but I’m not really feelin’ the fear. The Herald’s Casey Ross helpfully prints out what the GOP says are the relevant passages of the state’s ethics statutes.
According to Chapter 268A: 23 of the Massachusetts General Laws, a public official must not:
(2) use or attempt to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals;
(3) act in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. It shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion.
I will step aside and let our legal beagles sniff this one. Have at it.
that I’m surprised the Patrick Patrol didn’t originally pick this clause, as opposed to the other one, to plant their flag on. This text is so vague as to encompass everything and nothing.
with clause 2 we could charge every legislator who voted to preserve marriage as a heterosexual privilege. hmmm…..
love it.
Years ago, a State Rep. wanted to advocate for a Public Works Economic Development Grant for his district. However, he owned land which abutted the district, and which would become more valuable if the grant went through. The land was valuable at the time, not landlocked or unbuildable, but still, the grant which would confer benefit on the town would also enhance that value.
<
p>
After consulting with the Ethics Commission, he wrote a letter of personal disclosure to the agency in charge of making the grant, and also placed a copy on file with the House Clerk for public examination, stating that his backing of the project was not for his personal benefit but that he recognized that the appearance of conflict existed and he wished to make that public before the decision was made.
<
p>
That is the proper way to comply with Clause Three.
<
p>
The Ethics Commission should be on speed dial for the Patrick people, who are by and large used to Federal rather than Massachusetts rules of ethical conduct.
When I worked at the Gov’s Legal Office, we all got to know the staff people at the Ethics Commission, who are generally very helpful, quite well, at least on the phone. They’re a great resource of which the Gov’s office should avail itself.
so they can probably handle the business.
<
p>
Giving a reference on a cellphone about one former work colleague to another former work colleague is not an official duty of the governor.
No. The reference wanted was – Mr. Rubin, I am Deval Patrick. Never mind what I’m doing these days. I am professionally and personally acquainted with Mr. Bass, as I am with you, and I ask that your corporation designate million of dolars to prop up his company. You WILL? Hey, that’s great.
<
p>
Not – Mr. Bass comes to work on time, cleans his fingernails, and has a nice personality to work with.
who eavesdroppped on the cell phone call, then?
<
p>
You must be, since your account differs from the actual participants’.
<
p>
References are required for many business deals too, Peter.
<
p>
I’m honored by your request, and don’t understand why you would ask me to do this for you when you have such a vast network of supporters who could help you out.
<
p>
What could I provide by doing this that anyone else could not?
<
p>
I’m sorry, but in my position as Governor it would be innappropriate for me to do this at this time.
<
p>
seem to change the subject every time one of their arguments fails. This rarely occurs when people can actually muster good arguments.
<
p>
Peter, like a few other posters here, would like to fabricate a conversation, and have us all accept it as the truth.
<
p>
Your response, on the other hand, makes sense only if I accept that the call was inappropriate (as opposed to merely politically foolish). I don’t, at least not yet.
<
p>
Sorry.
If the call was appropriate, then was his apology inappropriate?
Arguing that a politician’s press-event apology proves he did something wrong.
<
p>
Sorry, gary, I think the coma recovery ward is over there somewhere. Good luck.
<
p>
<
p>
Why, must each of your posts begin or end with a character assassination as an attempt at wit ?
<
p>
I mean, once you’ve wandered into a blog, armed with your repetoire of quip and the cold light of reason, and then someone disagrees, your defense is
<
p>
“You’re an idiot.
<
p>
I don’t know why.
<
p>
You’re an idiot.
<
p>
Got it?”
<
p>
A persuasive argument. Because clearly, someone who thinks a person who apologizes, typically means it and has something for which to apologize, is either a) naive, or b) correct most of the time or c) comatose. And, since you say “comatose” and you’re always right, then “comatose” it must be. Back to the ward!
link
My, you do go on. And you don’t let your complete failure to even understand the comment stop you.
<
p>
Back to the point.
<
p>
Your position is ridiculous. You make the extraordinary claim–without proof, as is your habit–that no politician would ever apologize unless he had actually done something unethical. In your view, it’s simply impossible, dismissed out of hand, that a politician might survey the media coverage, and decide his best approach is to say he’s sorry and get it over with. Absurd! you say. It never happens!
<
p>
Hilarous. Isn’t this what married men on TV sitcomes stereotypically complain they have to do: Just Apologize, even if you don’t know why?
<
p>
Of course, your advice ignores the existence of an entire PR crisis consulting industry, which trains politicians and corporate executives to apologize as quickly as possible, regardless of culpability.
<
p>
But of course, your argument isn’t really serious. This is all simply part of the M.O., to harangue someone until they express regret, and then point to the regret as proof of wrongdoing. I’m not fooled.
<
p>
Oh, and please, it’s starting to sound like somebody pulled the string on a Whining Wanda doll in here.
You therefore conclude that the governor is either a) sincere in his apology because he believes he erred or b) else insincere and his apology is a lie. c) hope.
Putting on my objective political advisor hat on I would suggest that the Republican party use this “oppurtunity” to
play this as unchecked power run wild (I don’t believe this is the case) and parlay this into a stronger case to capture more seats in 2 years rather than waste time on an ethics probe that is going no where.
<
p>
Then again there is a reason why the porcupine and others are so properly represented in the legislature.
Either Patrick did something wrong, so he should cough up a fine.
<
p>
Or he didn’t, and all the caterwaulers can finally STFU.
I think thatGov. Patrick had “good intentions” and that, in fact, if Ameriquest went belly up, had to discount and sell off mortgages, and the buyers forced more foreclosures, the impact on the already declining real estate market could be horrendous [think Houston]
<
p>
That all being said, when I first became an attorney, I was in contact with the MBa equivalent of the ethics commission many, many times dealing with new situations. Suggesting this new administration began by using that resource is GOOD advice – knowing what one knows, and what one does not know is the beginning of wisdom.
<
p>
That all being said, I am curious, was any “real” harm done? Financial markets and how they work is NOT my field, but it seems to have been quite common knowledge that Ameriquest was on shaky ground.
real harm. No one has even suggested Patrick lied in providing references for his Ameriquest colleague.
<
p>
Citigroup can hardly be unaware of the meltdown in real estate. They hosted a conference on it today.
The Suffolk Superior Court is taking action against the company Deval is vouching for:
<
p>
http://www.capecodon…
<
p>
This may not be constituent service at its finest.
Changing politics as usual is what Deval said throughout the campaign. He is keeping his promises. His administration will be about working together to get the state’s business done and that he will make mistakes.
To my mind he has made few mistakes, and fewer if you mean substantive. Firstly by making decisions that are up front and I think not unreasonable by someone who has managed large businesses in the private sector he has shown his honesty. Politics as usual would have had him operating and making those decisions with a more political mindset. I believe he will take this purely political crap with the grain of salt it doesn’t deserve, work with the varied communities and with our support make the changes necessary to turn our state around.
not only for this conduct but the democrats should
investigate if he used a corrupt republican system to get elected. This guy is 2 months into a term and he may be able to be removed by impeachment.
<
p>
I thought this was a progressive site for deomocrats.
<
p>
So far, I’ve given you two 0’s, I feel bad for giving you another one, but you aren’t even making any sense at all.
I’ve read the Glob articles on the issue and can only conclude that they are trying to make it an issue to sell more of their fish-wrapping and birdcage liner. As far as I can tell there’s no “ethics” issue involved in the case, irrespective of the state ethics statute. So, what was the reason for bringing the telephone call to light? An attempt by some in the legislature to bring Patrick down a notch or two, and to show him that he’s not the boss despite his current celebrity status, but the legislature is? We already knew that the legislature–and, in particular, the legislative leadership–is in charge, not the governor.
<
p>
Also, as far as I can tell, the only “issue” involved in the dust-up is the fact that it allowed the fact become widely known that DP served on the board of the holding company that owns a subsidiary that has been accused of shady lending practices. It strikes me that that is pretty much irrelevant–if he had not served on the board, the subsidiary would likely have pursued the same practices.
Deval has somebody – in the Executive – wo dropped a dime on him. The Leislature and the Executive don’t even share a switchboard in the same building, let alone monitor a cell phone call, which he claims to have used.
<
p>
And he IS a State Official – which makes the STATE Ethics statute relevant.
…I did not say, nor did I mean to suggest, that the state ethics statute was not applicable.
<
p>
I could go on at length, but based on what I understand of the case, although the state ethics statute is–as always–applicable, as far as I can tell from the facts that have been reported, DP didn’t violate it.
<
p>
Is that clear enough for you?
You’ve got to be kidding. EVERY ACT of the governor is scrutinized by his adversaries and those in lawfull authority for its appropriateness, lawfullness, and ethical correctness. Romney wouldn’t lift a pen unless it had been vetted by a legal department. Governor patrick really stepped in it for various reasons. The first being that what he did was not appropriate, secondly it was unethical, and lastly it was very likely unlawfull.
<
p>
What is going on in this man’s mind?
<
p>
Incidentally, the governor has never managed any business. He has always served as a legal department employee or a job description construed as such, which makes his present conduct even more egregious.
Leaving aside the dubious legal merits of the Republican ethics complaint, I am astonished at your assumption about the former Governor’s attention to legal detail. Slick Dancing Mitt had a Legal Counsel, Dan Winslow, who was quite respected in the legal community, for under 2 years. Mr. Winslow, while a conservative Republican, had a backbone and was fearless in giving SDM legal advice whether it was what he wanted to hear or not. Winslow was fired and replaced by Mark Nielsen, a Connecticut politician without Winslow’s legal pedigree. Nielsen was constantly tripping up on the niceties of statutory and constitutional law, like when they installed too many Republicans onto the Turnpike Authority Board. His skill set was so fungible that when Beth Myers left for the campaign team last summer, Nielsen took over as Chief of Staff. SDM was distincly impatient with the fine points of legal compliance, as was never more evident than when he suggested he wanted to fire hundreds of lawyers in the Executive Branch before he even knew what they did.