Surely you didn’t think that Dan Wolf was the only one that would be affected by the Ethics Commission’s nutty ruling regarding Cape Air? Check out this great piece from Commonwealth Magazine, in which intrepid reporter Jack Sullivan dug into legislators’ financial disclosure forms and found something entirely unsurprising:
At least four other lawmakers have potential conflicts of interest similar to what the commission determined exists with Wolf and his company, Cape Air, according to a CommonWealth review of the annual Statements of Financial Interest (SFI) filed by state and county officials….
Rep. Josh Cutler of Pembroke could run afoul of the ethics law because a newspaper his family owns collects several hundred dollars a year for running legal advertisements purchased by the state. Cutler is listed as president, secretary, and treasurer of Clipper Concepts, which publishes the Duxbury Clipper newspaper. His 2012 ethics statement lists a 75 percent ownership of Clipper Concepts, which he says he has since transferred to his wife….
State Rep. Steven Howitt, a Seekonk Republican, owns 100 percent of Modern Tractor and Truck Service, a 55-year-old family business that, among other things, performs snow and ice removal for the state Department of Transportation. Contractors for the DOT’s snow and ice removal program do not bid for the jobs – they fill out an application and other documents — and are paid a flat hourly rate. In 2011, Howitt’s first year in office, his company was paid more than $47,300 for snow and ice removal….
State Rep. Bruce Ayers of Quincy is the sole owner of a handicapped van conversion company that accepts Medicaid payments. Sen. Richard Ross could be in violation if his funeral home in Wrentham were to collect the $1,200 fee the state pays for the burial of indigent individuals.
Sullivan argues that – as I have been saying for weeks – “the tricky issue is what constitutes a contract.” And one can immediately see the parallels between Wolf’s situation and that of the other legislators in Sullivan’s piece. Wolf says (and let’s assume for now that he’s right) that Cape Air’s arrangement with Massport is more akin to a fee schedule than a contract, since the rates the airlines charge are not subject to negotiation. That seems very similar to Rep. Howitt, who takes the fees paid by the state for snow and ice removal, and to Rep. Ayers, who accepts Medicaid payments for handicapped van conversions, and maybe to Sen. Ross, whose funeral home might have accepted the state’s flat fee for burials of indigent people. And the situation might even be worse for Rep. Cutler, whose newspaper sells advertising to the state, since in that situation it’s actually conceivable that the rates might be negotiable.
And yet, it seems perfectly obvious that the ethics law should not bar any of these individuals from holding office. So unless the Ethics Commission is prepared to cause not one but (at least) five resignations from the legislature, something’s gotta change, and it’s gotta change fast.
Oh – and don’t miss this utterly hilarious tidbit:
While the state ethics law generally bars lawmakers who own firms from doing business with the state, the law granted a special exemption to lawyers. The exemption allows lawmakers to own law firms that do court-appointed services such as guardian ad litem or public defender work for the state. At least four lawmakers disclose owning between 33 percent and 100 percent interests in law firms that have been paid for their services by the state between 2010 and this year.
So lawyers have a special carve-out for the exact same situation that these other legislators face in other lines of work, even though it seems patently obvious that the potential for an actual conflict of interest is no less, and perhaps greater, for law than for other businesses. Ridiculous, no?
Especially this.
of course the lawyers in the Legislature would have to recluse of them selves from a vote to amend this ……………
and critically wrong.
Of course we could abolish the practice of the circular door of professional lawyer-legislator-lobbyists and solve a lot of problems with special interest domination of government. But what lawyer-legislator would champion that?
Remember former state senate minority leader Brian Lees? With full pensions from years in the leg and a brief gig as Hampden Clerk of Courts (pension!!!) he’s now cuddled up with Travaglini.
-State House Roundup, August 16, 2013
Sweet.
Does the state even have the power to say who can and can’t run for state office? Is it constitutional? If you are a Massachusetts resident and are over a certain age ,what prevents the State from saying that Class A of people is prohibited from running for office but Class B can? What if it’s based on something other than your job, like income level? Can the state do that? Where is the line drawn? If the state says only people with a house can run office legally can they do that?
I really don’t know the answer. Any lawyers on here?
Not who can run. I have zero sympathy for Wolf or any of the other 4 here. I would extend the prohibition to attorneys. Having any outside business interests is a conflict. Their assets should be in a blind trust while in office. They should be devoting full time to legislating, not drawing a paycheck and then doing another job instead.
the secret about blind trusts is that there are pretty much no such thing.
BTW: There should be no issue with business owners running for office and none of them should be forced to sell their assets or fake-blind trust them. The voting public is perfectly capable of deciding if a business owner has conflicts of interest.
Wolf would have had allies, bipartisan allies at that. He would have won this and carried with him a great deal of political coverage. Now, the beginnings of his campaign have been marked with all kinds of drama that should never have been for public consumption.
I’m not sure I saw a guy who could stand up to the entranced interests on Beacon Hill in this fight, even if things are reformed in time for him to run.
I agree with the thrust of your post, but going to court is not the only way for Wolf to fight. At the moment, the worthy Ethics Commission has taken itself from a valued guardian of the public trust to a laughingstock in just a few days — and now even appears perhaps to be trying to wiggle out of its misguided opinion on its own. The signs of backroom positioning are there.
for a progressive underdog!
Got to love MA political theatre….next scene?
gah typos
According to State House News, “Republican Rep. Daniel Winslow is joining Wolf on the petition that will seek to relax the conflict of interest rules that prevent business owners with financial interests in state government contracts to enter public service.”
They’re paid to do a full-time job. They should do the job. That means no holding other jobs at the same time.
being a legislator in Massachusetts is technically considered a ‘half time job,’ though in all practice it’s full time and then some, when it comes to district events.
Legislators also earn the median state income, regardless of whether they live in wealthy districts or poorer districts, near or far. In other words, there are some legislators who literally couldn’t afford to live in their district earning just their state legislative wage.
The world isn’t black and white. There’s plenty of gray. It’s not a horrible thing that most legislators have side gigs. It doesn’t mean they’re not ‘doing their job.’ I’ve met my fair share of legislators and they all work vast amounts of hours as legislators, especially in the district, even those who do have side gigs.
Moreover, better they have side gigs than scramble for money and be tempted to get it the easy way. I’ll take Representative Fennell owning Capitol Diner and chumming it up with his constituents over banana pancakes and coffee any day over Sal DiMasi worrying about how he’s going to put his kids through college, while living in his expensive North End neighborhood, then thinking “gee, that bribe sounds good and it’s for something that really doesn’t matter much in the end, just some stupid computer system.”
Side gigs can be analyzed by the public, who can decide whether they’re conflicts of interest or not. Bribes? Not so much.
When it comes to Wolf, none of your complaints about ‘full time jobs’ really even apply. Yes, he has a business, but it’s rather silly of you to think that it was his primary job at that point. He owned 23% of it and has a title, but it’s more of a legacy title than anything else. The same could be said of many legislators who own their own businesses. Should legislators be denied to collect from stocks? If not, then why would we deny them from earning things from other business interests?
I’ve been critical of Wolf for his actions, or lack of, these past couple weeks. I think he deserves that criticism. However, I think it’s very silly to suggest he should be ineligible to run because he owns part of a business — that he should have to throw away everything he’s worked for and put hundreds of his workers at risk — and I’ll think a lot less of anyone who disagrees.
You are still certainly entitled to your own opinion that he shouldn’t run, but when you try to infringe on my rights in being able to vote for who I want by denying ballot access, then we’re going to have some problems. That kind of politics belongs in the Soviet Union, not the United States of America.
So, um…
Firstly, while it’s true that salary isn’t a function of distance from the State house, the per diem certainly is. Legislators from farther away are compensated for their travel. Fairly and appropriately? Dunno.
Secondly, there are all kinds of restrictions on who can run for office in tUSA. RyePower12, for example, isn’t old enough to be POTUS, even if the American people want him to be. America ain’t the Soviet Union, comrade. We have restrictions based on age, we require “natural born” status for POTUS, we restrict executive branch federal employees from running for partisan political office, many states prohibit convicted felons from holding public office, etc. I’m not arguing in favor or in opposition to any particular restriction. I am, however, pointing out that America has a long tradition of restricting the eligibility of political office holders, and we’ve not yet been mistaken as the Soviet Union.
I think we can agree that there’s a difference between having remarkably few barriers to run set by the freaking constitution and having Seamus’s no-small-business-owners-for-public-office rule applied.
Hell, if I decided I wanted to run for the board of trustees at my town’s library, a town elected position at last I checked, I’d have to give up my livelihood to do so under his rules, because technically I’m a small business owner, according to the IRS.
Note: I forgot about the per diem. That said, I doubt it truly covers all of a state legislator’s travel expenses, particularly considering that time is an opportunity cost.
I’m all for people with other jobs being able to run. But they need to decide what their priorities are. If elected, they shouldn’t hold other jobs. I’m not as worried about bribes. Only truly corrupt people take bribes. But these little conflicts are a lot more insidious overall. It’s a lot easier to being influenced by them and vote for their own interests over their constituents’ because it’s not so obviously wrong. Subtle temptations and biases lead good people to do bad things.
You have made it very clear that you don’t think business owners should be able to run. Business owners aren’t business owners if they’re forced to sell their businesses. Then they’re former business owners.
So, yes, you’ve said something about who can run. No walking that back.
Oh, so you’re not worried about the actual problem? We have speakers being brought down for bribery and senators pocketing money in their bras, but we can’t allow Representative Fennell to sell eggs and bacon from his establishment that’s been around well longer than you or I?
I’m sure the Eggs Benedict Lovers PAC have him in their freaking pocket!
And what do you think, that just because someone’s sold their business (likely at firesale prices because they only had a short time between their election and being in office to do so) that suddenly whatever ‘conflicts of interest’ you’ve conjured up are going to go POOF?
You don’t think they’re still going to be swayed by the years of their lives they invested in that business?
You think Steve Grossman should be forced to sell a business that’s been in his family for generations to even be able to get ballot access?
I think anyone should be able to run. Ballot access and serving in office are two separate issues. Let him run. He can make the sale when he actually gets elected. No need for fire sale prices, because he has plenty of time to work it out now, with a contingency clause. This is no different than requiring Wolf to choose between running for re-election or for Governor. Does that law unfairly exclude a class of people from running for office, i.e. legislators who lack confidence in their chances of winning a Governor’s race?
He doesn’t technically have to resign or give up his business. He could just keep paying the fine.
When bribery happens, it obviously crosses a line. People know they’re doing the wrong thing, and frequently get caught and punished. Conflicts of interest can influence policy all kinds of ways that aren’t quite as obvious but just as bad. They’re bad because there is no accountability. There is no guilt. There is no law enforcement to stop them. It’s a lot easier to persuade yourself that voting for something that happens to benefit your business is ok than it is to persuade yourself that taking a bribe is ok. So a lot more people fall for that trap.
You’re right. A lifetime of working in a particular industry does influence someone’s perceptions, and I worry about that impact too. But that’s unavoidable, as far as I know. The way to mitigate it is for people to think of themselves as legislators, not as farmers or lawyers or whatever. The more they think of themselves as representatives of the people, rather than identifying with a particular occupation, the more they will actually represent the people. The more you identify with someone, the more you’re going to vote their way. Giving up their businesses will help them distance themselves a bit and gain perspective. It will also free up their time to do the job they were elected to do.
Hell yes Grossman should give up his business. If he wants to give it to a family member, that’s fine. But he shouldn’t own it and shouldn’t be spending his time on it.
you think anyone should be able to run… but not serve.
That’s even worse. Who needs a flawed democracy when we can have a destabilized one?
Your view is not only unrealistic, but bizarre and a flagrant violation of the spirit of our country — not to mention in the extreme fringe minority, perhaps of one.
The ethics law is, generally, good. It could probably be better; its interpretation in this case could certainly be better.
But I don’t want elected officials’ private businesses to derive special profit from their actions as officials. It ought to be possible to enforce a rule that does that in a clear and intelligent way.
I think people need to make a choice between serving their own private interests and those of the public. Public service does not give you unlimited freedom. It comes with responsibilities. One of those is putting the public’s good first. If you can’t do that, you don’t belong in office.
Should we get rid of anti-bribery laws? Those “destabilize” democracy too, by limiting the ability of bribe recipients to serve in office even if elected.
doesn’t really address Ryan’s point that the businesses are likely to be sold at bargain-basement prices. A seller has very little leverage in a deal if the other party knows the business must be sold by a particular (and not very far off) date. This problem is only exacerbated with a candidate like to win in a landslide. More need to get rid of the business, less incentive for any buyer to do anything other than play hardball on price.
I find unrealistic the idea that potential buyers would be willing to make the purchase contingent on the seller winning the election. What buyer would put together financing and tie up so much money without seeing the sale go through?
Not the ideal solution from the public’s perspective, but one I’d accept.
In most jobs, your boss can demand that you not work any other job, or hold an adverse interests, so you’ll be loyal only to your employer. It’s a pretty common requirement in the private sector. I don’t see why some of the most powerful jobs in the country should get special privileges that most employees don’t get.
…because in isolation I agree, but that refers more to jobs that take time to do. Owning shares in a company doesn’t necessarily make that your job, but I do wish legislators who certainly make enough for it to be considered a full time job, would not “hang out a shingle” to do business, like law as a perfect example, on the side.
All these parallels – snow removal, indigent burial, Medicaid payments, legal notices – all seem to be fee for service arrangements. They have agreed that the state will pay them for providing a service should the state choose to consign the work to them by demonstrating their ability and capacity to perform that work (insurance, necessary licenses, etc.) The state is not OBLIGED to use them – no snow, no plow, etc.
But in Wolf’s case, it flows in the other direction – the state doesn’t pay him, he pays them. It is the STATE that must provide the service, i.e., landing strip, terminal capacity, etc. The STATE is the contracting party.
Is that the key to what makes it a contract? That the state is bound to perform? Because the others are vendor arrangements.
The rates are all set by the state in what they’ll pay for the service, therefore, they are no-bid contracts by the Ethics Comm definition. That’s where the parallels lay (or lie, I can never figure that out. Thank god for copy editors) That’s the violation the EC cited from Sec 7(c) of Ch. 268A of the ethics law.
here is a quote from his story:
Broadly speaking, that is correct. Under that definition – and, certainly, as a legal matter – it doesn’t matter who is paying money and who is providing services. Both contracting parties have responsibilities. The key to a contract, in the traditional legal definition, is an exchange – I give you something, on condition that you give me something. The “something” can be goods, services, money, or something else, on both sides of the deal. What you call a “vendor arrangement” is absolutely a species of contract, in the common law sense.
Of course, none of this answers the question whether, as a matter of statutory construction in the context of the ethics law, this extremely broad definition actually makes sense. That’s what we should be talking about.
This past year, Sen. Wolf has on two occasions, where he has a financial interest, One in Yarmouth on February 26, 2013, http://www.yarmouth.ma.us/index.aspx?NID=1231 and the other in Barnstable, on January 29th, http://www.town.barnstable.ma.us/ondemand/video.asp?video=Airport+Commission+01-29-2013+1H.wmv&class=2&year=2013,used his position as a State Senator to promote Jet Blue to begin service to the Barnstable Airport The evidence speaks for itself.
https://www.capeair.com/about_us/airline_partners.html
Sen. Wolf should resign and stop the grandstanding. He has broken the law and he knows it.