This is awful. And it’s only the beginning.
Documents obtained by the Globe through a public records request to City Hall show Mayor Martin J. Walsh has signed a formal agreement with the United States Olympic Committee that bans city employees from criticizing Boston’s bid for the 2024 Summer Games.
The “joinder agreement” forbids the city of Boston and its employees from making any written or oral statements that “reflect unfavorably upon, denigrate or disparage, or are detrimental to the reputation” of the International Olympic Committee, the USOC, or the Olympic Games.
It’s astonishing to think that, if I were a city employee, I could have lost my job by posting – as I did in October – that “the IOC is filled with awful people.” It’s shocking that Mayor Walsh actually signed a document making that city policy.
And it’s profoundly disappointing that Walsh seems to be on board with the Olympic gang’s past practice of shutting down speech that is not consistent with the Olympic boosters’ message. A while ago, I was hoping that Walsh would actually stand up to that odious practice:
Rather than repeating something like Boston’s shameful “free speech zone” episode at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, where protesters were tucked into an iron cage under the highway, any Boston Olympics bid should insist that none of the speech-limiting garbage that was reported during, say, the London 2012 Olympics, will be tolerated here. Bostonians must be free to speak about, or against, the Olympics, just as they always have been on other topics. Of course, the IOC won’t like it, and it might cost Boston the games. But surely Marty Walsh isn’t going to sacrifice the free speech rights of his city’s people to a shadowy cabal like the IOC. Right, Marty?
So far, not looking good. You can read the agreement at this link (via Garrett Quinn at MassLive.com).
Bob Neer says
The strongest systems allow criticism and free speech because they are strong enough to manage opposition. Pledges like this would be unnecessary if the Games weren’t trying to hide information — like, for example, one speculates, how much they will cost.
chris-rich says
Oh man, a built in gag order?
Here comes the ACLU. Isn’t this what several parties, (who have put more effort than I ever will into examining this turkey), said?
It’s as if it’s on cue, just when a new reason to despise it would come in handy.
I started participation with a degree of indifference, distaste for athletic spectacles in general and a fairly good sense of how sausages are made here.
But if it looked like there was significant enthusiasm and real coherence rather than a bucket list of poorly examined assumptions and possibilities, I’d be fine with it.
I just don’t trust our oligarchs very much because they pull this crap and have been forever with a thick glaze of entitlement slathered over an inept and clumsy mess.
When the hapless Mayor, (who is now looking like he’s getting rolled), figures out that a proper public stress test is the only way to manage the process, then the minimum civic conditions will have been met to begin to even discuss this thing.
When Harvard finally rediscovers humility and gets over its conviction that its guidance in a self serving process like this is useful and wanted, then we might have a basis for a robust public process.
They are floundering in a swamp of their own making straight out of the gate and the fumes of public rancor will only thicken as the muck gets stirred.
petr says
… but I get downrated (downstream) for asking legit questions. Maybe BMG isn’t strong enough to manage opposition?
I feel as though all those who are anti-Olympics are not only raving mad at the Olympics but are mad at me for not being similarly raving mad at the Olympics. Something like this might enrage me if it is both true and particular to the Olympics. If it is true, but also a regular part of sports law and/or major event planning, I’m not going to be mad at the Olympics over it.
But, for sure, BMG is strongly divided over it and, to be blunt, not handling it very well.
Bob Neer says
BMG’s rules permit lots of debate 🙂 If the site made everyone agree not to disagree with anyone else, or anything posted here, that would indeed be a sign of weakness!
To your point about the Olympics, some BMGers are quite supportive of a Boston Olympics, or at least have an open mind on the subject, pending details of the proposed event. This story, however, is the kind of thing that will turn many against the Games because it suggests organizers are planning to hide things.
petr says
… I was asking for information, neither making a point for or against a particular stance. I do not think legitimate questions should be downrated lest the downraters be mistaken for thinking them illegitimate. I understand that you have no particular mechanism for enforcement of this, but that doesn’t mean the legitimacy of the questions are moot. Debate and discussion can’t happen if attempts at clarification are treated as just more back-n-forth.
Or, put another way:
You’re just asking for a visit from Inspector Fox of the Light Entertainment Police, Comedy Division, Special Flying Squad.
kirth says
and erased those downrated comments? What about those comments that actually disagreed with yours? Did they cost you your job, or something? Ratings are not sticks and stones; they may hurt your feelings, but your arguments aren’t affected by them.
petr says
The debate and the discussion are larger than my arguments or my feelings. The notion that I would go to Bob_Neer or any of the editors to salve a wounded psyche makes little sense and I’m not about that. While the hurt feelings derive from a casual dismissal, which dismissal, completely apart from whether or no they injure feelings, is an injury to the debate.
In the simplest case, for example, if I were to post the question: “Hey, how do I get to Medford for the BMG shindig?” and somebody downrates it, I can reasonably assume they don’t want me to ask that question. Maybe they don’t want me there and my feelings are hurt… but also, the question might not get answered. If I don’t feel welcome, maybe I don’t go and, for good or ill, the shindig is different than it would be. Quo vadis… where are you going?
More importantly, If debate and discussion here are to mean anything at all, I must reasonable expect others to be willing to change their minds and be so willing myself. That’s why I ask questions: if somebody wants me to be angry at Marty Walsh for an extraordinary thing he did, I’d like to be able to ask if A) it really is extraordinary? and 2) if he really did it? If it is and he did, then I’m going to JOIN that somebody in their anger directed at Marty Walsh. If it isn’t and he didn’t, then I expect THEM to drop their anger. If the mere asking of questions gets a downrate it dismisses the legitimacy of the question and the possibility that either I might change my mind or they might have to drop their outrage . Maybe it means they just like contradicting, which is why I quoted the Monty Python sketch: if you automatically gainsay anything the other person said, it’s not an argument, it’s just contradiction.
If it were just me I’d have not said a thing, people have been spiterating me for a long time, but it’s a growing trend. For example, just last Sunday Sabutai apparently felt compelled to muse aloud “Why are people downrating the truth?” in response to a clearly, demonstrably, uncontroversially true statement that Christopher made, which was downrated. Sabutai’s own question, “why are people downrating the truth?” itself was downrated. It’s a fair question. It got downrated. Why? Maybe it hurt Sabutai’s feelings. I don’t know. I do know that it did injury to the debate because it sent a clear signal that the truth itself would receive short shrift.
That seems unworkable, at best, for a blog the purports to be reality based.
chris-rich says
They are confident enough to let us blather on in our respective abrasive ways.
And I’m happy to let people down rate me to their heart’s content. It’s just a quaint little site feature.
Christopher says
Also, I assume this does not include the Council and for any city employees who are unionized I hope there is a redress process.
bob-gardner says
It was just a week ago that the Mayor fired a city employee for taking part in a demonstration. The rationale given was “public safety” although the job the city worker did had nothing to do with public safety. The demonstration was on the worker’s own time, and the demonstration was outside of Boston.
The Mayor proclaimed that it was not a difficult decision.
paulsimmons says
…as elected officials in a separate Branch of City Government that is not (to the best of my knowledge) a party to the agreement.
It is however doubtful to me that unionized City employees would be exempt. The Supreme Court ruled in Garcetti et al. v. Ceballos that:
I’ll defer to the Constitutional scholars out there about how absolute this free speech limitation is, but the gag clause in the joinder agreement seems problematic, at least to me.
Equally problematic are those clauses in the agreement which essentially binds the City to a role as cash cow to the Olympics (see Section 2.02)…
As an aside to the attorneys out there, nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong on this.
mimolette says
But on first skim, it seems to me that the agreement probably does purport to bind City Council members. The provision applies to “the City, including its employees, officers, and representatives.” It’s possible that the definition of “the City” excludes its elected officials outside the executive branch, and it’s possible that somewhere, either in other IOC documentation or in the city charter, there’s language that makes City Councilors not officers. But the most obvious reading seems to cover them — though if it does, it’s a mystery where and how the city solicitor’s office got the idea that the mayor had the power to sign away their speech rights.
dasox1 says
The Olympics are a major distraction from the types of long-term public policy initiatives that we should be focused on. Transportation, infrastructure, energy, health care costs, tax policy, should be our focus. Anyone who says that the Olympics will help us focus on or fund important public policy issues should win a Gold Medal for B.S.
hesterprynne says
don’t say anything at all?”
The agreement requires city employees not only to refrain from criticism but to
So the city not only wants to prohibit employees from speaking their own mind but also to compel them “to utter what is not in their mind” (Justice Jackson, 1943 flag salute case).
petr says
… and because I truly do not know the answers, I’d like to ask two questions:
1) While reprehensible, is such a ‘gag order’ at all unusual? That is to say, among either sporting/branding events of a particular size and/or scope as well as within the everyday-run-of-the-mill contracts of municipal employees are such things often done? Never? Sometimes? SuperBowl XLIX is being held in Phoenix this year… did the NFL require similar boosterism from the City of Phoenix? Last years SuperBowl was in East Rutherford NJ. Did similar circumstances obtain there? What is in the contract that presently exists between the City of Boston and the organizers of the Boston Marathon? What is in the contract between the City of Cambridge and the organizers of the “Head of the Charles” races? In the course of daily life are bus drivers, for example, forbidden from bad-mouthing the MBTA? Can teachers openly criticize their schools (whether or no that’s a good idea is besides the point here…I’m trying to establish how extra-ordinary this may be)
2) Regardless of the answer to question #1 above, Did Mayor Walsh actually inform city employees of the restrictions upon speech to which he signed his name? That is to say, did a memo go out saying “here are new speech policies regarding the Olympics” or something to that affect? If he did not inform the employees is it either enforceable or fair to say the restriction exists? Is it possible he signed it with the full intent of ignoring the speech restrictions and never enforcing them? (A side note, the actual joinder also dismisses the need for a public referendum which Mayor Walsh has apparently definitively ignored.)
paulsimmons says
Here it is in its entirety:
Al says
hoping not to alienate significant portions of the vote he’ll need to get reelected.
HR's Kevin says
I know that at least some people who worked on Long Island were told not to talk about what happened there when the Mayor ordered its evacuation.
He has also fired a number of long-standing city employees for no obvious reason other than to replace them with his own guys.
In any case, it should be totally obvious that Marty Walsh cannot honor his promise of “transparency” while at the same time stifling the speech of City employees. He has to give up one promise or the other or else be proved a liar.
bob-gardner says
While simultaneously telling us not to comment until the process is made public.
1. As to number 1, my question is “Would this agreement be any less reprehensible if there were other agreements like it?
2. The city workers have certainly been informed of this policy since the Globe published this morning. And Mayor Walsh (see my previous comment) has already demonstrated his willingness to punish city workers for exercising their First Amendment rights.
If you were a city worker, would you feel like you could criticize the Olympic bid without fear of retaliation?
petr says
No. They would all be reprehensible. But any widespread adoption of such agreements would deflate the particular animus directed at the Olympics. On the other hand, a complete lack of similar agreements might certainly justify exactly that animus.
Which is why I asked.
bob-gardner says
saying that all Olympic applicants had similar agreements.
TheBestDefense says
obnoxious requirements but no gag order according to a document leaked to SBNation. The list, most of which was accepted by the city, includes
What the NFL wants
Free police escorts for team owners
Use of Presidential suites at the city’s top hotels at no-cost
35,000 free parking spaces
All revenue from ticket sales to the game
Free curbside parking at the NFL House, a “high-end, exclusive drop-in hospitality facility for our most valued and influential guests to meet, unwind, network and conduct business.”
Local police dedicated to anti-counterfeit enforcement, provided at no cost
Installation of ATM machines at the stadium that accept NFL preferred credit and debit cards, along with the removal of ATMs that “conflict with preferred payment services.”
Two top quality bowling venues for an NFL celebrity bowling event
Portable cell phone towers
Free promotional space from local newspapers and radio stations for the “NFL Experience” in the month before the game
Creation of “clean zones” around the stadium and the hotel for NFL execs that prevent “certain activities” as well as suspend new and existing permits for those activities
Free access to three top golf courses in the months before the game
Exemption from state, county and municipal taxes.
stomv says
Tax exemption? Look, you want local and state services for your event? That’s cool. I don’t have a problem with that. You want specific businesses included or excluded? Sure, whatevs. You want to make sure the infrastructure is set up? Yip.
You want these public benefits, but don’t want to pay tax? Good grief.
chris-rich says
And seeking it at all times in all ways is what drives the privatization bus.
Since we don’t manufacture much any more, MBA’s have to get creative if they don’t have any tech chops.
So they rabble rouse ideologues into agitating for as much privatized stuff as possible with lots of empty promises, cut corners and cheapskate dodges.
Then they cobble together ‘enterprises’ to ‘solve’ the ‘problem’ and ride high on the hog of gubmint contracts while continuing to agitate for gov hate when their fleeced rubes are within earshot.
TheBestDefense says
The overall budget for the new Vikings Stadium is estimated to be $1.024 billion, of which $348 million is coming from the state of Minnesota, $150 million from the city of Minneapolis, and $526 million coming from the team and private contributions, despite the early and frequent promises that it would not require any public money.
Does that promise sound familiar? Can you say “Boston 2024”?
mimolette says
A rhetorical question, mostly, since I don’t mean to ask anyone here to do the research I’m not willing to bother to do myself. But that list is enough to make anyone wonder why a city would even accept a Super Bowl, let alone chase one. I mean, yes, the host city hospitality industry will have a week or two of at-capacity business, but does the additional tax revenue from those businesses even make this a wash?
More to the immediate point, though: All of that, and the IOC still looks awful by comparison. Already, and it’s early days yet.
scout says
For an agreement to mean anything it must be signed by both parties. Where is the copy of the agreement that is signed by the IOC.
Also, kudos to the Globe for digging this out (or kudos to whoever told them it was there to dig out), but major thumbs down for not sharing the actual doc itself with their star. Big thanks to Garrett Quinn for doing that.
TheBestDefense says
The Globe has the document on its website
petr says
So it’s either a link or a copy of the the same document. Scouts questions remain open…
HR's Kevin says
The documents have absolutely no supporting information to back up their figures. I guess all that is “proprietary”?
I am also surprised that they are proposing to use the site of the Post Office facilities next to South Station for IBC/MBC. How is that going to work when that land is needed to expand the number of platforms at South Station? Without those extra platforms we cannot expand rail service terminating at that station.
HR's Kevin says
To be clear, I was talking about the bid proposal, not this agreement.
TheBestDefense says
Boston 2024 is releasing redacted documents to the public today at 6pm. They already had a dog & pony show for the media at noon today. I would not be surprised if Boston2024 had a press blackout until 6pm so watch the Globe web site at 6pm or tune in to WBUR now as they are covering it fairly extensively.
scout says
n/t
TheBestDefense says
one in the possession of the USOC and one in the possession of the Mayor. The document that both the Globe and MassLive posted are likely copies of a copy before the signings as it is unlikely that either of this two offices would leak the signed document (it would be too easy to trace back to the leaker). Before the documents were signed it would have circulated among a few offices on each side of the agreement for proper vetting. The leak likely came from one of the parties who vetted the agreement, before the genuine ones were signed.
I don’t think there is any chance that there are not two signed copies, one held by each of the parties.
scout says
The document was provided by the city in response to a public information request.
methuenprogressive says
If Marty comes to his senses and makes a negative remark he wouldn’t be obligated to fire himself, would he?
HR's Kevin says
The IOC enforces it by not choosing your city.
methuenprogressive says
Bizarre rule.
Christopher says
I noticed that part of the terms of the agreement is that the agreement itself not be shared with anyone. If our FOIA trumps the agreement I sure hope the Constitution would also.
TheBestDefense says
existing local or state laws, nor the Constitution.
williamstowndem says
So this is how they win? The first thing trampled on the way to a wonderful Olympic experience is Free Speech. Is this the price we pay for this boondoggle … in addition to the huge sums of taxpayer money that will inevitably be required to handle the post-event hangover. What else aren’t they telling us?
TheBestDefense says
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/01/21/documents-boston-proposal-for-olympics/PgEQGMhavh7rlMjs6Mfq0M/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article_More
Christopher says
I scrolled through the documents quickly and was looking for big blackout sections. I thought they would most likely be in the security section since you don’t necessarily want to tell the world what your security plans are, but other than that what in the world would you redact and why?
I have not had a chance to read the documents and I’m sure there will be plenty of material that people can pick apart and disagree with. However, with the release of these documents it can no longer be honestly claimed that the bid committee did not do its homework.
drikeo says
… it’s going to need to risk losing the Olympics. Otherwise local support will erode. The municipal gag rule, I suspect, has no legal standing and hopefully every city union bands together to file a class action lawsuit against it. At some point Marty Walsh has got to put his foot down and dictate some terms back to the IOC. Make it public. Make it about whether the Olympics are an entity that can operate in a free and open society. Challenge them and be willing to lose for the right reasons.
I’ve been open to the notion of a Boston Olympics, but this gag rule is pure bullshit that should not be tolerated.
chris-rich says
It has been very well made by earnest and honest people who are much smarter than I am and with much better process insight.
And the thanks they get is fits of pique cause it wasn’t aligned with wishes and fantasy.
It is a sleazy organization that will tolerate regimes that we generally wouldn’t. And it sucks the gullible into its vortex.
I’m just laughing that they blew it up so fast.
It’s like the May 8 1915 explosion an Spincourt Forest in Verdun.
A Bavarian regiment was stupidly using grenade explosives as kindling to brew coffee. A piece ignited a box of rockets which then set off a store of bombs in some hellish chain reaction.
The French looked across the battlefield puzzled to see the Germans do this to themselves.
That was quick. What’s our next fatuous civic conceit?
Or do we finally cut to the chase and consider sober rational and fair efforts to get our stuff back in good working order with actual leadership instead of oligarchic followership.
Christopher says
What I don’t want to see happen is that Olympics will only be hosted by countries with such regimes. I would like to see IOC members from democratic nations band together and not only reject bids from nations willing to violate human rights and civil liberties, but possibly agree to vote as a bloc for a bid from a country that prioritizes such rights and liberties. If the Olympics are such a prize with any luck maybe it will have the effect of changing some less democratic systems.
chris-rich says
That will surely show that erring sleazy IOC the way.
It worked so well with Iraq. I would like to see free kittens and flying unicorns. Do you really have any idea how much a lot of the world has had it up to here with us?
Didn’t think so.
You may well find that they aren’t such a prize and then you’ll be off the hook for wings, prayers, feelings and luck.
TheBestDefense says
Don’t drink Bud. They are a major sponsor of the FIFA World Cup games in Russian and Qatar in 2018 and 2022. FIFA is even more corrupt than the IOC, Qatar a vicious labor exploiter, and Russia a near fascist nation. So just send Bud a note saying no more, tell your friends and let’s all stop paying for the sports-industrial complex.
Maybe we can make the IOC, USOC and FIA become more democratic.
tcook99 says
the 2024 committee says the games will cost us 4.7bln, and yet no games has cost less than 20bln for the last 20 years. I know we are smart and better than the rest of the world; but on what planet to does this sounds realistic. If you want a 1% argument – here is a case of a Mayor and some powerful friends sticking to the city .
farnkoff says
Walsh is heading into some very dark, very dumb territory.