I just can’t fathom why. I’m not a Democrat, but it boggles my mind how you folks let him stay in office. The “innocent until proven guilty” line just doesn’t wash here.
Everyone knows liberals don’t really care about something unless there are puppets.
huhsays
The local wingnuts seem to have confused the BMG denizens with French Revolutionaries. Clearly David, Bob, and Charley should be conducting their own Reign of Terror every AM, preferably after their daily Mea Culpa for any misstep by any liberal, anywhere.
<
p>Now where did I put that guillotine?
kbuschsays
Thank you!
christophersays
A quick read of the MA Constitution did not turn out a provision for expulsion like the federal Constitution has. The Senate President can strip him of his chairmanship, but that is all. There is also no recall provision in our state. There really is nobody to “let” him stay or not. The session is over anyway at this point.
eaboclippersays
to get Terry Murray to do so. To strip him of the chairmanship. I was scoffed at by a liberal on RMG when I suggested that Terry Murray strip him of the chairmanship and save the taxpayers 5/12 of the $7500 in extra money he receives per annum.
<
p>Also if the State Senate follows Roberts Rules there is a provision to remove him from the senate in Roberts Rules. Just saying.
huhsays
…it’s hard to tell which RMG discussion you’re referring to you. I’m going to guess it’s this most recent one where “Wirklichkeit” mocks you, not for the suggestion, but for your over the top posting style.
<
p>As David already pointed out, the owners of this site have called on him to design. So have others here. What more do you want?
garysays
As David already pointed out, the owners of this site have called on him to design.
<
p>Makes sense. He’ll need a job outside of politics.
I never thought anyone would ever find out that we, the people of BMG, are the ones who are in charge of the pursar’s office at the State House. Why, I called Senator Murray just last night to make sure that Marzilli’s in office for years to come. Then we chatted about renting out a tv studio so we could film a Massachusetts trip to the moon. And after that we bought millions of roles of tin foil, to give away for free at the state house, for people who believe all these things.
Nancy Pelosi just called and told me to corrall you, Ryan. You’ve said too much already. Next you’ll be telling them about the all the secret reasons why BMG is letting Bush, Ted Stevens, Gordon Brown, and Vladimir Putin stay in office.
If Jim Marzilli were a private-sector employee, he would be on paid administrative leave pending disposition of the case. In this case, Marzilli is (in effect) on paid administrative leave until the expiration of his term at the end of the year, and his case won’t be heard until early next year.
<
p>Given the medical component here, I would say that allowing him to maintain his salary and medical benefits until the end of the year is a humane way to deal with a long-serving employee with a serious problem.
garysays
As David already pointed out, the owners of this site have called on him to design.
<
p>That’s a broad generalization.
<
p>Practically, and depending on the employer, he’d be given the bum’s rush out the door or at best be given unpaid leave.
<
p>It’s hard to imagine what capitalist motivation a private employer would have to keep expensive baggage on hand: employee not working and employee creates bad press and employee costing employer salary. Keep him? Doubt it.
garysays
Pasted wrong quote. Correct one is,
<
p>
If Jim Marzilli were a private-sector employee, he would be on paid administrative leave pending disposition of the case.
laurelsays
at what some private employers put up with in terms of costly and unproductive employees. some employers will not dump an employee until there is 6-12 months of documented problems and proof that the employee was given a program for redemption but failed. in the high-paced workplace, supervisors don’t always have time to document properly, and so poor performers can hang on for years.
johndsays
Then they follow it regardless of the particulars. If they are arrested for a misdemeanor then this happens (a. b. c.) or if a felon (a. b. d.) or if mentally hampered (d. e. .f).
<
p>Following these standard rules would remove some political whipping and/or ambiguity if there was an infraction from a member of “your” party or the “other” party.
<
p>PS Example actions – a. lose voting privileges. b. Lose pay check c. Lose chairmanship…
laurelsays
have you mentioned it to your legislators, and what did they say?
christophersays
There is always a risk of penalizing constituents in the process. Example A above especially produces this result. I’d be open to amending the Constitution to put in an expulsion provision like the federal government has. I do think an actual conviction should be the standard if charged with a crime. There’s also the timing question as in this case session is over and there’s not time to hold a special election that would be worth anything. I think there should be options to get rid of someone, but in general I think it should be left to an ad hoc judgement rather than absolutes.
cambridge_paulsays
Why not draft a statute and have your State Rep. and Senator sponsor it?
publiussays
When South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson was incapacitated for months, few called on him to resign. Yes, a bunch of Republicans hoped he would resign (or would, er, otherwise vacate the seat), so they could install one of their own, but people understood that he was sick and that it’s wrong to try to drive a sick person from office.
<
p>What’s different in the Marzilli case? Three things:
<
p>1) the illness in question is mental;
<
p>2) it has a sexual component to it; and
<
p>3) some don’t believe it’s a real illness.
<
p>My thoughts on these:
<
p>1) Mental illness is just as real, and can be just as debilitating, as physical ailments. Our society has been slow to recognize this.
<
p>2) What Marzilli is accused of is distasteful, socially unacceptable, and often (though maybe not in this case) quite harmful to its victims. But if this is a case of mental illness, and not just some horny legislator — and Marzilli’s reputation on this score was impeccable for more than a decade — see point 1, above.
<
p>3) Who knows? I’m not a doctor, most of us at BMG aren’t, and in any event we aren’t examining and treating Marzilli. Until we have more evidence about what caused the bizarre behavior alleged — and its very bizarreness makes mental illness the most likely explanation — I think it is premature to call for his resignation.
<
p>
eury13says
I’d be careful about diminishing the level of harm Marzilli has done to his victims. Attempted groping isn’t as bad as other possibilities, but it can still be traumatic to those on the receiving end.
<
p>Tim Johnson had a stroke. No crime was committed, either tangential to, or as a result of, his stroke.
<
p>We should do more to recognize the serious, medical nature of mental illness, but there are too many differences to me to see the two situations as comparable.
<
p>The other factor is that the legislative session is over. Marzilli isn’t running for re-election. His staff is handing constituent matters. Whether or not he remains in office is completely inconsequential except for the fact that he’s still getting paid.
<
p>He only serves himself by staying in office. No one else. For that reason, it’s time to resign.
You mean the ones who keep calling on him to resign?
<
p>What exactly would you have us do?
Everyone knows liberals don’t really care about something unless there are puppets.
The local wingnuts seem to have confused the BMG denizens with French Revolutionaries. Clearly David, Bob, and Charley should be conducting their own Reign of Terror every AM, preferably after their daily Mea Culpa for any misstep by any liberal, anywhere.
<
p>Now where did I put that guillotine?
Thank you!
A quick read of the MA Constitution did not turn out a provision for expulsion like the federal Constitution has. The Senate President can strip him of his chairmanship, but that is all. There is also no recall provision in our state. There really is nobody to “let” him stay or not. The session is over anyway at this point.
to get Terry Murray to do so. To strip him of the chairmanship. I was scoffed at by a liberal on RMG when I suggested that Terry Murray strip him of the chairmanship and save the taxpayers 5/12 of the $7500 in extra money he receives per annum.
<
p>Also if the State Senate follows Roberts Rules there is a provision to remove him from the senate in Roberts Rules. Just saying.
…it’s hard to tell which RMG discussion you’re referring to you. I’m going to guess it’s this most recent one where “Wirklichkeit” mocks you, not for the suggestion, but for your over the top posting style.
<
p>As David already pointed out, the owners of this site have called on him to design. So have others here. What more do you want?
<
p>Makes sense. He’ll need a job outside of politics.
I never thought anyone would ever find out that we, the people of BMG, are the ones who are in charge of the pursar’s office at the State House. Why, I called Senator Murray just last night to make sure that Marzilli’s in office for years to come. Then we chatted about renting out a tv studio so we could film a Massachusetts trip to the moon. And after that we bought millions of roles of tin foil, to give away for free at the state house, for people who believe all these things.
Nancy Pelosi just called and told me to corrall you, Ryan. You’ve said too much already. Next you’ll be telling them about the all the secret reasons why BMG is letting Bush, Ted Stevens, Gordon Brown, and Vladimir Putin stay in office.
If Jim Marzilli were a private-sector employee, he would be on paid administrative leave pending disposition of the case. In this case, Marzilli is (in effect) on paid administrative leave until the expiration of his term at the end of the year, and his case won’t be heard until early next year.
<
p>Given the medical component here, I would say that allowing him to maintain his salary and medical benefits until the end of the year is a humane way to deal with a long-serving employee with a serious problem.
<
p>That’s a broad generalization.
<
p>Practically, and depending on the employer, he’d be given the bum’s rush out the door or at best be given unpaid leave.
<
p>It’s hard to imagine what capitalist motivation a private employer would have to keep expensive baggage on hand: employee not working and employee creates bad press and employee costing employer salary. Keep him? Doubt it.
Pasted wrong quote. Correct one is,
<
p>
at what some private employers put up with in terms of costly and unproductive employees. some employers will not dump an employee until there is 6-12 months of documented problems and proof that the employee was given a program for redemption but failed. in the high-paced workplace, supervisors don’t always have time to document properly, and so poor performers can hang on for years.
Then they follow it regardless of the particulars. If they are arrested for a misdemeanor then this happens (a. b. c.) or if a felon (a. b. d.) or if mentally hampered (d. e. .f).
<
p>Following these standard rules would remove some political whipping and/or ambiguity if there was an infraction from a member of “your” party or the “other” party.
<
p>PS Example actions – a. lose voting privileges. b. Lose pay check c. Lose chairmanship…
have you mentioned it to your legislators, and what did they say?
There is always a risk of penalizing constituents in the process. Example A above especially produces this result. I’d be open to amending the Constitution to put in an expulsion provision like the federal government has. I do think an actual conviction should be the standard if charged with a crime. There’s also the timing question as in this case session is over and there’s not time to hold a special election that would be worth anything. I think there should be options to get rid of someone, but in general I think it should be left to an ad hoc judgement rather than absolutes.
Why not draft a statute and have your State Rep. and Senator sponsor it?
When South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson was incapacitated for months, few called on him to resign. Yes, a bunch of Republicans hoped he would resign (or would, er, otherwise vacate the seat), so they could install one of their own, but people understood that he was sick and that it’s wrong to try to drive a sick person from office.
<
p>What’s different in the Marzilli case? Three things:
<
p>1) the illness in question is mental;
<
p>2) it has a sexual component to it; and
<
p>3) some don’t believe it’s a real illness.
<
p>My thoughts on these:
<
p>1) Mental illness is just as real, and can be just as debilitating, as physical ailments. Our society has been slow to recognize this.
<
p>2) What Marzilli is accused of is distasteful, socially unacceptable, and often (though maybe not in this case) quite harmful to its victims. But if this is a case of mental illness, and not just some horny legislator — and Marzilli’s reputation on this score was impeccable for more than a decade — see point 1, above.
<
p>3) Who knows? I’m not a doctor, most of us at BMG aren’t, and in any event we aren’t examining and treating Marzilli. Until we have more evidence about what caused the bizarre behavior alleged — and its very bizarreness makes mental illness the most likely explanation — I think it is premature to call for his resignation.
<
p>
I’d be careful about diminishing the level of harm Marzilli has done to his victims. Attempted groping isn’t as bad as other possibilities, but it can still be traumatic to those on the receiving end.
<
p>Tim Johnson had a stroke. No crime was committed, either tangential to, or as a result of, his stroke.
<
p>We should do more to recognize the serious, medical nature of mental illness, but there are too many differences to me to see the two situations as comparable.
<
p>The other factor is that the legislative session is over. Marzilli isn’t running for re-election. His staff is handing constituent matters. Whether or not he remains in office is completely inconsequential except for the fact that he’s still getting paid.
<
p>He only serves himself by staying in office. No one else. For that reason, it’s time to resign.