Wilkerson, a lawmaker and a lawyer, has accumulated a record of ethical and legal transgressions too significant to ignore. Her dismissal of these violations as “accounting errors” doesn’t stand up to Attorney General Martha Coakley’s declaration of a “pattern of conduct that frankly seems capable of repetition” and demand for increased monitoring of Wilkerson’s campaign finances to prevent future abuses. More troubling than the violations is her attitude. Instead of publicly accepting blame and expressing remorse, she disrespects the law, the whole notion of obeying the law. What example does this set for young people who look to her as a role model?
Wilkerson’s failings extend into her legislative life, where she quietly files for favors to various business interests. For example, she keeps trying to funnel subsidies to the Columbus Center project; but the “community benefits package” she is chasing is illusory, and her claim that Columbus would create sustainable employment for her out-of-work constituents doesn’t jibe with the project’s real job estimates. Her rationale is that since we waste millions in public funds on other boondoggles, she’s willing to waste millions here, because even a few low-paying dead-end jobs look good to the unemployed. But this is not a path to community uplift. This strategy perpetuates a “grab-bag” conception of the budget process that corrupts the government, dissipates our taxes and leaves only crumbs for the basic community infrastructure that will really help, such as education, housing, health care and transportation. Why doesn’t she fight to stop all the corporate welfare and direct the money to those community needs?
Similarly, she has always accepted the high-risk bioterror lab, again for the “jobs,” but her expectations for constituent employment opportunities in this highly specialized bio-defense facility are simply unrealistic. Ironically, the original development plan for the project site was reduced by 300,000 square feet when the bio-terror lab, with its spacious security-buffer needs, was added. The manufacturing uses included in that plan would have provided hundreds of well-paying jobs at the site for her constituents, without risk to their lives. Why wasn’t she fighting for that?
She has supported community-opposed expansion by Northeastern University into the neighborhood, again on unsubstantiated promises of “jobs” and “community benefits.”
She quietly inserted a provision into the economic stimulus package of 2006 to give all control of the Central Artery Greenway park to a private business group.
She voted against clean election financing on three measures overwhelmingly approved by her constituents. A review of her campaign donations reveals heavy support from the development industry (and much donor information is missing).
True, to Dianne’s credit, she has supported gay rights, as would Sonia. But the massmarrier blog, pondering unending and unconditional gratitude from the gay community, has summarized her legislative work thus: “She is eager to claim credit for bills she voted for or came in as a mass co-sponsor when they were rolling. It is very hard to find any she originates or is lead sponsor for. She has been pretty good at finding places to insert earmarks, not coincidentally, for each of her neighborhoods and major constituencies. She’s a piggypacker. …Others did the work and where she delivered the bacon, it was as an add-on tucked in the legislation of others.”
Dianne Wilkerson reportedly does “bring home the bacon,” especially to black organizations. The relatively small money she brings to the impoverished black community may be a helpful “share-the-wealth” for a few groups and individuals. But look at her fifteen-year term: Has she uplifted the black community as a whole? Has she been creating the underpinnings for long-term political and economic self-sufficiency with fundamental education, industrial development, environmental justice and land-use reforms?
Faustian bargains with developers and bacon-bringing politics are short-sighted strategies that keep poor people resigned to a cynical and self-defeating strategy of going along with big-ticket boondoggles so they can grab for scraps. And I think all the politicians who endorse Dianne really know this. We shouldn’t settle for so little. We should focus on big-picture needs and structural change in resource distribution. We need principled leaders to stand up against both waste and inequity. Sonia promises to be a hawk for transparency, efficiency, honesty, and accountability.
Sonia’s message is about long-term investments in critical community infrastructure that would work for all of us, rather than treating the budget as a grab-bag of goodies. She talks about improving public education, housing security, health care affordability, smart growth and transit. A former urban school teacher and the daughter of a social worker and of the first Latino astronaut in America’s space program, she wants to give the next generation a more hopeful vision for their own future.
To accomplish these goals, she points out, we need leadership with ethics and accountability to counter growing public cynicism and inspire confidence in our government. We need high expectations, high standards for public leaders who represent us in the state house; we need leadership to be proud of. I think this is the basic idea in this campaign. Values and issues have to be combined with ethics and accountability, to get an electorate willing to invest in the big solutions for our communities.
Sonia’s parents (like mine) emphasized the importance of trying to what is not possible. In truth, only if we try for the impossible will we get to the necessary.
I am so tied to this lie about jobs around the Level 4 Biolab. There will be just as many jobs if it remains a level 3 lab, and the entire population of Greater Boston need not be put at risk.
I meant Congratulations. I have become too dependant on spellcheck.
I think it will help Sonia. Has anyone had the idea that Dianne might consider running as an independent in November if she loses in the primary? Voter turnout will likely be massive amongst her core constituents in November. Just a thought though…
I am a supporter of hers, and I feel her contributions as the only African American (let alone black female) in the state senate have been completely overlooked and ignored in this debate, but if she loses the primary, I would encourage her to accept defeat gracefully. She will still be seen as a historic figure and will surely be welcomed to speak out about her life and her experiences, and will be seen as having paid for her mistakes, and they will hopefully no longer be rubbed in her face should she lose. I hope she wins the primary. If she does lose and then pulls a Lieberman, however, I would have to withdraw my support from her completely.
<
p>On another note, I hope that Byron Rushing graduates to the State Senate soon. Hopefully a spot will open up for him in the not too distant future.
So shame on Governor Patrick, Mayor Menino and Congressman Capuano for taping robocall messages in support of reelecting someone as ethically challenged as Wilkerson to the Senate. If anyone receives these calls, please PLEASE post a copy of the audio to bluemassgroup so we all can hear what it sounds like when politicians who should know better talk out of both sides of their mouths.
My long time colleague in the battle for social, economic and racial justice, Shirley Kessel says,
<
p>
<
p>And then goes on to detail some legitimate differences she has with some of Diane’s position on issues, some of Diane’s use of legislative rules to amend bills and budgets, and some of Diane’s failures to meet the filing deadlines on her personal and campaign finances.
<
p>I am supporting Dianne’s re election bid, not only because she’s our only Black Senator and is a bright and charismatic figure but because she is a master (mistress?) of the legislative process and been able to advance hundreds of positive policy changes through amendments and earmarks over the last 12 years that have measurably improved the lives of her constituents AND the Commonwealth. And she has never been afraid to stand up for justice issues, going back 10 years to the debate on gay rights, never mind gay marriage, when it offended key opinion leaders, like Faith leaders, in her own community.
<
p>I find myself in the good company of the Governor, Legislative Leadership and dozens of justice organizations and hundreds of community leaders who know how things get done in the policy making arena, appreciate her hard work and recognize the importance of keeping this effective Legislator in office.
<
p>I daresay I speak for many who wish she would get her damned personal and campaign finances straight, because it makes her look careless or corrupt or both. And she is neither.
<
p>But then, I’m not supporting her because she’s a good book keeper.
<
p>As usual for me, it’s substance over style.
<
p>Fair disclosure. I do not live in Diane’s district, I have contributed to Diane’s campaign. I know Sonia, and know she is a good & smart person and appreciate that she has run a positive campaign detailing her own qualifications and her own positions on issues.
I do think you’re wrong, but I respect your decision and the work that you’ve done. I wish you good luck on Tuesday, but I’m hoping for a Sonia win =)
…with you more, Judy Meredith. I’m with Dianne all the way.
Great comment. I disagree with you. Here’s one reason why, that I hope you’ll consider: When people view their public officials as sloppy & corrupt, it’s not just a personal problem, it also infects people’s faith in government. Progressive reforms need people to believe in government in order to succeed. We need more people to believe government is worthy of support, that we can pool our money together through taxes to do good things for all of us more effectively then if we each tried to do those things separately.
<
p>I’ve seen this in person. I know people who point to Dianne Wilkerson as an example to illustrate their cynicism. I’ve heard people say that Wilkerson is an argument for getting rid of the income tax. I know people refer to Wilkerson to show why they thing “liberals” or “progressives” aren’t as good as they claim to be, that they’re a bunch of “crooks” like everyone else. This really hurts our causes, on substance.
<
p>I’m in favor of second chances. I think everyone fails sometimes and we get more out of people and more for ourselves if we try to help people succeed after they’ve failed. But Wilkerson already blew her second chance, and her third, and the pattern keeps repeating. It’s time for her to put her energy to work in another way, in another place, where she can do so without tarnishing the reputation of government or of progressive politics, and hurting our popular support.
I do appreciate your point that Dianne’s and other public officials’ public behaviors do contribute to the public’s bad attitude toward government.
<
p>Especially when they take public stands on controversial unpopular issues like cori reform, gay rights, progressive tax reform, health disparities, affirmative action, abolishment of capital punishment, abortion rights, etc etc etc.
<
p>I’m also in favor of second chances. I think everyone fails sometimes and we get more out of people and more for ourselves if we try to help people succeed after they’ve failed. And I never give up on good people. Especially when they say they will do their best.
This word you use…”second”…I do not think it means what you think it means.
I’ll never give up on anyone, but at some point people have to be held accountable for their actions. That doesn’t mean we give up on them as people, but that does mean, in this example, that they shouldn’t get stay in the legislature, where they’ll be continuously tempted to abuse the system as they have done in the past.
<
p>Cos is right – if this is all about the fact that she cares about the community and her constituents, there’s other places where she can effectively put her energy that will allow her to continue to make a difference. In the meantime, someone who is fit for office and can effectively advance the progressive movement is primed to win and become a true leader. It’s exactly what we need as a movement – I’m glad the papers have realized that.
Re Judy’s comment: “it’s substance over style.”
<
p>And some people wonder how our country, its government officials, and our collective ethics and have become so debased…
<
p>Please think carefully about the underlying dynamics in this race, especially how young people might view this “substance over style” blather. I’m a mom of 2 young boys and I see this kind of “style” defense as an extremely feeble and embarrassing excuse for a state senator’s repeated illegal and unethical behavior. It hurts us all.
<
p>I urge you to learn about Sonia Chang-Diaz’ policy positions and please consider giving her your vote on Sept 16, and calling the campaign office to help phone bank or lit. drop between now and Tues Sept 16th http://www.soniachangdiaz.com/
“even a few low-paying dead-end jobs look good to the unemployed”
<
p>”Dianne Wilkerson reportedly does “bring home the bacon,” especially to black organizations.”
<
p>”Has she uplifted the black community as a whole?”
<
p>This campaign’s rhetoric is looking more and more like a gentrification tipping-point. Control of the district being carefully but firmly wrested from Roxbury and the old South End.
<
p>I know it’s embarrassing for some progressives to have a state senator who fights for her district in the budget and in dealings w/developers. That’s so Southie. But if, as you say, Sonia eschews such dirty, political, shortsighted activities, I hope she doesn’t take too long to fix “public education, housing security, health care affordability, smart growth and transit.” Because in the meantime, her constituents will lose out.
<
p>The last thing any district wants is to have the most idealistic, least influential lawmaker on Beacon Hill.
Let’s be clear. The post to which you are responding to is not “this campaign’s rhetoric” but rather clearly labeled and from Shirley Kressel. Shirley is a tireless advocate (primarily on development issues) but I’m sure she wouldn’t suggest she is speaking on behalf of the Chang-Diaz campaign.
<
p>Second, I disagree with your assessment that Shirley’s post represents a “gentrification tipping-point.” If there’s one thing Shirley is most known for it is her opposition to gentrification (particularly in Chinatown but truly across the city). In Boston, Shirley’s work has been almost entirely with the “Team Unity” city councilors (the councilors of-color), the Chinese Progressive Association, residents of the “neighborhood formerly know as the West End,” and other opponents of gentrification. If anything, it is the gentrification which would be furthered by the Wilkerson-supported Columbus Center project and the Level 4 BioLab that Shirley objects to the most.
<
p>Third, I think Shirley made perfectly clear that it is Wilkerson’s advocacy for “corporate welfare” (particularly for the Columbus Center Project) that bothers her much more than “fighting for her district in the budget.” Shirley is firmly aligned against the inefficient, ineffective, trickle-down system of giving developers more subsidies and tax breaks in the vain hope that this money will eventually create local jobs. Specific earmarks (like for a local community health center) are also inefficient from a “good government” perspective but Shirley’s criticism isn’t real focused on these as much as corporate welfare issues.
<
p>Finally, let’s be very, very clear on this point. Though “gentrification” often has racial implications, Shirley’s advocacy has always and in this post continues to rightly take race out of the equation when it comes to reasoned political debate.
I didn’t mean to suggest Shirley Kressel is pro-gentrification, but that she, with all the Chang-Diaz endorsers I’ve read, is using condescending rhetoric. The tone of Chang-Diaz support suggests “we” – activists as opposed to politicians and their traditional power bases – have a chance to put one of our own in this senate seat. I don’t see how anyone can deny that given Wilkerson’s base, this would represent a transfer of power in the district, not just from a machine style to an idealistic one, but from, very broadly speaking with lots of exceptions, one group of people to another. Progressives ought to confront the implications of this. You can’t just stipulate it “out of the equation.”
<
p>Look at the SEIU, BTU, and social workers’ endorsements. These are not people who screw around with their members’ interests.
<
p>Opposing outright major developments (sorry, “boondoggles”) in a district this central to the city is quixotic. And if you’re not opposing them, you’d better be bargaining with them.
Yes!!!
<
p>Watching all these progressive organizations line up one behind the other to jump over the cliff and support a serial law breaker has made these past few months look like I’m living in some sort of political bizarro land. At least the newspapers have gotten it right!
<
p>My thoughts were summed up best by Bay Windows. I’m glad I’m not the only one who’s taken the progressive orgs to task.
<
p>
<
p>I also love the fact that the straw that broke the camel’s back for Bay Windows was Wilkerson’s “I’ll try my best” comment at the debate, when asked how she’ll make sure she doesn’t violate campaign finance laws again. Mike had to quote from Star Wars:
<
p>
Which do you think is more likely?
<
p>In 2 years, Sonia Chang-Diaz will have learned to be an effective and knowledgeable senator for her district.
<
p>In 2 years, Dianne Wilkerson will have beat the ethical and judgmental lapses which have repeatedly pushed her afoul of the law.
<
p>I’d take action on the first proposition any day.
It is very clear, by Wilkerson’s response at the ward debate and by her years of campaign finance abuse, that she doesn’t take campaign finance issues seriously. It’s equally clear, through Sonia’s energy, vigor and knowledge, that she’ll become an excellent legislator for the Second Suffolk District and its many citizens.
What do you mean by
… LGBT rights advocates should divide their resources among their current efforts to help Dianne and helping Steve Smith win reelection. The overwhelming bulk of them shouldn’t go to Wilkerson alone.
<
p>But I think they should have endorsed Wilkerson over Chang-Diaz.
With some of our strongest leaders for LGBT equality in the Senate having departed (Jarrett Barrios) or about to leave (Ed Augustus), we need more than ever someone who puts equality at the top of their agenda and who has the leadership abilities, clout and persuasive skills necessary to get matters of social justice and equality taken seriously.
<
p>Many legislators vote the right way and say the right things publicly. But the real decisions — which bills gets voted on and which die in committee; which programs get funding increases and which don’t — almost always get made behind closed doors. They get made based on one’s persuasiveness with the Senate President and her leadership team, and on one’s leadership and willingness to speak up in the Senate Caucus when all the senators get together.
<
p>Dianne Wilkerson is one of a small handful of legislators who always pushes her colleagues to do what’s right for the LGBT community both publicly and behind closed doors. And when she speaks, her colleagues listen.
<
p>Dianne is why the 1913 law is no longer on our books today, and she is a key reason why we expect to see a transgender non-discrimination bill signed into law next year.
<
p>I encourage you to watch Dianne’s speech at the 2004 Constitutional Convention. (It is 10 minutes long. If you only have a few minutes, I suggest you watch minutes 7-10). Mind you, she gave this talk before marriage equality was such a popular position, and in the face of strong opposition from the Black Ministerial Alliance. From it, I think you’ll get some perspective on the voice that she brings to matters of equality and justice.
<
p>Also, please look over the names of those who have signed the statement Why We Support Senator Dianne Wilkerson. These are the advocates, lawyers, and legislators who have led our community’s fights for HIV/AIDS funding; protection for our youth, seniors, and transgender citizens; and full marriage equality for many years.
<
p>Quite simply, we need Dianne to lead our efforts to secure justice and equality for the LGBT community, now and into the future.
<
p>Thanks for listening.
<
p>Marc Solomon
Executive Director
You know I greatly respect what you do and everything that MassEquality’s done for this state, but this is one case in which MassEquality’s wrong. For starters, Sonia’s made every indication that she’ll push just as strongly for our agenda as Wilkerson has. Her work as an aide in the State House proves as much, especially given which office she worked for. She’ll quickly fit in at Beacon Hill and do just as much behind the scenes as your accounts of Sen. Wilkerson.
<
p>Furthermore, the damage Dianne Wilkerson does to our entire movement through her violations and poor judgments extends far beyond what she does for us behind closed doors. If enough people think our government is filled with a bunch of crooks, we can kiss all the GLBT funding MassEquality was so key in securing in the legislature goodbye – because the income tax repeal will pass. For obvious reasons, we can’t let that happen, or there will be less funds to counter school bullying, for HIV/AIDS and for countless other projects that affect the GLBT community.
Let’s see… I’m a straight guy whose put his ass on the line for gay rights and civil liberties in general (actually got fired once for sticking up for a gay colleague). I’ve pounded pavement and doors for affordable housing and pay equity and environmental justice and a host of other issues that Dianne has been on the right side of. I’ve also had my share of financial problems over the years. Does that mean my finely honed political ideals should get me a pass on ethics, mortgage payments or campaign finance oversight were I entrusted with public office? Of course not!
<
p>The fact is that Dianne has repeatedly screwed up big time and the best thing we can do for her is to help her move on.
<
p>Marc, I was there for Dianne’s speech. And I too was moved. But that wasn’t what carried the day on gay marriage. It was the thousands of vocal, fair minded citizen volunteers and organizers like you and me who made legislators do the right thing.
<
p>I understand the simple code that requires politicians to repay prior support. But, really, what’s the limit here… if campaign finance violations, perjury and tax evasion aren’t a problem, what is?
<
p>Massequality owes Dianne it’s gratitude and respect, but it doesn’t “need” her. What it does need is a reputation for high ethical standards.
Marc, the argument that we continue to owe Dianne is overplayed. We paid her back each time we donated to her campaigns, spoke up in her defense (the first, second, third and more times), and particularly when we re-elected her. She took full advantage of her position and more, and then figuratively spit on voters.
<
p>Are GLBT functionaries and politicians that afraid of change — even for the better? Dianne got well repaid, repeatedly, for her votes. She had not repaid us with accountability, honesty and trust.
<
p>She never once apologized or even accepted responsibility for her myriad failures. From voters to Bay Windows editors and beyond, she got far more slack than she earned. For all the years she had one opening after another to show she was worthy of trust, and even to gain it back. We know what she did with those chances.
<
p>It grieves me when a progressive politician in a state with far too many DINOs lets her personality ruin her political effectiveness.
watches her “bad” behaviors undermine the confidence and respect of progressive supporters who abandon her because they fail to understand that her political effectiveness has not been harmed at all because political power still rests almost entirely in the hands of key leaders in the administration and the legislature and in the city who all recognize & respect her because of 12 years of hard won accomplishments in advancing causes championed by the progressive community.
re “her political effectiveness has not been harmed at all because political power still rests almost entirely in the hands of key leaders”
<
p>what a mess our politics is if this is “good news”
<
p>vote for chang-diaz to help return politics to the people! what we don’t need is to continue to sacrifice our own and our kids’ future to bought-and-paid for “key leaders” and their corporate cronies interests.
Hear, hear!
Thanks for the responses about my post about Wilkerson. A few quick thoughts:
<
p>First, we have gone beyond endorsing Dianne and have made her race an important priority. We have done so not because we owe her but because we depend on her leadership to make progress happen for the LGBT community. One important example: when we decided we wanted to move the 1913 repeal after California began allowing out-of-state couples to marry, there were senators that were grousing-it’s too close to an election; do we have to take another gay vote this session; haven’t we done enough for you guys this session; etc. It was Dianne’s relentlessness and her ability to speak in a way that gets her colleagues to listen that enabled us to knock down these concerns and move the repeal anyway.
<
p>I agree with the post that it wasn’t a speech that enabled us to protect marriage equality-by her or anyone else. But I can tell you that having her extremely well-respected and persuasive voice behind those closed doors with Terry Murray and, before that, Bob Travaglini, made a huge difference. I show the speech to remind people of the power of Dianne’s words when she is speaking from her heart and why she is such a persuasive and effective legislator on behalf of the LGBT community-and quite frankly, all dispossessed communities in Massachusetts.
<
p>Mistakes and all (and she has made her share of them, no question), Dianne continues to be a powerful voice of leadership and justice in the State House-one that I believe would be tangibly harmful to our cause to lose.
<
p>Marc
… but please, spare something for Stat Smith, as well. That was the one thing Bay Windows correctly noted in their article.
Just a quick note on Stat Smith….Bay Windows got that wrong. We did a thorough (and expensive) poll in that district and are acting accordingly (we have not shared the results, and don’t plan to). Our field staff has been in close touch with Stat, and we’ve helped him out everywhere he has asked. We always stand by our pro-equality legislators who are in tough races.
<
p>Best,
<
p>Marc
whatever became of the supposed investigations of DiMasi and associates?