Just saw this bit of news on the wire:
Carl Sciortino is stepping down as State Representative for West Somerville and West Medford to become Executive Director of The AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts.
Here is their statement:
During nine years in office, Sciortino distinguished himself as an effective and reliable proponent of policy changes, as well as allocation of resources, to aid those living with, and vulnerable to, HIV infection. In 2012, he supported passage of a law resulting in expanded HIV testing, and he has consistently sponsored budget amendments seeking increases in funding for HIV outreach, prevention, and education. He has championed social justice issues throughout his career including the right of same-sex couples to marry; banning discrimination against transgender people; expanding access to health care; and increasing resources for anti-poverty programs.
And here is Carl’s:
“As a gay man living with HIV, I am honored to lead one of the country’s oldest and most effective organizations in the battle against this disease which has raged on over 30 years,” said Sciortino. “My goal for AIDS Action in the years ahead is simple: continue the work that has resulted in lowering the rate of new HIV diagnoses in Massachusetts; provide the multitude of services needed to keep those living with HIV/AIDS connected with health care providers; and continue the public conversation about HIV needed to reduce the stigma that is still so closely associated with this disease.”
I congratulate Carl Sciortino on his new position and wish him the best of luck in a role I am sure he will excel at. Unfortunately, he was one of the fiercest and articulate advocates for truly progressive politics in the House and his resignation will create a void that will be hard to fill. Seeing as the general is only a few months away I am not sure if we will see another special or not or who the candidates might be, but until then I will just reiterate how much I appreciated his groundbreaking first campaign, his service, his CD5 campaign,
and his advocacy as a legislator.
fredrichlariccia says
AND WILL ALWAYS BE REMEMBERED AS A COURAGEOUS LEADER AND
HONORABLE PUBLIC SERVANT.
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR SUCCESS. I KNOW YOU WILL BE A GREAT ADVOCATE IN YOUR NEW ROLE.
YOUR FRIEND, FRED
HeartlandDem says
From the moment I met you, I knew you were special because your smile and sparkle in your eyes gleaned of a vision for a brighter present and even brighter tomorrow.
Thank you for being authentically you.
Best wishes, always!
eury13 says
I have long respected and admired Carl as a hard-working legislator with the best interests of his constituents and the Commonwealth at heart. He will undoubtedly lead the AIDS Action Committee of MA to great success.
His departure from the legislature is a loss for the progressive community, but during his 9+ years of service we have seen a number of progressive champions achieve electoral and legislative success. Now we must find a suitable successor from his district and continue the fight for progressive values in Massachusetts public policy.
JimC says
But I’m going to be the fly in the ointment, because someone has to. I am bloody sick of politicians leaving their offices early just because a better job happens to come along.
It’s one thing if another office (like a Congressional seat) needs to be filled, but just walking is wrong, and should be considered as such. If you run, you ought to be prepared to serve your entire term.
Sorry … but it’s true. I feel the same way about Robert Wexler and dozens of others.
jconway says
Particularly when their departure causes special elections, but in this case I give him a pass. It’s way down on the second statement but in addition to accepting the job and stepping down from his seat, Carl also publicly
announced he is HIV positive for the first time. I am not sure how advanced it is or how long he has had it, but he seems to be sincere in making this cause his life’s work. I put that in a different category
JimC says
… but I’m not sold. His life’s work can wait six more months.
His state rep seat is what creates the opportunity to do this. Did he even hesitate a little when this came up? I think he should have.
If we take the case of Wexler — reportedly, he disagreed with Obama about Middle East policy. What an awful reason to leave Congress. And I liked Wexler before that, he was heroic at the DNC hearings on Florida and Michigan.
stomv says
I’m not so sure how appropriate that is to say to someone who is HIV positive.
JimC says
I hesitated, I admit.
But he can advocate in either position, so I stuck with it.
friendly says
Ummm… This isn’t the 80’s. This has nothing to do with Carl directly, but we in the reality based community should recognize that HIV is not the death sentence it used to be, and it does everyone a disservice to think about it like that.
It’s not exactly right, but think about HIV as more like diabetes these days than Ebola.
jconway says
I said we had no idea how recent or what the prognosis was and that either way fighting on behalf of HIV positive people is different from the golden parachute people usually vacate for. It’s personal for him that’s all I was trying to say.
thinkliberally says
Important jobs don’t just appear when you want them to appear.
Is it only ok when a special election comes up for a higher seat? Should Katherine Clark not have run for Congress? Jason Lewis and Linda Dorcena Forry not run for State Senate? Is it only ok when the next “cool” job happens to be an elected job?
Jobs like the Aids Action Committee, or Planned Parenthood (Marty Walz) open up when they open up. To ask a fairly moderately-paid elected official to serve to the end of the term, step down, take no unemployment and no salary, and join the jobs market for what could be months is simply unreasonable.
Carl will be sorely, sorely missed in the legislature, though.
JimC says
I’m not asking him to step down. I’m asking him to serve his full term.
Further, he is by no means the only person who could have done this job. He had an advantage, and he used it. Maybe I would have done the same, who knows; but there will be other important jobs next year.
JimC says
Did you really just say this?
It’s unreasonable to ask these people to do the jobs they were elected to do? They’re supposed to get job search time built in as well?
jconway says
To me, ‘legislators’ are inclusive of the broader term ‘policymakers’ or ‘policy advocates’, rather than exclusive. This means that in the case of Carl, or the case of Marty Walz, or even the case of elected officials seeking higher offices, they are doing so to further the advocacy aims of the causes they are passionate about. That to me is entirely different from a Tim Murray, Tom Finneran, Gerry Leone, or Jarret Barrios resigning to take higher paying private sector jobs. I would be willing to consider legislation barring both double dipping (serving in more than one office) along with forcing legislators to serve out terms barring extenuating circumstances.
Not to be too crass about it here, but this might still qualify as an extenuating circumstance since we don’t know how severe the diagnosis is or how much time Carl has left. For someone with HIV, 6 months could mean something entirely different than to someone without it. Obviously, we have the case of Magic Johnson and others who have lived long and productive lives with HIV but it also seemed the organization wanted to have an HIV positive face to lead it and it’s current and widely lauded head had to retire for health reasons and they needed to fill the gap quickly. Generally though I’m on the same page Jim, there is something unseemly about active legislators soliciting or interviewing for lucrative job offers while they are holding public office. I do think advocacy roles might fall into a different category though.
JimC says
AIDS Action is genuine advocacy, no doubt.
But I don’t love this as a loophole. They’ll always say it’s advocacy. “I’m going to General Dynamics to ensure we have safer drones.”
The line I draw is “elected officials,” and that includes legislators.
jconway says
If one were to legislate against this it would be easier to draw a firm line against leaving a term early to accept any other job position. I am not sure how it could be enforced, but it’s easier to have a single standard than craft a loophole, even one for a deserving circumstance like this one. While I am miffed at people I supported like Murphy and Leone taking cushy jobs (particularly Leone so soon after getting re-elected and to work against his old office), and unsurprised at hacks like Finneran, I personally hold nothing against the work Walz or Carl are doing. But crafting such a standard would allow a Speaker DeLeo or Sen. Ross to quit to lobby for casinos (arguably something they have been passionate advocates for in the leg). Your cheeky General Dynamics example would likely be hard to fight against, which means an iron tight ‘finish your term’ rule.
stomv says
It is possible to both further the advocacy aims of the causes [one] is passionate about and take a higher paying private sector job.
thinkliberally says
If an elected does not run for re-election, they leave office with no income. I don’t see why we’d hold them to a different standard than we’d hold ourselves. If an incredible opportunity lands on you — in this case a gay state leader with HIV being asked to run an AIDS organization — it seems perfectly logical to me that he’d judge that opportunity more positively than his political career.
I do agree with those jconway’s point about judging differently those just leaving for a soft landing with a big salary (in many cases because of something that went wrong while in office, such as losing a leadership battle) versus those leaving for a genuine opportunity to do more good in the world. But I don’t understand why we would judge differently someone leaving their elected office after running for higher office versus someone leaving office for a higher purpose.
Christopher says
Does MA not pension its legislators like the US does for Congress? As for holding them to the same standards as ourselves, most of us have jobs indefinitely, but legislators only commit to a couple of years at a time. In fact, to prevent this as well as any real or perceived conflicts that would arise in some cases, I have long thought that accepting another job during the term for which you are elected should not be allowed.
JimC says
There’s something I’m missing in your argument.
I’m not; if I take a three-month contract job, which I have, I leave it with no income. Toward the end, I’m going to try to line something up, but I’m not going to leave it after two months unless something extraordinary happens. For those three months, I’m committed, and the employer expects this. They are committed to me for that time as well.
That said, I do think public servants should be held to a higher standard. There are roughly three months left in the session. AIDS Action couldn’t wait three months? If they couldn’t, there were no other avenues to start his life’s work?
Opportunism is the American way. But elected officials stand before us, ask us for votes, money, and time (and blood, sweat, and tears), and pledge to serve.
thinkliberally says
I think the last thing we want to do is put up more barriers to those we want representing us. We will get the talent we deserve.
Anyway, I’m not sure what the point of this is. I get that people are annoyed that pols leave mid-term. I don’t think there’s any way to stop that. It just doesn’t bother me that much. And for me, Carl ran for Congress, and I appreciated that, and that would have required him to leave his seat if he won. I don’t see it as a total shift.
He continues in public service, just as Walz did, and I admire them both for deciding they can do more good in the nonprofit world. Frankly, I’d like to see more politicians decide not to keep their seats for life, but use their skills for other good, and let new blood come in.
JimC says
I would not ban the practice, there will always be special circumstances. But in my ideal world, leaving your term before it’s over would be heavily frowned upon — the way going to work for an industry you regulate is frowned upon.
Best of luck to Carl in his new role.
Christopher says
That is more akin to advancing within the same company or at least the same industry.
marcus-graly says
Will there be a special election to fill the seat or will it remain vacant until November?
dunwichdem says
They’ve already said there won’t be one for Coakley-Rivera’s seat, so I’d assume there won’t be one here either.