Today, Boston voters go to the polls to choose between Tom Menino and Michael Flaherty as their mayor for the next four years.
Today, AG Coakley’s office is still investigating to determine if Menino’s chief of policy Michael Kineavy intentionally destroyed public records, some of which may have been responsive to a subpoena in a Federal government corruption case.
AG Coakley chose to remain out of the investigation early in September despite three written requests for her office to investigate. Her office became “involved” (and refused to explain the nature of its involvement) when Secretary of State Galvin faced some stonewalling by Menino people in City Hall. Finally, Coakley’s office took up the investigation late in October and immediately announced it would not be done by Election Day.
The Attorney General’s decision to delay its investigation appears to have contributed to the result that Boston voters do not know if their incumbent mayor has corrupt government practices occurring at the highest levels of his administration.
To the uninitiated, by which I mean those of us without an understanding of how investigations are conducted (which law enforcement agency has responsibility and/or authority and the standard to initiate an investigation as well as what information can be released during an investigation) what appears to be unreasonable may not be so. So I ask those who know to please speak up.
In his endorsement for Michael Flaherty for Mayor City of Boston, Kevin McCrea cited the following reason,
…it came down to the elimination of the BRA. I believe that the institution of the BRA has outlived its usefulness, that it is non-democratic, and that it is corrupt and that it breeds corruption, and that the rich use it as a tool to take advantage of the rest of us.
Also in his endorsement, Kevin McCrea makes this assertion, which is directly on topic with the subject of this diary:
Right before the second debate I got wind of some illegal building activity that seemed to have inspectors looking the other way for some connected people on Temple Place. It really threw me off, as I reported the information I found out to the FBI and the head of ISD that day. I have learned all too well that the Democrats voted to enforce the laws, the DA and the AG will not enforce the laws on their fellow Democrats in this state. It is no coincidence that only the Federal Authorities have found any corruption at the State House and at City Hall.
Do we have a problem in the Commonwealth with public officials’ accountability to the rule of law? If so, what should be done about it?
By that I mean are there certain criteria which if met require the involvement with the AG (and if so what are they), or is it nothing more than if the AG feels like it? Is she, for example, required to investigate if a certain fraction of the legislature, a DA, city council, or another constitutional officer formally petition her to do so?
Even if the AG had gotten involved earlier, the investigation would still not be done by now, so what’s the big deal?
discuss.