A couple of days ago, the Globe editorial page criticized the Ethics Commission’s ruling that bars Dan Wolf from public office. They argue as follows:
Cape Air flies passengers; it doesn’t bid for state contracts. Instead, the ethics commission disqualified Wolf because the airline uses Massport-owned Logan Airport. The airline pays to land planes and use terminal gates, which the commission ruled constituted a contract with the state.
That’s an overly broad interpretation that fails to account for the clear, common-sense differences between something like a construction contract and a gate rental at Logan. For one thing, the prices charged to airlines are not set by individual contracts. According to Massport spokesman Matt Brelis, all airlines at each terminal are charged the same rates. Moreover, Logan does not turn any airlines away; the airport is required by federal law to allow federally certified airlines to fly there.
Wolf’s business paid what any reasonable observer would call a fee, not a contract.
Actually, the Globe isn’t quite right when it says that the commission “ruled” that Cape Air’s arrangements “constituted a contract with the state.” What the commission actually did is assume, without discussion or analysis, that that was the case – the opinion simply declares that Cape Air “has two contracts with the Massachusetts Port Authority (‘Massport’),” and that “Cape Air has contracts with Massport under which it must pay rent and various charges and fees to Massport.” But is that really so obvious? “Contract” is not a defined term under the state ethics law, and, as the Globe editorial points out, there are important features missing from the Wolf/Cape Air situation that one ordinarily finds in a government contracting situation. The commission should have undertaken some analysis to demonstrate that the Massport/Cape Air agreements constitute “a contract made by a state agency, in which the commonwealth or a state agency is an interested party” (that’s the operative phrase in the relevant section of the ethics law). After all, if what Cape Air is really doing is paying Massport according to a set fee schedule, and operating at Logan because federal law says it can, it strikes me as at least arguable that these arrangements really are not “contracts” within the meaning of the ethics law.
In any event, today Joan Vennochi weighed in, expressing considerable irritation with her employer:
The ruling stirred up surprising sympathy from the press — for Wolf, not for the Ethics Commission. Apparently, it’s outrageous in Massachusetts to point out an ethical violation, as defined by state law — even if the law is pretty clear.
But, Joan, that’s precisely the problem. The law isn’t “pretty clear,” at least as applied to the unusual facts of this situation, for the reasons stated above. Vennochi, like the Ethics Commission, is simply assuming the answer to a question that, IMHO, is more complicated than it appears.
And here’s what really annoys me about this whole situation. Vennochi concludes as follows:
The law should apply to everyone in equal measure. Public service has its price and those who really want to serve are willing to pay it. When it comes to serving the public interest, that’s not so terrible.
Sure, I agree with all of that. But it completely misses the point. Neither Vennochi nor anyone else who supports what the Ethics Commission did here has explained why, given the facts of this situation, it makes sense that Dan Wolf should be ineligible to hold the office of either state Senator or Governor. The “price” of public service may be significant, but it should not be unreasonable.
So, yes, Wolf should be careful when issues that concern Massport are in front of him. But ineligible to hold elected office? I don’t see it. And if an overly literal interpretation of state law by an unelected commission is depriving the people of the Cape and Islands of their choice of who represents them in the Senate (to say nothing of all the people of MA when it comes to Governor), that’s a problem.
Which is, to return to the point of my previous post, why Wolf should not hesitate to take the Ethics Commission to court.
I like how you analyzed the nuances of the argument. Not done very often today.
I like how you point out how Vennochi went strong when she shouldn’t have.
It’s interesting that almost everyone would agree “Ethics Commissions are good”, that does not mean Ethics Commissions are perfect.”
In summary I am a person that sees gray a lot, when in political discussion many apparently (based on discussions here are elsewhere) see a lot of black and white. I think in this post when a lot of people saw black, you actually turned gray into white.
;-(
I don’t have any respect for Joan Vennochi as a journalist because she is a serial plagerizer as we learned last year when she stole the work of fellow journalist Todd Domke. She should have been fired.
This is why everyone calls Joan “Vennochio”
I find it ironic that “Vennochio” has such a deep concern for ethics when she is a plagerizer???
Do you have any disclosures to make?
From Rules:
yeah my disclosure is that anyone who plagerized someone else’s work should be fired. Don’t you believe in honest journalism?
And by the way, I do not hide behind the cloak of an anonymous pseudonym b/c I’m not a coward and if I have something to say it’s because I say what’s on mind.
My guess is that this is more in the “Running for Sheriff” area of disclosure. But that is just a guess on my part.
Look I did not mean to come off harsh, my point is anything related to ethics, Vennochi should not be writing about the issue no matter whether she is pro or against whatever the issue is. I lost a lot of respect for her as a journalist. That was my point.
She cannot write about any issue no matter whether she is pro or against whatever the issue is. Serious, since when does the Globe need to check with you on who they employ? Since we have met in the real (non-internet) world, I know you are not John Henry, so you need to chill out, or apply to work in the HR department of the Globe. Seriously, get some perspective.
I’m sorry you don’t remember Mike, but you and I have met on the streets and I don’t need to chill out. Just like you, I have a right to voice my opinion and I feel that Vennocci is a plagerizer with ZERO credibility on issues like ETHICS. The Boston Globe does a disservice when they have unethical journalists like Vennochi who would STEAL the work of other journalists and claim it as her own original ideas and thoughts. I’m just saying when it comes to ethics, Vennochi is the wrong journalist to be giving her opinion one way or another no matter what side she is on. I mean she only got BUSTED a year ago for PLAGERISM.
My previous comment starts with:
Also, I did not say that you didn’t have the RIGHT to voice your opinion, I said that the opinion you were voicing didn’t make sense, and appears to me at least of being off the deep end or hyperbolic. If you intention is to run a campaign based on the Michelle Bachman and/or Allen West, that is your right, but it makes me question how you will act/react around actual criminals with real flesh and blood victims.
IMHO
If certain subjects were to be broached they were follow strict narratives.
Joan broached then breached a few weeks before.
Just sayin.
One of the other egregious assumptions she made was the following comment- “But launching a gubernatorial run on a platform calling for weaker ethics standards versus stronger would be a curious campaign strategy.” It completely ignores Wolf’s interview stating while he is attempting to work with the Commission, he believed in the integrity of the board and would not go to court, if he couldn’t resolve it at that level. It also ignored the bi-partisan response against the Commission’s interpretation of the law. Whatever the outcome, hopefully Beacon Hill will be prodded to look over this and other laws. I think most people feel that the access former legislators have on Beacon Hill is a far worse problem than Dan Wolf’s.
That said, the question I have not heard asked of Wolf would be, should a governor be appointing Massport members, if you have any kind of business relationship with them? I am a strong supporter and contributor to Wolf’s campaign, but also feel that a resolution needs to come from both sides. Apparently under the law, if he turned the shares over to a family member, he would be in compliance. Wolf, I believe stated, that doing so technically complies, but let’s think about the real world here. If I owned gaming stocks and wanted to run for office, you would say- nope, conflict! But I could transfer ownership to my daughter and suddenly I have no vested interest?
Where did that come from.
Differing opinions are now ‘considerable irritations’?
The Globe Editorial was a slice of a very large pie that expressed the same opinion.
Now on it’s face it seems odd that a person with holdings in an airline would be prohibited from serving in public office. I hold that view. But I am not nearly as educated on the subject as one should be.
But, I do k now that one doesn’t show up at MassPort and say, “what do you charge for an airline to run planes to the Cape?”
This is not the same as getting a transponder and paying tolls or playing a round of golf at George Wright.
Airlines negotiate contracts with airports. There are many variables that go beyond rent and market rates. I assume these factors make it appear more like a bid to build a bridge or run a state funded ferry.
This seems more of a hit piece on Vennochi attempting to subvert the relationship between her and her employer.
but, I lean toward Vennochi on this one. I have no dog in the race for Governor and frankly could care less whether or not the airline owner from the Cape runs or not. The Ethics Commission made a ruling based on the law as they see it. If you don’t like the ruling, challenge it. If you don’t like the law, get the legislature to change it. But, Ethics Commission or no Ethics Commission, it appears to me that there is and would continue to be a conflict of interest for Wolf: his business interests vs citizens’ interests. When he meets with Tom Glynn what do they talk about golf? Too hard to separate as a Senator, and would be impossible as a Governor given the responsibilities of the job.
Cape Air buys services from Massport. If we prohibited from office every politician whose firm or practice bought services from the state there would be a huge vacuum on Beacon Hill. It would be another thing entirely if Cape Air was a vendor to the state and could assume a favorable position vis a vis other vendors in the event of his election as Governor. I do hope he sues to set the record straight. I am most likely supporting another candidate for Governor but would very much like his voice in the race and in the government of the Commonwealth.
That piece was a second rate Howie Carr column.