According to Frank Phillips at the Globe, Suzanne Bump, the Auditor of the Commonwealth, has apparently taken full time control over her late husband’s business. It is currently unclear what the ethical ramifications of this move would be, or if on a more personal level, she will simply have the time to do both jobs.
If the position were to become vacant, the entire legislature would vote on a replacement in a special session. It is likely the 160 member House will outvote the 40 member Senate, and in the past when this has occurred powerful members of the House have ascended to the position. Former Speakers and most recently in 1980, a Ways and Means Chairman. The $130,000 a year position pays more than the Speakership theoretically does, but one wonders if Robert DeLeo would be tempted to go in that direction. What is clear, is that this is all speculation until Bump makes a decision. But if she does, it is likely the Speaker will have the most say in determining the next Auditor of the Commonwealth is, and not the voters.
JimC says
I doubt the Speaker wants the job.
I also wonder if Suzanne can make herself Chairman of her husband’s company but make someone else CEO, and stay on.
Christopher says
There’s no “General” on the Auditor’s title.
I believe the General Court is currently out of session which means, at least the way I read the Constitution, that the Governor can appoint a replacement with the advice and consent of the Governor’s Council.
dunwichdem says
The issue has been resolved.
JimC says
If I were on the Ethics Commission, I’d want a lot more information about this.
(I’m not taking a shot at Suzanne; I like Suzanne.) But can the Auditor be involved in a for-profit business? If I were a commissioner, I’d worry about the precedent.
Christopher says
A conflict would come if she were simultaneously the head of a state agency, or if said business were doing business with the state. I see a practical conflict since a constitutional office should be a full time job, but not an ethical one.
JimC says
Every business does business with the state, in some form or another.
My main worry would be precedent. If they allow this (and maybe they should — I don’t know enough), what would the next person ask and have allowed?
Peter Porcupine says
Dan Wolf.
Formerly complete owner of Cape Air, his stake is now about 15% (and how it diminished is an interesting story). When he ran for Governor, the ownership (not employment by, OWNERSHIP for profit) of a business doing business with the state was contrary to statute.
He applied for and got a Waiver process created. He ran again for Senate after his gubernatorial bid, which has a different set of conflicts, but he treated his waiver for Governor as a papal dispensation and didn’t request a subsequent one.
Instead of fixing the statute, he is leaving office with nothing but the murky waiver process in place. That way, we can declare no conflict for the ‘good’ people, but uphold the statute for those we do not like.
JimC says
At one of my former jobs, I was contractually prohibited from any paid outside work. Just saying.
JimC says
I’m not sure this is really partisan. But where there is favoritism it is tribal, and in this case the tribe is baby boomers.
jconway says
For the most part, Bump has done a good job and it seems she has resolved the issue. An interesting quirk in how to fill vacancies continues.