Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

My opinion of the bio-lab proposal

By

Correction: Because of a reporting error, a story in yesterday’s City & Region section on the race between Dianne Wilkerson and Sonia Chang-Diaz for Wilkerson’s state Senate seat incorrectly reported a quotation from Wilkerson in a debate. She had said, “It doesn’t matter how many jobs [are created], if you do not have a CORI [Criminal Offender Record Information] you will not be working at a casino.” In addition, the story said that both candidates support the planned Boston University biolab for their district. Chang-Diaz does not.

Sonia

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Wilkerson, a State Senator, works for the state and not, of course, the City of Boston.  

      <

      p>However, it sounds like you would be disappointed to learn that the City of Boston has a very “liberal” CORI policy for all potential employees and even requires those doing business with the City (vendors) to have policies consistent with the City standards.

      <

      p>Except for extremely sensitive jobs (those working primarily unsupervised and with children or the elderly), the City of Boston does not conduct a CORI check on an Applicant unless a CORI check is required by law. The City reviews the qualifications of an Applicant and determines that an Applicant is otherwise qualified for the relevant position before the City conducts a CORI check. The City provides the Applicant with a copy of their COR and provides and opportunity for correction and explanation. The City makes final employment-related decisions based on all of the information available to the City, including the seriousness, relevance, age and number of the crime(s).

      <

      p>A copy of the City Ordinance on CORI and venders is available here: http://www.nelp.org/docuploads…

      <

      p>So, nice try but I’m fairly certain the Senator’s misdemeanor tax convictions would not be a bar to her getting a City job.

      <

      p>I, for one, am pleased by that fact and that the City has such a wise and fair CORI process.

      • You are right that I am disappointed in both the city and the state in having “liberal” rules on CORI. maybe I am a stuffy Republican but based on the below conviction summary of her 4 Federal crimes, her sentence and temporary disbarment, I really have to wonder if we couldn’t find someone a little more honest (after all she was a lawyer when she committed these crimes). And I wouldn’t care what party she was in at the time.

        <

        p>So other than working with the elderly and children, no CORI is run. Does that mean convicted Rapist could be a Rape Counselor? Convicted embezzler could work for the State Controller? Drunk drivers as bus drivers? Maybe I missed something?

        <

        p>On December 5, 1997, the respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts of four counts of willful failure to file Federal income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. The respondent was sentenced to twenty-four months of probation with six months to be served in home detention, and she was fined $2,000.

        <

        p>On June 4, 1998, Bar Counsel filed a petition for discipline based on the respondent’s convictions, alleging that the crimes were “serious” as defined by S. J. C. Rule 4:01, § 12, and that the respondent’s conduct violation Canon One, DR 1-102(A)(4) and (6). On April 16, 1998, the respondent and Bar Counsel filed a stipulation in which the respondent admitted to the allegations of the petition for discipline and joined with Bar Counsel in recommending a six-month suspension as appropriate discipline. The Board of Bar Overseers adopted the parties’ stipulation by a vote taken on May 11, 1998, and, on June 4, 1998, the Board filed an Information with the Court recommending a six-month suspension.

        <

        p>The terms of the respondent’s home confinement required her to be in her home from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. each day of the week. On April 27, 1998, the respondent, a Massachusetts State Senator, sent a handwritten letter to the Federal court requesting permission to attend the annual banquet of the Massachusetts Black Legislative Caucus from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The respondent did not send a copy of this letter to opposing counsel. The Federal court denied the request, holding that the 9:00 p.m. curfew “has already taken into consideration the need to carry out [the respondent’s] duties as an elected official….To grant the request would make it appear that [the respondent has] been accorded special treatment because of [her] public position.”

        <

        p>Between April 27, 1998, and June 8, 1998, the respondent violated the terms of her probation by attending extended sessions of the Massachusetts Senate. On June 12, 1998, the Federal court found that the respondent had violated the 9:00 p.m. curfew established as part of her home confinement. The court imposed again the term of probation and added the requirement that she serve thirty days in a halfway house.

        <

        p>On June 26, 1998, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County remanded the bar discipline matter involving the respondent to the Board of Bar Overseers for such further proceedings as deemed necessary. On October 15, 1998, following the respondent’s waiver of hearing and assent, the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County entered an order of temporary suspension. On January 28, 1999, the respondent and Bar Counsel filed a stipulation which proposed a one-year suspension retroactive to the date of the temporary suspension. On February 8, 1999, the Board voted to accept the joint recommendation but to add a condition prohibiting the respondent from filing a petition for reinstatement before the termination of probation in her criminal case. On March 19, 1999, the Single Justice entered an order suspending the respondent from the practice of law for one year retroactive to October 15, 1998, and further ordering that no petition for reinstatement be filed before December 5, 1999, the date of the termination of probation in the respondent’s criminal matter.

          • Just think of all the politicians who have insulted our intelligence, the judicial system and ethics/morality but still been elected and reelected to office. If this is the only test regarding an elected official then maybe we should never criticize them nor should there be ANY rules or laws concerning the nominated official. Should former Rapists be allowed to run for office? How about 12 year kids? How about someone currently incarcerated? Down south during and before the civil rights movement there were terrible people holding office who should never have been elected (like former KKK member Democratic Sen Byrd), but I guess you are right about the people having the option. Wilkerson certainly is not the worst person in the world to have that office, but are you saying the district cannot find anyone better? SAD!!!  

            • Should former Rapists be allowed to run for office?

              <

              p>Yes.

              <

              p>

              How about 12 year kids?

              <

              p>Middle School Class President?  Yes.  Public office?  No.

              <

              p>

              How about someone currently incarcerated?

              <

              p>Yes.  He or she should be allowed to vote too, unless convicted of an election crime.

              <

              p>

              Down south during and before the civil rights movement there were terrible people holding office who should never have been elected (like former KKK member Democratic Sen Byrd)

              <

              p>Unless you’re accusing Senator Byrd and other “terrible people holding office” of election fraud, then they absolutely should have been elected.  Welcome to democracy.

              • they would be rolling in their graves. But I  do hope that people with similar views as you continue to espouse them as it will eventually lead to the demise of the Liberal party. Most Americans are level headed and fair minded. If there was ever a tragedy concerning an ex-convict working for the state with vulnerable people, people would want heads to roll. Never-mind, don’t bother responding, I’m sure you would ok with anything.

                • Our forefathers didn’t disallow [white male] prisoners or ex-cons from voting.  That’s a modern tradition.

                  <

                  p>Never-mind, don’t bother with the facts, I’m sure you would be ok with anything.

                • I had completely forgot about the huge vote back in 2000 to strip these animals of this wonderful right. We Republicans need all the help we can get in MA and I’m sure the vast majority of prisoners would vote Democratic (if the could vote that is).

                  <

                  p>Once again I have learned something new. Thanks Stomv.

                • And for the most part, that is quite a good thing.  I disagree with stomv that currently incarcerated felons should retain the right to vote; I have no quarrel with the recently-adopted amendment disallowing that.  But in general, restrictions on participation in democracy should be viewed with far more skepticism than “our forefathers” chose to employ.

              • Bag of shit!!!

                <

                p>How about someone currently incarcerated?

                <

                p>

                Yes.  He or she should be allowed to vote too, unless convicted of an election crime.

            • No I did not say anything resembling that the district can not find anyone better.  There is someone running against her this time.  I would suggest if Senator Wilkerson offends you so much that you send some money and support to her challenger Sonia Chang-Diaz.  That is the way Democracy works.  You could work to change the law so that Senator Wilkerson is not allowed to run or you can work to help her opponent win.  Ms. Chang-Diaz would make a very fine Senator and until the law changes, helping her is the best way you have to remove the Senator from office.

  2. Does anyone remember anthrax going through the mails?  Anyone the deaths caused and the fear instigated?  Anyone remember the FBI can’t or won’t catch the perpetrators?  

    <

    p>Why would anyone in their right minds want to put that in any city?  I’m astounded that anyone would want this.  What are people thinking?  

    <

    p>”Aw, gosh!  Our government ain’t gonna tell us no lies.”

    <

    p>Wanna put it in a city?  How’s ’bout D.C.?

  3. I followed the link, and there is no discussion of the bio-lab in this story. Mostly it is just the signature issue. Since the Globe is printing a correction, did they edit the original mistake out of the current story at this link?

  4. I have been following this idiotic proposal to put a bio-lab in a densely populated section of Boston for over 3 years now, and I have come to the conclusion that there is not now, nor has there ever been, any credible science to support this insanity. As such, any elected official who has come to the conclusion that this is safe is either misinformed, delusional, or dangerous. I can and will never support anyone who thinks this is a good idea, and I sincerely hope that Chang-Diaz is elected, if for no other reason than to help stop this potential deadly foolishness. Go Sonia.

  5. Let’s for a moment put aside the obvious retardedness of placing something as dangerous in a highly populated area.

    <

    p>There is big profit in bio-engineered weapons “in this post 911 world”.
    http://www.wakeupfromyourslumb…

    <

    p>The second benefit comes in the plausibility of an evacuate now notice from your friendly goons at Homeboy Security.

Archives