Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Chuck Turner Unwittingly Aiding Honest Government

By

It brings to mind the first meeting I attended as a new board member of a major downtown church. It was in terrific financial, membership and other trouble, which I knew when I ran for the position. I was not aware of how angry the very controlling and self-righteous church administrator was. 

 
Rather than give her report at the meeting, she resigned…with great drama. The same person who required the sexton to come to her to unlock a closet containing toilet-paper rolls, came like a Disney-movie witch with portents of doom. The church would not be able to function without her. She regretted she had to leave and that the church would fold without her guidance and constant oversight, but she was out of there.

Well, as these things tend to happen, a bunch of us turned around that church, which has thrived. The administrator's egocentric passion for the position was at once admirable and pathetic. In the end, she was not holding the church together, was not essential, and was not larger than the whole works.

That was a heavy fingered lead-in to another light on the historic occurrence yesterday on the fifth floor of Boston's City Hall, in the Council chamber. That would be the first expulsion of a Council member since the body replaced the Board of Alderman as the city's regulatory body in 1909.

When Councilor Chuck Turner was severed from the body by a vote of 11 to 1, he tripped and fell into history.
…and for history, he loves to cite and manipulate the past for present polemics. Turner often mentions that he has a BA from Harvard and uses that to vet the strangest and often highly questionable assertions.
 
Yesterday, he spoke twice from the floor of chamber and managed simultaneously to challenge and insult the whole body of 12 peers as well as the five Irish-American members. He recently compared himself in courage and victim status to numerous famous folk, including Rosa Parks. Yesterday, it was Irish Bostonians and their most famous pol, Alderman, Mayor and Governor James Michael Curley.
While irony is a much overused term, on a par with tragedy, we don't need to know much Boston history to appreciate the Curley connection. Immediately, at Turner's request during a recess for Ross to confer with Sinnott and other lawyers, supporters got to go into the Curley Room a few dozen feet from the chamber. It had a TV with a feed from the meeting. While Ross requested quiet and respect for the proceedings, noting that Turner had asked that what would normally occur in private to be open, his fans of over 100 acted more like they were at a hockey game or at the least a tent meeting with an evangelical preacher.
Repeatedly, roars, boos and slurs carried over from the Curley room. When Councilors Yancey or Turner spoke, every claim or conclusion brought forth loud reaction. When the two Councilors, Felix Arroyo and Ayanna Pressley, haltingly delivered their emotional apologies for voting for his expulsion, a half dozen or more in the chamber itself interrupted them with calls of "shame" and worse, and cries of "2011!" implying they would surely lose their seats in the next election.
There was high contrast to the feral and emotional Turner, Yancey and fans with the civility, seriousness and calmness of the rest of Council. Only Sinnott, the city's main lawyer, stumbled a bit when Yancey doggedly reiterated his charges of illegal actions and refused to admit that the rule the Council adopted unanimously (including he and Turner) permitted expelling a convicted felon. Sinnott clearly is not used to such personal challenges. He could take a chill short course from Ross.
Back to Curley, how odd that Turner picked him. As a local folk hero, particularly among Irish-Bostonians, Curley carries the picaresque shield and sword of the rascal warrior. In the last throes of power by the old-line Yankee Bostonians, he showed them how to play and win at politics.
Along the way though, he got sloppy. He was indicted first for felony influence peddling and then separately for mail fraud. He spent five months in federal prison before the MA Congressional delegation successfully pressured President Harry Truman for a pardon. Meanwhile, under indictment, he won reelection as mayor, although Boston defeated him after prison when he ran again.
Another obvious comparison is that both were seen to have taken money illegally, but not necessarily to enrich themselves. I think running for reelection biennially means constantly fund raising and thus being at risk for inappropriate contributions in amount or source. Yet there is no evidence that Turner was personally greedy.
So, Turner would have us equate him with Curley? Well, yes, but not for the obvious reasons. Both were found guilty of fast and loose money raising, handling and not reporting.
What Turner had in mind yesterday though was a class, culture and race-based analogy. He resurrected the Yankee Boston pols and aristocrats of the 18th, 19th and early 20th Centuries as villains, sort of political zombies, in modern parlance (mine, not Turner's). He called upon the five Councilors of Irish heritage to compare his case with the history of repression in Boston…of their kind.
 

That tack led nowhere. Keeping an eye on the attentive but inexpressive Councilors, I saw neither sympathy nor outrage. To me, and apparently from their vote to them, Turner was stretching way too far to portray himself as the natural extension of Curley and the Boston Irish. 

Pix note: I insert a couple of images from the proceedings. I apologize that the camera and particularly its weak flash was not up to the room and distance.
The Herald has never liked Turner and loves to stir the pot whenever race and culture are in the soup. This morning, they ran a piece quoting state Rep. Marty Walsh and South Boston's favorite hater, Wacko Hurley, as discrediting Turner's linking himself with Irish Americans.
It seems likely that even Turner fans would wonder why he went off the long-time approach of being prosecuted and persecuted because he was black and because he described the oppression of his constituents, particularly the black, Latino and poor. Somehow, I don't see his voters as likening him to the Irish.
Yet after Turner's expulsion, his claque followed him down the hallways and stairs to the front of the building, chanting their support. They still want retribution.
 

The true oddment here is that courageous and necessary actions by Ross are the catalyst here.

He could easily have finished his two-year term as Council President without dealing with Turner, leaving it for the likely successor, Steve Murphy, or simply the lapping tide of events. Turner's federal sentencing on his four felony counts is 1/25/11. He almost certainly will receive some prison time. As such, state law would require his removal from office, leaving a timorous Council membership free from having to discipline one of their own.
Ross strikes me very much in the Boy Scout mold, or perhaps a lead in a John Wayne Western. He's a do-what's-right kind of guy. He did as he as been doing.
Yesterday's session tok an hour and a half, largely because of Yancey's maneuvering and Turner's lectures and portents of doom. Then too was another chance for Ross to chicken out. He could have cow
ed to Yancey's attempted trick and pushed off the hearing, pending death by committee.
Instead, he precisely, fully and carefully explained Council rule 40A, which the whole body had created and voted unanimously over two years ago. When Turner was indicted, they discovered they had no enabling mechanism to deal with a felony conviction by a member and passed 40A to be able to have just such a decision as they reached yesterday.

 

Rule 40A. Pursuant to the city charter and in accordance with the open meeting law, the council president may refer a matter to the council upon his/her determination that any member has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Boston City Council or may be unqualified to sit on the body. A member may be unqualified by violating federal or state law, or any conditions imposed by the city’s charter, which includes violating any provisions of the three oaths of office.
The council president shall automatically refer a matter to the council upon a felony conviction of any member by any state or federal court.
Any action by the council taken in response to any referral shall require a two-thirds (2/3) majority roll call vote and will be in accordance with local, state and federal law.

In addition to his painstaking refutation of Yancey's parliamentary gambit, Ross strove to give the voting public some fresh proof that the Council and city government at large had a respect for rule of law.

In 13-page preparatory packet to inform the Councilors of the issues and options on Turner, Ross concluded one section with "We are not above the law and none of us is above the rules we have established as a body. If we act as if we are, this body loses its credibility, its integrity and the trust of the people we serve. Many are cynical of government as it is, we cannot add to their mistrust."

It is a pity that Yancey gave Turner's supporters fodder for feeding a beast of conspiracy and victimhood. The idea that Ross in particular and the Council more widely acted illegally is absurd and Yancey surely knows that.

That's irrelevant though. Yancey's arrow long left his bow. The question now is how accurate are the curses of Turner's opponents and his own allusions that voters will as a body rise up and punish the 11 of 12 Councilors to a man and woman come the next two elections?

I say chicken lips!

Turner will be a jailed felon shortly, as will state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, caught in the same odious federal sting operation. Nearly everyone I know joins me is disrespecting the type of sting operation of manufactured temptation that netted Turner. Yet whether through disregard of known laws, sloppy inattention and accounting or simple arrogance, Turner was nabbed and convicted. As his protégé Felix Arroyo said in his emotional remarks at the hearing, "In the end, we cannot escape our mistakes. We cannot escape our deeds."

Even before yesterday's meeting, Turner had grandiose descriptions of how he'd organize prisoners if he ended up in jail. It is unlikely that a short-timer in a federal prison would have any meaningful impact, but it's a good pre-mythology. Turn is forever editing the book of his life.

Instead, it is likely that another strong advocate of the poor and middle-class people of color who comprise most of District 7 will take over Turner's seat in a special election. My bet is for the charismatic Tito Jackson. He lacks Turner's capacity for B.S. but not his clarity of purpose or worthy goals.

Given those developments, there is little immediacy or even need to consider replacing any of the 11. The greatest impetus would be in Turner's district, where the voters will already have made their choice. The chance of driving out anyone else is slim indeed.

Turner's other dire prophesy goes to his often repeated claim that 90% of politicians, including fellow Councilors, are dirty and take money. He also claims to be the most honest and moral of the lot.

Yet so far, our Speakers of the House (three of the last four) are driven out and/or convicted of corruption, but not so Boston Councilors. Turner's fantasy that they all will earn and fail scrutiny was very unlikely before and given the infamy of his slow, endless fall over the past three years, any Councilor would be a total ass to take any risks.

In fact, his disgrace may be the greatest insurance we have had of political integrity. Don't be that guy.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Of course anyone convicted should be removed, and it looks like the charter provides for that.  Turner is being obnoxious and if his appeals happen to work out he’s welcome to run again next time anyway.  I don’t understand Yancey’s legal arguments nor do I understand blind support for Turner any more than I did for Wilkerson.

    • or anyone else in a leadership position, believes and shows by their words and actions, that it is all about them rather than those they serve, or the work that needs doing, then you know they are undeserving of continuing to serve in that position.  Arrogance is the undoing of so many in positions of leadership, not just Chuck Turner.  They forget that the important thing is the work they do, not their own standing.  This is how power corrupts.

    • Oddly enough, the state law on this removes elected officials upon their being sentenced to prison…not on conviction. The call (or largess) of the sentencing judge would thus determine the fate of the official.

      • …have the right to expel one of it’s own?  Legislative bodies generally do.  Even if MA law only requires removal upon sentencing what would be odd is if it ties Council’s hands from acting sooner.

        • Amusingly enough, they did not have that authority on paper until just over two years ago. There hadn’t been the need. Even though they make their own rules of operation and procedure, for their 101 year life (since replacing the alderman system), they have set out rules and nearly always followed these.

          <

          p>When Turner was indicted, they realized there was no procedure for ousting one of their own. As close as they got was that they were the arbiters of who was qualified to sit as a Councilor.

          <

          p>Thus, they specifically created rule 40A to cover the cases where they might want to toss a member. That calls for a mandated meeting to discuss the problem and a vote on the member’s qualifications for anyone convicted of a felony.

          <

          p>Alas, even as clear as that rule is, Councilor Yancey tried to block the meeting by referring to prior rules that relate to motions that may require committee review and such. He was involved in rule 40A creation and knows better, but he kept demanding proof of an explicit reference to “expulsion” in the rules. It was not his best moment as it was not Turner’s.

        • Could they do that as well? Just asking.
          Anyway,  it makes sense that someone who gets convicted of a felony while in office should have to go. Curley was a felon who got to stay, so that’s the comparison that sticks in my mind. That was probably part of Turner’s intent in bringing him up. So times have changed, Evacuation Day is maybe on its way out, we’re cleansing government of olde tyme corruption. Long live the New Corruption.

          • I know I don’t get much agreement on this here but I like the commemoration of historic events.

            <

            p>As for just feeling like expelling someone, I would say yes with the appropriate supermajority.  The federal constitution gives no qualification to the right of each chamber of Congress to expel one of its own by a 2/3 vote.  The Constitution does list treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors as impeachable offenses and says judges serve during good behavior.  Gerald Ford once pointed out the truth that am impeachable offense, because it is unappealable, is whatever a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate say it is, just ask Bill Clinton.

  3. By Rule 40A, Mike Ross, Steve Murphy and Maureen Feeney should also be expelled from the City Council.

    <

    p>   “Pursuant to the city charter and in accordance with the open meeting law, the council president may refer a matter to the council upon his/her determination that any member has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the Boston City Council or may be unqualified to sit on the body. A member may be unqualified by violating federal or state law, or any conditions imposed by the city’s charter, which includes violating any provisions of the three oaths of office.”

    <

    p>All three have “engaged in conduct unbecoming,” and are unqualified because they violated state law and their oaths of office. They all violated the Open Meeting Law 11 times, as they finally admitted (after several years of lying to the courts and several hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer dollars wasted on their legal defense).  Mike “Boy-Scout/John Wayne” Ross also violated the state ethics law, fixing 35 of his own parking tickets; his punishment was to pay the amount of the tickets (co-incidentally $1,000) plus a $2,000 fine.

    <

    p>Feeney and the rest of them — in further secret meetings — passed an ordinance to create a new Council staff position, so they could hire the deceased Jimmy Kelly’s about-to-retire staffer, Paul Walkowski, at a huge pay increase for just long enough to boost his pension, to write a report on why the Council should be exempt from the state Open Meeting Law altogether.  

    <

    p>Their betrayals of the city’s taxpayers and citizens are too numerous to mention, and too costly to tally.

    <

    p>These paragons of virtue were thrilled to look down on him from their moral high horses and solemnly throw him off the Council, and for reasons unrelated to race. He was always exposing and opposing their shenanigans, like their cynical tax give-aways to developers and other harmful and ignorant decisions related to taxation and development.

    <

    p>But most important: In 2005, Turner (along with Hennigan and Arroyo Sr.) provided affidavits supporting the three-citizen (including me) lawsuit against the City Council, revealing the actions perpetrated by the Council in those unlawful meetings mentioned above. (The suit involved a dozen meetings on the BRA’s urban renewal powers over 18 months; in secret (because they knew it was wrong), the Council arranged to perpetuate (as in, forever) these BRA powers, including the power of eminent domain.  The BRA has taken, and will continue to take, billions of dollars’ worth of City-owned property (including City Hall Plaza) by eminent domain without compensation to the taxpayers, and lease or sell it for development, and keep every cent of the profit. One meeting was about the tularemia outbreak at a Boston Univ. lab, which the Council wanted to cover up so it wouldn’t threaten BU’s then-planned Level 4 bio-terrorism lab in the South End/Roxbury neighborhood.) They hold a permanent grudge on this suit (which by the way is still dragging along in court, at pubic expense) — Murphy denied me the right to testify at a recent Budget Committee hearing on the BRA (and that’s the only information they’d ever get about the BRA, as he well knows) because, as he admitted, he was still mad at me for suing him.

    <

    p>It’s easy to mock Turner; his warts are not concealed. But don’t for a minute think your heroes on the council are any more qualified to sit on that body and represent the people’s interests; in a just world, they would have gone first.  Who will enforce Rule 40A against them?

  4. we must remember that, although I think he acted appropriately in pushing for Turner’s removal, Councilor Ross’ tenure on the council has not been entirely shenanigan-free. It’s not often that the State Ethics Commission can be roused from its slumber to take on a Boston politician, but they fined Ross $2000 in 2007 for having too many personal parking tickets fixed. Does such relatively minor hackery represent “conduct unbecoming a councilor” as described in the recently adopted Rule 40A? I don’t know, but I’m always happy to play the tarantula when it comes to the City.

  5. Shirley and Dan are welcome to their thoughts and feelings here. I see those as cynical and remembering slights. Instead, the Turner process was one where I perceived courage and forthright leadership by Ross. Again, he could have ducked this and I suspect many holding the council presidency would have. Others may find this an anomaly for Ross, but I think he’s grown.

Archives