They’re city of Boston employees, right? So does the city get sued if they speak up? I don’t see any special carve out for them in the agreement. Not only did the Mayor agree to do away with free speech rights for his subordinates, but also for people he can’t even control. Unless the entire council has agreed to be bound by this gag order. So I’d like to hear from any of the councilors or their staffs who post here: did you agree to throw away your own judgment and discretion to support the bid?
If not, Eugene O’Flaherty and the city’s entire law department need to go.
I voted for Marty Walsh twice in 2013, but I won’t do it again if the Olympic bid is still viable in 2017 and there’s a challenger who opposes it. I’m also disinclined to vote for any city councilor or candidate this year who supports it.
Christopher says
I took a quick look at the “charter” of Boston (which I put in quotes because it appears to be a collection of laws that are arguably the foundation of governance, kind of like the British “constitution”), and did not see removal provisions. However, separation of powers has a strong pedigree in American governance and the executive cannot fire a legislator. If state or local laws provide such, the only removal procedures would be expulsion by their peers or a recall election. There is also a strong tradition of freedom of speech and debate for which a legislator “shall not be questioned in any other place” that I think goes back as far as Magna Carta. One can sue for just about anything I suppose, but if the IOC tries it I hope and assume that any American judge would laugh it out of court.
Peter Porcupine says
There were not hired, but chosen by vote.
TheBestDefense says
Elected officials are employees of the Commonwealth and its subdivisions. Ask the Ethics Commission. Did your former boss in the legislature not have to file an SFD?
Christopher says
…such as Ethics and OML, but as elected officials they still cannot be removed by the Mayor.
TheBestDefense says
legislators are NOT subject to the OML or the public records law.
The only legally binding definition of public employee that I am aware of is in the conflict of interest law. The Ethics Comm easy read interpretation say:
Are you a state employee for conflict of interest law purposes?
You do not have to be a full-time, paid state employee to be considered a state employee for conflict of interest purposes. Anyone performing services for a state agency or holding a state position, whether paid or unpaid, including full- and part-time state employees, elected officials, volunteers, and consultants, is a state employee under the conflict of interest law.
Christopher says
We were talking about City Councilors.
TheBestDefense says
and are subject to the same conditions and privileges as state legislators. Very little difference.
Which is a good thing. This country has a long tradition of government that is tied to what is generally referred to as a “separation of powers.” For our purposes here, the executive branch (the Mayor) cannot impose conditions on the behavior of the legislative branch (the City Council). Likewise, no executive may remove a legislator from office. Otherwise there would be no system of checks and balances.
Again, elected officials, even those who serve without compensation, are employees, porcupine’s comments to the contrary.
Christopher says
…subject to certain laws such as Ethics and OML, which state legislators are not. They do enjoy the other protections of being legislators that you mention.
TheBestDefense says
That is the issue here. Why you are raising these issues instead of the subject at hand. Stop, please.
Christopher says
You were the one that went off on the tangent of being employees.
TheBestDefense says
not me. You just piled on, inaccurately.
Christopher says
Otherwise, I think we’re in argeement about the role Councilors play and their legal obligations.
TheBestDefense says
you should just admit you made a mistake instead of claiming “semantics.” Let’s not pretend that you were right and I was mistaken. Just own it.
Christopher says
You also seem to have an unpleasant psycological need to say “I’m right and you’re wrong.” I stand by every comment I’ve made on this thread.
Christopher says
…the two instances above where I said you were correct about something.
TheBestDefense says
I give you plenty of upgrades on your posts where you deserve them. Go back and look, But I cut no slack for making mistakes and then calling someone else as the mistaken one.
ryepower12 says
the language also includes “officials” and “representatives,” in addition to employees.
Patrick says
I think you have a blend of law types going on here.
The Mayor signed a contract in his role as city executive. Contract law says that should be binding on all City employees.
However City Council members are also City employees but they cannot be fired, disciplined or dismissed by the Mayor. This is getting into some government & constitutional law, which I’m sure in MA & Boston is interesting because many of our laws devolve from colonial era laws & charters (Similar to British “Common Law” as Christopher points out above).
But I think the long & short of it is in contract law, unless the contract outlines some form of penalties, the main punitive damage the agreed parties can enforce is to terminate the contract due to breach of contract.
So in short, I think a City Council member can speak out as much as they want (In line with their elected duties) and the worst thing that can happen is the USOC can terminate its contract with Boston. However that makes them look bad in the eyes of the American public, so I think they’d be loath to do so (But then again, you never know).
paulsimmons says
Based upon what I’m seeing on the ground, and given the fact that we’re in a municipal election cycle, that won’t necessarily be the case.
jconway says
Solid point!
jcohn88 says
The technical-legal aspects of this have already been addressed, so I want to move on to the question of “would they?”
From what I heard (the spouse of a City Councillor is in my Ward Committee), City Council is not interested in really doing anything until after the bid is “hypothetically” accepted. They are, however, creating a Subcommittee on the Olympics this Thursday. I’m not sure to what extent it will have any power or even do anything at all.
As far as the members themselves, I know Josh Zakim has been very skeptical in the past (pre-Council career) and has been at least somewhat skeptical as a Councillor. Michelle Wu has been critical of the process. And I know Ayanna Pressley’s office has expressed some concerns about displacement. But I doubt these will really translate into vocal opposition.
Christopher says
Some group needs to be the semi-official watchdog and ask the needed questions on the public’s behalf. The media could do this to some extent, but they can’t conduct hearings or produce official documents.
jcohn88 says
I’m part of the group No Boston 2024 (allied with but separate from No Boston Olympics), and one other member and I are developing a scorecard for City Councillors on the Olympics. And we’re planning to make sure that people show up at all of their campaign events (because this is an election year) to ask them difficult questions.
If you’re in Boston, there’s going to be a “City Council Town Hall” in JP at Doyle’s Cafe 6:30 on Wednesday. Wu, Pressley, and O’Malley will be there, and people need to to show up to as them questions since the Council has been evading the topic.