Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

What the Globe left out

By

The story in today’s Globe would leave the reader to believe that there is a problem with my website that has been left uncorrected.  This is not the case.  Just to be sure readers have the whole story, here is the statement that my campaign manager provided to Walter Robinson, since it apparently didn’t make it into the story that was published:

The campaign’s website had always requested occupation and employer information since it began accepting online contributions.  Suzanne personally observed the form when the website originally was created and demonstrated to her.  She was unaware, as I was, that the form was inadvertently dropped when the campaign changed web servers.  This has been corrected and a notice has since been included on the site that notifies any donors that their occupation and employer information must be provided for all contributions of $200 or more.  The campaign currently has more than 90% of occupations and employers included on its OCPF reports, and continues to make diligent efforts to get this information in a timely manner.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. This explanation CHANGES TOTALLY the Globe story…!!!!

    <

    p>First, as would be expected, a large portion of the story today was a rehash of lasts weeks entry. No surprise there.

    <

    p>BUT, if Bump REALLY did give the above statement to the Globe, then they should have at least allowed it to be printed in it’s entirety, rather than sliced and diced.

    <

    p>Anyone want to bet on who the Globe is backing in this race??

    <

    p>

  2. is important, especially paying attention to your contributors background —whether or not they give you less n $200. Big mistake on Suzanne’s part — even if she followed the letter of the law and sent out those letters that one gets from campaigns asking you to fill in the blanks and it is ignored. I had one campaign that gave me my money back when they found out I was a lobbyist. The homeless shelter got that check.

    <

    p>A one way ticket to panicville is what Walter Robinson gives to anyone who answers the phone and his deep sexy voice comes over the line. OhmyGod!!!!, OhmyGod !!! OhmyGod!!! And you know in your heart that there are about 100 ways he could take something you’ve done and make you look bad. Very bad. That guy and his team could make Mother Theresa look bad because she took donations of leper bandages from the Taliban. (only kidding Walter, please don’t call.)

    <

    p>Anyway, Suzzane made a mistake — a particulary bad one for a candidate for auditor and she paid up. She paid her back taxes.(No fine? Tommy what’s wrong with you?)She apologized 8 ways to Sunday and shes back on the campaign trail to gather up the love and support of her old and new friends.  

    <

    p>Suzzanne of course will be tortured by this at every public event for the next weeks, and she will have to apologize 127 ways to Sunday before she beats what’shername. But not to me. I have already accepted her apology and am standing by her and will vote for her with confidence. I know that she is an honest kind and principled person.

    • 1 – the ethics fine when she was a Rep.  She said she did nothing wrong, but paid the fine.
      2 – the Double Residence whammy.  She said she did nothing wrong, but paid the back taxes sans fine.
      3 – She omitted the requeired campaign fundraising info.  She said she did nothing wrong, but she is contacting the donors.

      <

      p>Do you see a PATTERN emerging here?  Is this Alibi Ike for Auditor?

      <

      p>It is interesting and nice that she is “an honest, kind and principled person”.  But is she a competent one?  Her WBZ sound bite bothers me the most – even more than her Coakley-esque smirk, and air of waiting for the other person to stop taking, and calling that listening.  She said, “I am complying with the law as I understand it.’  That is just plain scary in an Auditor of the Commonwealth.  

      • she doesn’t have to be an auditor to become the State Auditor, she’s a manager. SHe passes the buck down to her “people” and they take care of silly details as you mention. She does nothing wrong… then fixes it. Fixes what? What do you have to fix if you’ve done nothing wrong.

        <

        p>If Bump wins, who’ll be auditing “her” records?

      • And don’t be scared. Suzzanne has addressed all of these issues at the time they were raised with a fine or a fix of a website.

        <

        p>I should have added she will be tortured in the blogs too. Anyway I still stand by her. Honest, kind and Principled always win in the end.

        <

        p>

        • PEANUTS CARTOONS?

          <

          p>The woman is shaky on law and math, but wants to audit a state with multiple indicted speakers and some of the most corrupt spending in the nation by FBI targeted legislators, and we’re supposed to feel happy with CARTOONS???

          • The scorecard illustrates that idealist win in the end — visionary leadership trumps mere competence.

            <

            p>In the next frame Lucy tells Charlie Brown to take a deep breath. We’ll win the series.  

            <

            p>( I can tell from here you’re not breathing deeply.)  

            • but this pattern is starting to bother me. She us running for Auditor. Competence is important.

              <

              p>The polls a few weeks ago have the Auditor’s race very close.

              <

              p>This is giving Connaughton ammunition. Both Bump and Connaughton have been appealing to voters on the basis of competence. Connaughton based on her auditing experience, and Bump on her managerial experience.

              <

              p>But these stories that are coming out now are casting some doubt on that. It is going to affect this close race for sure and Bump needs to do something to address it.

              <

              p>I think she should needs to do what Obama has done when something goes wrong. He does’t admit personal fault, but does say “this is my responsibility”.

              <

              p>She’s got to show voters that she takes this stuff seriously. She could say something like “this was a technical error on our web site. It should not have happened. I take campaign finance laws seriously. It’s my responsibility to make sure disclosures are filed in a timely way. That didn’t happen, but we’ve moved quickly to correct the problem and make sure it doesn’t happen again”.

              <

              p>If she comes out a little hard on herself then others can’t really come down hard on her. It nullifies the attack. If she is perceived to make excuses for it, then these issues can be used against her from here to election day.  

  3. On Saturday, when the Globe raised the issue again, Laura Marlin, the campaign manager, said neither Bump nor her campaign aides were aware that the site did not require the information. By Sunday, the website had begun requiring the information. Marlin said Bump’s website initially required that information, but stopped several months ago because of a software glitch.

    <

    p>But, in my view this is a significant oversight.  Suzanne Bump is running for AUDITOR, and this is something that should have been caught when the software was changed.  There should have been a review of any required elements on the site when the site is changed.  

    <

    p>

    Marlin said Bump’s website initially required that information, but stopped several months ago because of a software glitch.

    <

    p>As a software professional, someone whose software is required to follow legislative rules and laws, and someone that has been on the receiving end of many audits, blaming this on a software “glitch” is a bit of passing the buck.

    <

    p>

    For 101 of those 185, the campaign finance reports did not indicate that the required letter had been sent. Bump said that the letters had been sent, but that a clerical glitch had prevented the campaign from posting that information.

    <

    p>Ok… to sum it up:
    She is supposed to gather this information, but a software glitch hampered her efforts…
    She is supposed to send out letter for people that the software glitch caused her not to record the information… But a clerical glitch stopped her from posting the information.

    <

    p>She is running for Auditor!  An auditor is supposed to be a “process and procedures” type of person… It just does not seem like she is or she has surrounded her with people who are not P&P people.

    <

    p>I am sorry, but I think I will be having a “glitch” when I see her name on the ballot.

    • Public officials should be held to just a high a standard as private. Just reminds me of Timothy Geithner’s tax problem – he blamed it on quicken.

      <

      p>Auditing is about the details – she certainly doesn’t seem competent either in the execution of her web site and/or the hiring of staff to handle her web site.

      <

      p>

  4. but neglecting to mention that Bump is over 90% compliant on occupation info is seriously selective reporting.  She made an error, true, but she also corrected it as soon as possible.  A fair article would have included that fact as well.

    • Here’s the occupations, as listed on the OCPF site, for the 71 individuals who have donated since Oct 1:

      <

      p>blank
      Auditor, Commonwealth of Mass
      Attorney, Self
      Owner, Red Lion Inn
      blank
      blank
      Executive, Fallon Community Health Plan
      Retired
      blank
      blank
      Bank Consultant, Mountian One Financial
      Retired
      blank
      blank
      blank
      Transporter, southshore hospital
      blank
      Staff assis, N.U.
      blank
      Exc, BCBSMA
      Attorney, self
      blank
      blank
      blank
      Self employed, windy hill farm
      blank
      blank
      Exec dir, info req
      Chairperson, Weber Shandwick Worldwide
      blank
      blank
      blank
      Computer R & D, self
      blank
      blank
      blank
      Attorney, Middlesex DA’s office
      Administrator, University of Mass
      Manager, commonwealth of Mass
      Manager, State Lottery Commission
      blank
      Administrator, Torrisi & Torris Pc
      blank
      CEO, Jewish Vocational Services
      Administrator, town of Sharon
      blank
      Lawyer, metlife
      President, SEIU local 509
      blank
      Speech pathologist, woodbriar of Wilmington
      blank
      blank
      Government, commonwealth of Massachusetts
      blank
      blank
      blank
      blank
      blank
      CEO, GB Chamber of Commerce
      Retired
      blank
      blank
      blank
      General Counsel, Liberty Mutual
      Retired, at home
      info req
      Retired
      blank
      Director, Dta
      blank
      blank

      <

      p>By rough count 38 are blank and one says info req, that’s more than half.  Looking at the rest of her donors, no way is anywhere near 90% of the occupations provided.  But, don’t just take my (or her campaign’s) word for it, see for yourself:  http://www.efs.cpf.state.ma.us…

      <

      p>This thing is really not necessarily that big of a deal, not nearly as bad as the double exemption issue.  But, former Sec. Bump is again responding to an obvious and caught-red-handed mistake with a weirdly obstinate refusal to admit that something went wrong…not good.    
       

      • The occupation only needs to be filled out if it is over $200.  And you would be compliant if you did not collect the information, but later sent a letter asking for it (even if the netter was never responded to)

        • …And to be more fair, it seems from a quick scan of some other candidates (Mary Connaughton, Charlie Baker, and Gov Patrick) that they generally seem to not disclose the info for most of their under $200 donors.

          <

          p>But, the 90% claim as made in the statement above by former Sec Bump’s campaign manager doesn’t seem to make that distinction.  If they meant to, it wasn’t clear.  The sentence reads:  “The campaign currently has more than 90% of occupations and employers included on its OCPF reports, and continues to make diligent efforts to get this information in a timely manner.”

          <

          p>It’s not like candidates are prohibited from disclosing the occupation/employer for all their donors.  And it’s not inconceivable that a candidate, whether out of a genuine belief in transparency or (given the circumstances) simply for good public relations, would make that info available.  They statement above easily could leave one with the impression that she has done just that, though she has not.  Perhaps that’s why they didn’t put it in the paper?  

          <

          p>  

      • Do you have a bias against hard working blanks?  I’m sure it’s a perfectly honorable profession.  Just like undecided is a valid choice for poll questions.

  5. So when was your site updated to include the prominent notice “If you are donating $200 or more you MUST report your employer and occupation in the “Company” field on the last page of the donation form.” on http://www.suzannebump.com/don…

    • I see from google cache that the change was made after September 22, 2010.

      <

      p>-So the Globe prints that the company/occumpation is only compliant 61% of the time as of 9/30.  

      <

      p>-You scramble to fix that which the Boston Globe points out is broken.  

      <

      p>-And, isn’t it fair to say that if the Boston Globe hadn’t pointed it out you wouldn’t have fixed it?

      <

      p>So, it’s your opinion that the Globe isn’t being fair because it didn’t mention that you attempted to fix the oversight in response to its article?!  That’s like slowing down after you’re caught speeding and proclaiming innocence because you slowed down.

  6. There are a lot of laws to keep track of and plenty of room for honest mistakes and oversights.  As far as I’m concerned if these are quickly owned up to and corrected that is fine.

  7. Funny thing. I attended the first Auditor’s debate, what, a month? six weeks? ago–things are kind of blurry these days– and afterwards, a colleague and I found ourselves agreeing that we felt all four candidates seemed pretty good (despite our inherent bias–see disclaimer below). But today’s debate was a different matter entirely, and Ms. Bump’s presentation was really subpar. Staying on message is one thing, but “you don’t need to be an auditor to be an auditor” started wearing real thin after a while. There was an icy and all-too-rehearsed aura about the whole thing, and the attack-dog style struck this observer as seriously counterproductive. As did the lengthy and byzantine explanation of the housing debacle. I’d cut her a break on the web site issue–can we really expect candidates to review their site content religiously?–but the residency business sounded even fishier when she finished than when she started.

    <

    p>Mary Connaughton didn’t impress either. Her closing statement made it sound as though she were running for student council. Gushy.

    <

    p>What surprised me was Nat Fortune’s performance. YES, I’m biased–but at the same time, I’m as harsh a critic of my own candidates as I am anyone else’s. The physics prof actually made a pretty substantial case for himself, especially in explaining, in response to a question on the same, that the Auditor might not simply ensure that getting and spending be expedited with all due haste and efficiency, but might actually point out here and there that these expenditures might not exactly be paying off. Or as Nat put it in his close, with a nod at the Republican candidate, “Electing an auditor, an accountant, to the office to verify that the money is being thrown away exactly as expected is not gonna help.”

    <

    p>You may feel differently. Judge for yourselves.

  8. She was unaware, as I was, that the form was inadvertently dropped when the campaign changed web servers.

    Uh, that explanation is not consistent with the way websites work. Either the web page for donations with its Javascript and server-side validation requires an employer or it doesn’t. When moved to a different web server, neither the content of a web page nor the logic of a website magically changes. Forms on websites are not like articles of clothing that can be forgotten from suitcases while travelling.

    <

    p>Maybe the site was redesigned or rewritten or something, but blaming it on moving to a different server? Well, no, that sounds like using confusing tech talk to be, well, not forthright.

Archives