they came out after it was clear that the cherokee story had no traction in the campaign according to the polls. The whole entire cherokee story was a complete non-issue to regular people, despite how hard the media wanted it to be (to sell papers).
If the media tries to whip up a story for a long time, but voters don’t care, it doesn’t hurt a campaign and could actually help it, creating sympathy. If anything happened with the Cherokee story, that’s it. It’s also what happened in Monica-gate in the 90s, propelling Clinton to some of his highest poll numbers during his entire presidency.
It’s also what’s *already happening* for Wolf: when you have Senator Hedlund (Republican) waxing poetically about how bad this decision is, you know you’re already winning the PR war.
Well, nothing is easy. If it’s not this, it would be something else. There’s always something else. Every campaign I’ve ever done has taught me that — and Dan going through this now will a) be a great early test of his campaign, and b) will have him walking out of this with a lot more stature coming in should he win the day.
Simply put, talented politician can talk about this issue in very clear terms, such that it won’t hurt them, and if any of his or her opponents tries to raise the issue, they’re going to look like a bully trying to kick someone out of a race through the use of a shadowy, unaccountable and anti-democratic board. People don’t like that.
Such an opponent would almost certainly be more damaged coming out of this issue than Wolf would be. Doubly so when at least one of those candidates actually appointed members to that commission and another got information about it before the commission’s report was publicly released.
I’d go one further: any opponents who come out in favor of Wolf being able to stay in the race, and who points out the ridiculousness of the Ethics Commission’s lazy and wrong-headed decision, are going to come out of this looking much better — and make any opponents not doing this look all the worse.
Martha Coakley and Steve Grossman should take note. Both have much better shots at winning this race than Dan Wolf does, anyway. They really don’t want to look like the bullies in the school yard that won’t let the new kid play foursquares.
Your final paragraph is right on the money, and particularly ironic since Ms. Coakley and Mr. Grossman are the obvious beneficiaries of this decision.
I’ve written at length here, for a long time, about the culture of corruption that permeates Beacon Hill. I’ve also intentionally not said anything about the appearances of this decision with regard to the two front-runners.
In the story of David (at least as retold by Joseph Heller), Solomon had many rivals ahead of him when Bathsheba first suggested to David that Solomon be the next King. By the time David was near death, those rivals were all (save Adonijah) dead. I note, with interest, that yet another rival to the two front-runners is threatened with a mortal political wound inflicted by a generally-inactive commission appointed by the movers and shakers of Beacon Hill. You’d almost think that some cabal somewhere is pulling levers. Nah, the Massachusetts Democratic Party is cleaner than that, right?
It certainly is mysterious how the rivals to Mr. Grossman and Ms. Coakley seem to drop like flies. It looks like we’re in the midst of a last-candidate-standing defacto primary.
# of people who will read a paragraph like that: 5%
# of people who will read “Candidate Sues Ethics Commission”: 100%
That’s why it’s bad politics. If you need three minutes to explain what you’re doing isn’t as awful as it seems, you’ve lost a good chunk of voters already.
# of people who will read or care about that headline in August, over a year before the actual election: 5%
# of that 5% who will probably read that paragraph who are in the same as your first group set: 100%
That’s why it’s good politics… if it happens soon and is pushed through with all haste. Low information voters aren’t paying attention now.
If he wins it’s a victory for the people against unelected bureaucrats trying to subvert the democratic process (and, many Massachusetts voters will likely assume, positioning themselves for some future payoff from the powers that be). If he loses, he is a man of principle fighting to make Massachusetts safe for public minded entrepreneurs. Personally, however, as I wrote before, I think all the Ethics Commission really wants him to do is figure out some clever legal way to abide by the letter of their ruling.
I am an undecided primary voter and the way Grossman’s staff have reacted to this news, the way Coakley and Galvin have remained silent, and the great poise and dignity Sen. Wolf has shown throughout this process is definitely moving me into the lean Wolf column. I like Berwick and am waiting for Curtatone and/or Capuano to announce their intentions, but while they wait Wolf is showing he is a man of principle who is the rare businessman putting his workers first when it comes to these decisions. I really want him to stay in the race.
How have Grossman’s staff reacted? I don’t see Grossman himself milking this kind of thing for political gain. After all in 2002 as a gubernatorial candidate he seemed the lone voice telling Dems to back off making hay of Mitt Romney’s questionable residency status.
Are you expecting Galvin and Coakley to not be silent as potential candidates or in the context of their current offices? What should they say? I actually don’t think it’s appropriate for either to make a statement at this point.
Grossman’s consultant gleefully tweeted he was getting out of the race before the Ethics Commission ruling came out.
In its decision, state ethics outlines the decisions it has made concerning legislators and their business interests going back to 1980. Its decision on legislators in this regard reflect law made in 1962. Has the EC been a rabid guard dog all that time? It seems to me the legislature is to blame, not state ethics.
It was the legislature that wrote and passed Chapter 268A, Section 7c: (c)
so, yes, the ethics commission can and should be blamed.
It’s a fee process. You want to land in Logan? You pay this fee. Everyone pays the same. There’s nothing about bidding, competitively or otherwise, about that. The Ethics Commission is just wrong, either embarrassingly or even worse — nefariously.
David explained this below. I hadn’t seen that information presented.
I think what is unstated in all of this is that Senator Wolf doesn’t necessarily “think they are wrong.”
In that same Commonwealth Magazine article, Senator Wolf says he doesn’t have “a sufficient appetite” to take on the Ethics Committee legally and that he “opposes any public campaign to pressure the Ethics Commission to reverse course.”
Though these are well-articulated arguments, I continue to believe that the 100% true explanation would include “I also don’t think I have any real chance of getting their decision reversed.”
The Commission’s ruling is a fairly straightforward reading of the state law. If anywhere, the remedy lies in Legislative action. Having read the Ethic’s Commissions most recent statement (http://www.mass.gov/ethics/press-releases-meetings-and-publications/press-releases/2013-press-releases/ethics-commission-statement-on-sen-wolf-advice.html ) appealing the decision in court seems pretty futile to me.
and my understanding is far from complete, there’s a real question whether Cape Air’s relationship with Massport is something that should be treated as a standard government contract under the ethics law. If the “gate fees” or whatever that Cape Air (and every other airline) pays Massport really are under federal jurisdiction, it doesn’t matter whether or not Wolf holds state office.
I keep landing in the same spot as you. I don’t see how his company paying a set fee to operate out of an airport creates an ethical conflict for Wolf.
It appears to me that the problem is that the question of whether or not an ethical conflict exists is immaterial.
At this point, the question is whether or not it violates the statute. Sadly, it won’t be surprise if the conclusion is that it DOES violate the statute, even though there is no ethical conflict.
From the Commonwealth article
And from David Bernstein
that points to the former Lt. Governor’s demise and retreat from pursuing the corner office when the AG and Grossman where curiously silent. One does begin to wonder if Sal DiMasi would still be Speaker if he had not blocked casinos?
…why was there no conflict announced by the EC when Jim Crocker ran against him for the open seat in 2010?
Just because all 5 members were appointed by Democrat elected officials doesn’t mean that they want to safeguard the legalities of the race when it’s a Dem primary oponent more seriously than a GOP general opponent.
“Democrat elected officials?”
Please don’t stoop to the level of national Republicans who refuse call the Democratic Party or its officials and electeds by their proper descriptive names. You’re too rational for that.
.
…for appointing people to the Ethics Commission? You’re not making sense, PP.
-1 for juvenile behavior.
Hell, that leaves you one ahead of most folks on your side of the aisle in my book 😉
…gets to me.
This isn’t about if Dan Wolf sits up nights negotiating the contract. This is about his OWNERSHIP INTEREST OF MORE THAN TEN PERCENT in an entity with a state contract.
He is not an employee of such an entity like a Charley Baker was, he is an OWNER.
Who would have the authority as Governor to appoint the MassPort board that SETS the ‘automatic’ fees, that DETERMINES the criteria for operating out of the airport, etc.
I realize that when the law was passed the idea that a person who owned a business would run as a DEMOCRAT was pretty far fetched. It seems designed to preclude a business OWNER (not President, CEO, CFO, Employee, Janitor, etc.) from running. But that is the law, which the Legislature could change at its leisure.
He needs to divest or resign. Complaining about the nature of the contract does not obviate his ownership interest.
Or the actions of the ‘Ethics’ board who saw no reason to safeguard a clean election unless all the candidates are Democrats.
…but it sounds like the EC wasn’t asked in 2010. Wolf asked now regarding his gubernatorial campaign and it sounds like he was completely not expecting it to be a problem for his current seat as well.
Should be barred from running for office. After all, T fares are set fees imposed by an authority for services, right?
any doctor who owns their own practice and accepts MassHealth, anyone who owns property with public events and needs to hire police. Business owners who lease public property that was available to any at a set rate (for example, my town owns property we rent out. We certainly don’t have public competitive bidding processes every time those leases are renewed.)
So on and so forth.
Grainy slo-mo footage of a shadowy figure walking though a subway gate.
A uniformed MBTA employee, his face in darkness, voice distorted: “The Governor appoints our governing board.”
Slo-mo close-up of Charlie Ticket in action.
Voice Over: “But Candidate Walter O’Brien uses the T. And as Governor, he’ll RUN the T.”
Vennochi column headline: “There’s not a Walter O’Brien Ethics Exemption”
Scroll text of Ethic Committee decision behind large static red type: “Conflict of Interest”
VO: “Keep Walter O’Brien’s hands off the MBTA.”
They can’t stop someone from running and once in office I’m pretty sure the only ways you can be removed apart from routine re-election defeat is expulsion by your colleagues if you are a legislator or impeachment if you are Governor. Am I missing something?
Read over M.G.L. c. 268B, s. 4, among others.
When Mitt wanted to wrest contol of the Big Dig from the Pike, Amorello, et al, he went to court to get a ruling on how he could do so.
The court ruled that they were independent of the legislature and executive authority, so the only way to gain control was to appoint, as governor, your own minions to do YOUR bidding. That’s when Sen. Wilkerson filed Senate legislation to prevent Mitt from gaining said control over her friend Amorello. (It never came to pass – the Dig collapsed and everybody got real quiet about who was in charge, aka responsible).
So – that is how independent of outside control MassPort is, and how powerful the influence of a Owner/Governor would be in determining policy, finances,. and practice (like no airlines that didn’t start with a ‘C’…)
Really dude.
pathetic.
your words.
trial balloon to see if the goo-goo types he’ll need to win in the suburbs, key to winning a statewide primary, will back him if he takes on the state ethics committee.
If so, David took that bait. 🙂
I would argue that the law and\or the state ethics commission is discriminating against a small businessman who wants to serve the Commonwealth. In this case, one and/or the other “may” be following the letter of the law, but they are failing in spirit.
.
That’s why all the rhetoric not directed at the middle-class mentions small business.
.