Thanks to alert commenter zadig, who points us to this AP story from a couple of days ago:
Florida prosecutors have decided not to pursue charges against an official in Gov. Deval Patrick’s administration who had been accused of sexual battery against a teenage boy in the steam room of a Florida resort…. Assistant State Attorney Francine Donnorummo wrote this week that “there is no corroborating evidence to support child’s rendition of his being forcibly sexually battered,” the Fort Myers News-Press and the Boston Herald reported online Thursday.
Donnorummo wrote the teen had difficulty identifying McGee as his attacker. There was also no video surveillance or forensic evidence supporting the teen’s claims, according to the documents.
Anyone have word on whether McGee will return as Housing and Economic Development Secretary Dan O’Connell’s number 2 guy?
Back in Feb., I wrote that the administration should distance itself from Stan regardless of whether he is guilty or not. I still agree with that sentiment. It’s too bad that this all happened, and I hope Stan’s family can move beyond it.
<
p>I also think he’ll be fine. He’s clearly talented and was a lawyer at a prominent national firm. If I’m him, I just fade into oblivion for a while. There may be a kerfuffle when he starts a new job somewhere (even if it’s in the private sector), but that will die down and this story will fade into memory.
regardless of innocence? sounds like he’s going to be in that same unemployable no-mans land that the guy who didn’t set off the bomb at the olympics was. justice is a rare thing these days, isn’t it?
Distance for political reasons isn’t going to improve the political standing of the administration after the last week, and the beating they just took can’t get much worse barring a Spitzer revelation.
is there such a thing in the real world, or only on teevee? if anyone can be fired for not being found guilty of something, then isn’t the door open to removing our opponents simply by accusing them? reminds me of the people who ended up in guantanamo not because they were criminals, but because they were in someone else’s way.
Unless in direct violation of an anti-discrimination statute. Some government employees get some additional protection, but I’m not sure that those apply to poltical appointees, who are often sacraficed for purely political reasons unrelated to their job performance.
…a difference between innocence and there being no corroborating evidence. He may be innocent, but a failure to be charged with a crime does not really prove that.
<
p>
but i can’t get beyond the danger we invite if people are dismissed from jobs just for being accused of a crime. is the mccarthy pendulum swinging back this way again?
…truth is that people can be dismissed from employment for any reason whatsoever save for narrow exeptions that deal with discrimination, in MA, specifically related to gender, race, relgious affiliation, sexual orientation, family status, disability, age….
<
p>Someone who serves at the will of the Governor, embroiled in a scandal, who has a very public position that requires him to act as a liason for the executive office who does not reatain their position as a result of the hardship the scandal will inject into the system is hardly evocative of McCarthyism.
What scandal is he embroiled in? This “scandal” consisted of a boy in Florida saying “somebody assaulted me, and I think it was McGee. Oh wait, no it wasn’t.”
<
p>Hardly rises to the level of “scandal.” By that measure, the parking ticket I got, which proved to be erroneous and was thrown out, should have local news coverage as “ParkingGate”.
<
p>The man was falsely accused, he’s been cleared, end of “scandal.” To continue to beat this dead horse does approach McCarthyism, where even the accusation was considered damning.
….picture in the newspapers and on the evening news? Did people talk about it for weeks and are they still talking about it? Did it taint the discussion regarding a policy the executive was pressing on the legislature?
<
p>Of course it was a scandal. Something doesn’t have to be true to be a scandal.
<
p>You don’t know that he was falsely accused. The accusations simply could not be proven to a legal standard to support indictment.
<
p>If you think the dead horse should stop being beaten, then by all means, stop beating it.
<
p>And there is nothing reported about the boy recanting, so I suggest you refrain from making facts up.
<
p>
There is no “making facts up” here. I never said the boy recanted. From the original article:
<
p>
<
p>So the boy originally accused McGee, then had difficulty with his identification. That’s what my (obviously fictional) “quote” was saying.
<
p>Much like the boy in the story, you should avoid throwing around accusations you can’t back up.
…that McGee was falsely accused and you asserted that that boy in question stated that McGee wasn’t the man who did it. Those are your words, taken for their plain, facial meaning.
<
p>Yes, your quote was obviously fictional and inaccurate on every level.
<
p>My accusations stick quite nicely. You affirmatively stated that the McGee was falsely accused and implied that the boy changed his mind about him, then changed your tune when confronted on your false assertion.
<
p>You made stuff up…and it is backed up by your own words…I have made no accusations but rather pointed out your clear errors which can only be attributed to fiction.
<
p>Adn the fact that you would compare a back and forth on a blog to a child claiming to be sexually assaulted is in very, very bad taste. Many people who are sexually abused cannot “back it up” with corroborating evidence. Should they all just keep their mouths shut? Very poorly played.
Here’s what I’d expect from political teams:
<
p>I’d expect the members of any political team with principles to ascertain their accused team member’s guilt for themselves, using their own judgment, and then decide whether to stand by him or not.
<
p>I’d expect the members of a weaker, more politically-expedient team to distance themselves at the time, but to rally around their team member when his innocence has been established (as it has in this case — innocent until proven guilty actually means something).
<
p>I’d expect the members of a political team that has no morals, ethics, or loyalty to take your advice: jettison the guy at the first sign of trouble, and refuse to accept him back when he’s determined to be innocent.
<
p>I was hoping the Patrick team was the first group, but I assumed they’d really fall into the second group. I’m waiting to see what really happens, but I fear they’re in the third.
McGee should not be fired. He should step aside so that no further political consequences result for the Governor and his administration.
<
p>I realize I’m suggesting McGee do something for the Governor and not for himself, but I believe that for McGee to have gotten to where he’s gotten in life, he has to be politically astute enough to realize it’d be better if he did not return to the administration.