At long last, the Boston Globe is starting to look into the background of Guy Glodis. Today’s article by Frank Phillips, entitled Glodis left loan source off his state ethics filing, expands upon the questionable loan that I talked about in my Guy Glodis Top 10 List. I give the Globe free license to use any of the other information in my post to expose Guy Glodis for what he really is.
Can anyone seriously believe that Guy Glodis, with this shady background, is qualified to be State Auditor? I’m sure that Mary Connaughton is licking her chops at the chance to go up against Guy Glodis and his hideous record.
Disclosure: I support Suzanne Bump for Auditor, the one progressive candidate who can beat Guy Glodis and Mary Connaughton.
Please share widely!
There is but one candidate who has a chance to hold the Auditors seat for the Democrats this year,and there name is neither Guy ‘I’m a future client of Wiley Tom Kiley’ Glodis nor Mike ‘I’ve never run anything so I want to start with 400 folks’ Lake.
Republican Mary ‘quite the contrarian’ Conaughton is licking her lips of the prospect of either of these two stiffs emerging as the Democrat nominee…
The Dem Mary fears, and we ought to support, is Suzanne Bump!
She’s actually got a clue and is smart, fearless, feisty and unafraid.
The choice is ours. Lets not blow it!
Kamal Jain is contesting Mary in the GOP primary. But you sheep will fall into party lockstep when Glodis wins the nomination.
i doubt most here will, either
I’m voting for Connaughton. If Jain wins the Republican primary, I’m not sure who I will vote for, but I will either by Fortune or Jain, not Glodis.
I have a strong, strong suspicion that either of them would just use the office to blast government, rather than trying to do their job. We don’t need any Ministers of Truth, or witch hunts. The job of the State Auditor is to make sure government is running efficiently, not wage a war against government spending.
<
p>Should Glodis win the primary, I’m going to have a very difficult time choosing between Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. I’ve always had the feeling that Mickey’s a Republican and Donald’s a Democrat… so that may be the leading factor.
I’m no fan of the greens, that’s for sure.
I sense some envy in “fall into party lockstep.” It’s understandable these days since all the GOP seems to be able to muster are mobs.
To label them “social gatherings”. Good quote you have there. Describes the democratic party perfectly
is another person’s adherence to core principles. JS.
… the thing about core principals is that principals exist outside of party. The lock step of the GOP isn’t about adhering to core principals. If it was, the GOP congress would have kept Bush II away from the budget. They only care about deficits when Democrats are in power.
Our MAGOP really has no ties to the national Republican party. Unless of course they smell a victory and can do a last minute jump on the bandwagan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
<
p>Fits YOU perfectly toots!
That quote was from 1940. The Democrats were on their way to voting in FDR for his unprecedented third term. His fourth term would come four years later, of course.
<
p>If Harry Reid could have gotten the Democratic senators to behave like zombies, we’d have gotten a whole lot of good done over these past 1.75 years…
Laugh! I’ll laugh at a good Republican joke.
It’s too bad she wasn’t feisty, fearless, and/or unafraid enough actually speak up about DeNucci’s retroactive going away give away to his people. Today’s Globe Editorial calls her (and others) out for the timidity in the face of classic Beacon Hill hackery: “It’s significant that all the candidates, Democrats and Republicans, seem to regard DeNucci, who has been in office for 24 years, as a respectable public servant who nonetheless represents an outmoded approach to being auditor. Giving everyone in the office a goodbye gift at taxpayer’s expense is one tradition that has to end. Bump, Glodis, and Connaughton need to acknowledge it.”
after almost a decade of no raises isn’t a ‘giveaway.’
…according to these three articles, not almost a decade. Not that it matters. The issue is not do the employees deserve a raise. Surely, some do. Maybe even every person in that office deserves a retroactive 5% raise during the worst economy in ages, though probably not really.
<
p>The issue is that handing out goodies to your people on the way on the door is standard operating procedure at many offices of state government, is dishonest, and needs to stop. It’s not the biggest scandal in history, but it’s sad for Bump and Glodis, while running for Auditor no less, to stick with DeNucci on this. After all, Auditor is not supposed to quite so trusting of public officials.
It’s not like those raises could have just funded another line item, and DeNucci was well within his rights to do this. Don’t give me anything like “it looks bad” either. I’ve never had much patience for the politics of appearances and this is much ado about nothing.
Know how that works in most state agencies?
<
p>Late June overtime.
<
p>Not that there’s any work to do – some guys just play cards until 7 pm, and go out for pizza afterwards. It’s a reward that managers and supervisors use to ‘bonus’ friends and lackeys.
<
p>Because, ya see, if ya don’t SPEND it all, then next year, they’ll just cut your line…so, ya wanna hang around Thursday night for a coupla hours?
Can we get some evidence for that allegation, Peter? Something concrete, not just hearsay? I’ve worked in the public sector (and the private sector for just as long), and I’ve never seen that.
It’s not the kind of thing you can ‘link’ to.
I guess it’s the kind of thing folks like you “just know”.
<
p>Sort of the way so many right-wingers “just know” that President Obama is Muslim or “just know” that he’s not a citizen.
We all know that organization will use whatever is budgeted or the next year’s budget will be based on “actual” spend. There is no rule so I don’t know how you could prove it.
and at when the FY turns over.
<
p>Of course, some agencies have seasonal OT. DPW has winter OT due to snow removal and emergencies. I’d bet DOR has OT related to April 15th.
<
p>The flip side is, if I were a manager and I had a long term project that I wanted to get done requiring extra man hours, I might put it off until near the end of the year so I didn’t burn through my extra man hours on a non-urgent project and then find myself short on hours needed right now.
How often do you think it happens in State government where a manager tells his/her superior that his department is too big and he could drop two or tree people from the department? Hmmm… maybe NEVER!
… budget cuts force managers to make such considerations? Like is happening now? Like has happened a lot lately?
And with that answer I’d like to know how that compares to total state employees.
<
p>People are not getting laid off in any significant number at the state. I’m sure there is some politics where they are eliminating departments like DMR but I’m talking about situations where a single department in state government is droping 1 or 2 people out of a 10-20 person department. THAT doesn’t happen is this state… we keep people just to keep people.
<
p>This is how things work in this state…
<
p>
See how much spending occurs in June as opposed to the other 11 months. They ain’t buying mittens and overcoats. Better place to look. See how many parties the age centers are throwing in June. Or office renovations.
…doesn’t mean it no longer matters what happens with the money. Just because there’s extra left over in the budget doesn’t necessarily mean the right thing to is to hand it out retro-active pay raises to all your people…which is why so often these things happen when pols and officials are on their way out the door.
<
p>I agree this particular give-away is relatively minor of itself and not a huge deal. However, taken as a whole, this type of hackery is epidemic around the State House and is a colossal problem…and is actually even the kind of thing a State Auditor might be in the position to do something about.
5% after four years. They’re earning less now than they were in 2006 when you take inflation into account. Stop being a troll.
Sorry, didn’t know that correcting your very off-base claim about this situation with easily verifiable truth qualified one as a troll. Got it.
<
p>BTW- is there a word for a person who quickly resorts to silly name-calling when the facts of their argument are shown to be in error?
I’m to understand that we’re to vote as you suggest because — well just because.
<
p>How very convincing! Now, I know just what to do!
The Republicans would have a field day with Guy Glodis on the ballot. The baggage he brings could harm every one on the Democratic ticket.Mary Connaughton would make him look like a fool.Suzanne Bump is the only one who can beat her.
I’m a Democrat from Arlington, and I’m supporting Suzanne Bump to be nominated in the Sept. 14 primary as our Democratic candidate for state auditor.
<
p>I was glad to receive from the campaign a copy of Ms. Bump’s statement on the irregularities reported by the Boston Globe in Sheriff Glodis’ ethics disclosure reporting.
<
p>I’ve turned the Bump statement into a PDF download and put it on one of my websites. Download the Bump statement (PDF) here.
From the Mass.Gov web site.
.
consider that it’s three years more recent than the Wareham police incident in the Perry controversy. So there isn’t exactly an expiration date on these things.
…a big difference in the category of missteps.
…one was ethics and one was sexual misconduct. I know which is more offensive to me.
Verdict means much more than an “alleged” incident.
Candidate “A” agrees to pay $600.00 to settle a dispute about whether or not a $195.82 evening out, sponsored by a registered lobbyist, was an improperly accepted gift.
<
p>Candidate “B” looks the other way while a fellow cop sexually molests two adolescent girls, then attempts to intimidate the parents of one of them, all while in uniform and on-duty. Candidate “B” can’t remember whether or not he subsequently hired the ex-cop after the perpetrator was convicted and did time for the abuse.
<
p>I guess Peter prefers candidate “B”.
<
p>I’ll take “A”.
I mentioned Perry only in terms of time frame. Christopher referred to his ‘guilt’ and I reminded him he had never been charged.
<
p>What actually triggered my initial comment was Bump making a statement abouth Glodis’ ethics history and demanding an investigation, in view of her own experience.
<
p>Having read the ‘ten points’, it appears that Glodis had OCPF problems, not Ethics ones. Unlike Bump. Unless she had OCPF problems as well.
by suggesting that time elapsed somehow mitigates the gravity of an infraction. We can rightly, I think, criticize Perry irrespective of the time lapsed since the event because of the gravity of that event. It’s hard to claim that Bump’s infraction carries the same ethical or moral weight as Perry’s, no matter how many years have elapsed.
… equivalence. By insinuating that equal time from the crime should have equal influence on our perception of it. For that to be true, the crimes themselves would have to be equivalent. They aren’t, therefore you’re drawing a false equivalence.
I offered no “equivalence”, false or otherwise.
<
p>You introduced “the Perry controversy” to the thread, and you offered the link to “[Suzanne] Bump’s irregularities”.
<
p>I merely finished the comparison that your slimy innuendo invited.
Clearly, Glodis is far beyond unacceptable. I first identified Bump as the best positioned to challenge him in the primary, but meeting Lake in person convinced me he was actually the best Democrat for the job. The lack of a run-off system makes them both potential spoilers. In the general, the same thing may happen if Glodis wins the nomination, as Nat Fortune is clearly a great candidate, and both Republicans would be preferable to Glodis.
<
p>Ugh.
One prognosticator believes that the race is between Glodis and Bump, and it’s “too close to call”. As for Lake:
we have to face the facts. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out what sort of expertise or experience he has relevant to the position, and what I’ve come up with is a Big Fat Zero. Nada. Zilch. Ordering office chairs as an intern position at the White House would make him very qualified to be the chief of personnel at the State Auditor’s office, not the State Auditor. I’m sorry, but if we nominate Lake (or Glodis), prepare for State Auditor Connaughton to be able to begin her war against all government spending. Everything about him fits into the box of “not ready for the job,” whether they have merit (his inexperience) or not (the fact that he’s young and looks even younger than he is). Unfortunately, perception is a kingmaker in electoral politics.
<
p>I’m sure he’s a nice guy and I’m sure he has some great ideas, but he needs to actually do something that will give him the seasoning necessary for a position like this, whether that’s in the public or private sector, whether that’s in elected office or not. He needs to be a leader and he hasn’t actually led anything. Sorry, he hasn’t. There are a lot of people running for City Councilor and State Rep positions across the state who would be more suited to the position than him, including all of his opponents. That’s not good.
<
p>I don’t think experience “wins” for a candidate, but a total lack thereof? That’s a problem. What makes it worse is the boasting he’s done about his paltry experience, which would leave him wide open to attack by Connaughton should he be one of the final two. The fact that he’s third or fourth tier has protected him from having to defend his record. I really hate to be this harsh, but the messaging that could be used against Lake would be very powerful stuff — and stuff, I think, the media would actually pick up on. Picture stories digging into Lake’s background about how he “led” the “day-to-day” operations at the White House… by ordering desks. Etc. It would get ugly, fast. In a culture where drapes and a Cadillac have been the biggest political story of the past four years, do you really think the media would gloss over this kind of stuff?
I have been very disturbed by the Mike Lake candidacy and his claims of experience, etc. Almost tho’t I was alone in this. Choice in auditor’s race 🙁 🙁 🙁 NONE OF THE ABOVE.
I think that because the auditor is so low on the list of races people will care about (gov, Congressman in some districts, then there’s DAs and state reps and state senators, etc) that the Democrat wins the auditor job in a walk, whoever is nominated. Even Lake. Even Bump. Even Glodis. The indies won’t be tuned in, and there’s nothing that the eventual GOP candidate could do to get the indies to pay attention to this race. Few independents can even name two candidates for the auditor position just before — or just after — voting.*
<
p>Is Lake qualified? I think so. Would he have to learn a bit on the job? So does everyone who’s elected to that position for the first time.
<
p>
<
p> * pure conjecture of course
Connaughton, a CPA, is going to get beaten by “everything that’s wrong with government” Glodis? Guy Glodis is great at making friends — but not that great. People who underestimate Connaughton do so at their peril. All people have to know about her is three letters to know that she’s legitimately qualified for the position. The fact that she’d go in there with an agenda isn’t going to be something in the mindset of the voters.
<
p>I absolutely agree that if Bump gets the nomination, this race becomes a snoozer for the media and Bump rolls to victory. But if Lake or Glodis win the nomination, it’ll become that much more interesting for the media, which will IMO be that much better for the Republican.
<
p>
<
p>I would like you to take a look at his record and suggest how that record will enable him to be a superior State Auditor. I could do that with Bump, pretty easily. I could even make a case for Glodis, if I ignored his shadiness. So many of my (young) friends are supporting Lake that I just keep looking deeper into his record, and keep getting more and more worried about him not only as a candidate, but as an Auditor.
<
p>I would consider him for a City Council position. I would even consider him in a State Rep primary. But for a major, statewide position, with a particular skill set necessary for the job and the ability to lead an office of hundreds of people? This position is far more important than most of us think, particularly in these troubled economic times. I think we should be very judicious about who we send up to Beacon Hill to do this.
Your comments are so over the top ridiculous that they don’t merit a rebuttal, but they do require a reply.
<
p>Want to know how I know that Bump is going to lose?
<
p>Every one of her defenders spends their entire time bashing the other candidates in the race. Lake is this, and Glodis is that.
<
p>When was the last time anyone saw a positive article about Suzanne Bump? It’s just not happening.
<
p>If Bump was doing as well as her followers wished she was, wouldn’t her fundraising be better? If she was doing so well, would she have had to donate her own cash to get her struggling campaign moving?
<
p>Wouldn’t she keep her campaign managers? How many campaign managers has she replaced so far? Two? Three? Four?
<
p>I am a Lake supporter, and I have no problem with Suzanne Bump – except that the negative tone of her campaign is making me dislike her personally. All I hear from Bump people is pure vitriol aimed at everyone else. It’s not everyone else’s fault that Suzanne is losing – it’s hers.
<
p>Anyone making the argument otherwise has forgotten how campaigns work. BTW – there is no worse argument then that someone is splitting the race and making it harder for your candidate to win. No one has the right to walk into elected office unopposed. If your candidate was as good as you wish she was, she’d attract enough people to win.
Take a chill pill, dude. I responded to a comment about Lake with my worries about Lake. I laid out exactly why I felt the way I do. I wasn’t writing about why I’m supporting Bump, which I’ve done at length elsewhere. I’m happy to wage that discussion, but it’s a different conversation.
<
p>As for the “negative tone” of her supporters — isn’t that what everyone says about the supporters of other campaigns? For the record, I’ve defended Lake against a lot of unfair comments on this site. Go search my posts for Lake comments and you’ll find most of them to be positive. I like the guy, just not for State Auditor. Not at all for State Auditor. Not anywhere close to it.
<
p>I’ve never been one who’s been known at BMG for holding my opinions back — sometimes I come on strong. I don’t mean to ‘mean’ by it. I just say what I think and feel, and in a 2d environment, some people take it the wrong way. Instead of getting uptight and lashing out negatively yourself, maybe you should have tried for the rebuttal? I would have been happy (and still would be) to engage in a conversation over this. I don’t really have any bones in this campaign — I support Bump because I think she’s the best candidate, by far — but I’m happy to hear your case for Mike Lake, as I’ve certainly made mine against it. Otherwise, your post was one stinky pile of hypocrisy.
I’d love a Green Candidate with experience running a sizable organization running for auditor. I think that person would get enough traction should Glodis win to make things fun… and get the state-wide vote count they need to stay above whatever threshold they face for ballot access, etc.
is the Green-Rainbow nominee. He is a Physics professor at Smith College and has served on the Whately School Committee since 2003. He’s a very credible candidate and he will get my vote if Glodis is the Democratic nominee.
Honest question.