Just kidding.
I haven’t seen polling for the Middlesex DA race, but I can’t imagine the recent news that Ryan withheld pages of a report on the Jared Remy murder will help her.
Yesterday the Globe reported that Ryan withheld 19 pages of the report and charged that she may have violated the public records law.
“When I elect to release something that I haven’t been compelled to release, it’s fully in my discretion to release what I’m going to release,” Ryan said in a telephone interview Thursday night.
In a job so heavily dependent on the correct use of discretion, this should raise huge red flags.
The Globe followed that up with a story on the report this morning.
“It would have been significant to know that Remy had previously been held on dangerousness,” the prosecutor told former Essex district attorney Kevin Burke and First Assistant Norfolk District Attorney Jeanmarie Carroll in their review of the Remy case.
Ryan explained Friday that the prosecutor did not know that Remy had been ordered held in 2005 because such information was historically kept out of a defendant’s probation record.
Whether that information was kept out by law or by office policy would be nice to know, and it wouldn’t be Ryan’s fault, but her decisions with regards to the report are all on her.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why Ryan would take any chances with being anything other than completely forthright and transparent with this case. It’s one of the biggest liabilities (and she has others) and she chose to make it so much worse.
The saving grace for Ryan is that these stories have come out on a Friday and Saturday in the summer, but they are still incredibly damning. For me, at a bare minimum, a candidate for DA must demonstrate the highest levels of trust. Marian Ryan has not done that.
When it comes down to it, what are the positives for Ryan as DA? She has the most experience in the office? That may be true, but that certainly isn’t showing in her being able to run an effective and trustworthy prosecutor’s office.
My understanding is that the Governor appointed her over Sullivan who also applied for the appointment. The bar seems to have quite a bit of respect for her as well and has been well-represented at her events.
I’m in Cambridge and most seem to be with Sullivan, which should be expected.
This earlier report from the Globe regarding her management style and higher than usual turnover raises many more questions.
This is really bad.
As far as choosing Ryan over Sullivan, I think it was probably a pretty safe and obvious choice to appoint someone currently in the office rather than someone who had not been a managing prosecutor.
There seems to be a lot of questions and baggage with Ryan, and, so far, not many trustworthy answers.
I’ve been friends with Michael since he mentored me when I was a student school committee member in Cambridge, and his family and mine go back further due to the long legacy of his uncle and father. That said, I know in my bones that Michael was happy where he was, not eager to run a negative campaign, and not eager to spend the time away from his wife and young kids that a county wide effort like this requires. But a few things made him change his mind.
Additionally, Ryan was an old friend and colleague of Michaels. It wasn’t until former colleagues, including some who had been with that office for decades, were quitting in droves alienated by her management style. He strongly felt she handled that case poorly. The Remy case is not just a question of competency, management, or public safety-but a question of values. Would someone without those connections have been treated with kid gloves? Equal justice is a question of social justice, and Michael will always be on the side of the victims. Many of whom he calls up personally to offer assistance. And cut through the red tape. This is someone who will put justice first before playing politics. Can we honestly still say that about the incumbent?
or she might be in real trouble.
Yvonne Abraham pretty much sums up the terrible choices facing the voters of Middlesex County…a tyrant vs a hack.
Sullivan comes off as completely tone deaf, especially given his political experience, in the piece linked by Abraham.
What!?!
If the referral got $1.2M, how much did the client end up with after the lawyer got his or her fee? I want to know how to get in on deals like that.
Can’t say that either sound all that inspiring, but with Ryan her problems have come with the management of the office she seeks.
Yes, 1.2mil is a lot, but it sounds like any of us could have referred a friend to this firm. Unless there is a favor he did for the firm in his capacity as Mayor, I don’t see the conflict that you seem to suggest.
That referral (although seemingly abnormally large) does not raise the conflicts questions as much as:
What is lost in this “debate” is that only one of the four people mentioned in the editorial was appointed to her position, Marian Ryan. She was “in charge” when her office was at least partially responsible for a domestic violence victim getting murdered, she initially blamed that same victim for her own murder, she did not present all the evidence that resulted from a subsequent investigation, and then she tried to cover up her lack of truthfulness. I don’t know if previous blogger. Not sure if it’s correct that Sullivan GAVE his tax returns to Globe for their article on him, but if that’s true, at least he didn’t hide it. Nothing hackish about full transparency in my view, there is a lot to be concerned about when the appointed DA pursues politics over pursuing justice.
I don’t think that’s the criticism. It’s making tons of money off of political connections, some of which raise conflict of interest questions.
Still, it’s not bad stuff directly related to managing the office sought, but I think the questions are absolutely appropriate and troubling.
I’m not inspired by either candidate (unlike I am with Berwick, or how I think both AG candidates are very strong), but Ryan’s practice run in the office is more concerning to me.
She linked to a single paragraph in a Globe article to paint an false equivalency between Sullivan and Ryan for her columns schtick. In Cambridge, city councilors are part time employees in Cambridge, Michael voted against pay raises during his tenure there, and he had a full time job as an attorney. To use her logic, no part time politician should hold a full time job or stakes in their company. So Marty Walsh shouldn’t have been involved with his union as a rep, and Dan Wolf was wrong to try and keep Cape Wind. Another Cambridge City Councilor, who has tried to be a full time councilor, is having trouble paying to put his kids through school and may go back to practicing law full time and not run for re-election. John Keenan in Salem has made the same call and quit the legislature. I think we lose good people that way.
The referral fee has nothing to do with him being Mayor, it came from him referring the case to his law partners when he was ‘of counsel’ at an East Cambridge PI firm.
He quit that position, and I might add, his Council position, after getting elected clerk. Tim Toomey has been a longtime state and city elected official, it’s not illegal and it’s likely the voters would’ve let Michael keep both jobs, but he still decided to be a full time Clerk since he wanted to give that office his full dedication and avoid even the potential for a conflict of interest.
She is trying to take perfectly legal and above board activities that most part time legislators or local officials engage in and make them unsavory. Should Marc McGovern quit being a social worker? Was it right that Dan Wolf had to sell stakes in his business? I would say, if you thought the ruling against Wolf was unfair, which most people here and the editors did as well, than preventing Michael from continuing to be involved in his long time family business and law practice when he was a Councilor seems hypocritical.
Since he was elected clerk, there was the one advisory position, and I might add it was for a development in his neighborhood where he retains a lot of close community ties. The optics of that example may sell Herald papers, but I don’t see anyone in the original article saying it was illegal, unsavory, or hackish. Yvonne jumps to a lot of conclusions with this article, and fails to mention how much the Sullivans have given back out of their own pockets to help families and individuals over the years, not to mention community organizations in Cambridge. It doesn’t compare to Ryan covering up how she handled a future murderer to make her look better, not in the slightest.
I disagree with that. Abraham may be unfair, but Sullivan’s consulting gig while Clerk is not so clearly “above board.” It would only be that way if properly disclosed, which it was not.
This was in the article:
That may not be the best messenger, but I think the work absolutely raises questions.
This is the problem.
He cleared himself in a situation that easily raises conflict of interest questions. He may be right that it doesn’t, and if he is so confident that it does not, then he could have easily disclosed the work and received approval.
As far as having two jobs, he can have a law practice while working as a city councilor, but can his firm represent a client in a licensing matter before the city? I think the answer is a clear no, especially without some proper disclosure and possible recusal. That development deal raises similar questions that his public role could provide some potential benefit for his private work.
As far as Tim Toomey goes, he’s an old school guy that’s clearly double dipping. It’s legal, but it’s not good. He’s also not at all progressive. I don’t like him, and never vote for him.
The Toomey example was meant as a contrast, not an endorsement. Sullivan could’ve double dipped and decided not to. He likely could have been more socially conservative like his father and uncles and win on the strength of his name, but he has been an outspoken LGBTQ rights supporter, Patriot Act opponent, gender equality supporter, and always made it a point to hire a diverse staff. I resent that Abraham tries to paint him as yet another member of the Irish Catholic old boys network when he has actively fought for progressive issues and concerns while maintaining the family tradition of strong constituent services and outreach. Keeping a family business, helping secure a settlement for a constituent in a PI case, and holding a second job as a councilor aren’t the red flags she makes them out to be, nor are they anywhere morally or ethically equivalent to the glaring abuses Ryan is accused of.
I think that’s fair.
I still wouldn’t say there aren’t any questions with Sullivan. Ryan had a practice run at the job she seeks and has made some huge errors.
From what I know now, I’ll vote for Sullivan. I won’t be out there donating time or money for him, though.
To be honest, I’d probably never do that for any DA candidate because the people I would most like to see get that job would be fierce advocates for fighting inequality. Sullivan has made better statements indicating an inclination toward that direction, but he’s not for choosing to stop prosecuting non-violent drug offenses, which is something I’d get really excited about.
I think the tone of the actual Globe article was fair, and I feel Abraham selectively quoted from it to fit her preformed narrative about the race. It’s important these questions get asked, and I think Sullivan has addressed most of them.
He also has explicitly stated he favors restorative justice, using alternative sentencing to reduce recidivism, and bringing in more case workers from social services to help. I know the latter is one of the big reasons Marc McGovern, a social worker and Cambridge city councilor, endorsed Michael A Sullivan for the job. The cross section of support he is getting is also quite impressive. Solid proud progressives like Scott Harshbarger, Mike Capuano, Majorie Decker, along with more traditional Democratic figures like Toomey, David Maher, and The Italian American Police Association of Massachusetts, the Teamsters, and Bricklayers and Allied Craftsman. A lot of officials in Medford, Wakefield, Sudbury, and Newton have endorsed too. So a lot of momentum and appeal across the county.