According to Masslive.com, the city of Boston’s tourism chief, Kenneth Brissette, has been indicted and arrested on extortion charges. The reason? Because he and one other city official repeatedly advised a local music promoter that he would have to hire union labor before awarding them a permit for a music festival.
The implications of this are enormous. The State Gaming Commission placed a number of requirements on MGM before awarding them a gaming license – is that extortion too?
Are conditions on permits or other governmental actions considered to be extortion and racketeering? A grand jury seems to think so.
Please share widely!
I think it’s more of a one-off than a major change, but it is an interesting case.
The indictment, can be found here.
It appears to me that the primary difference between the behavior of Mr. Brissette and the State Gaming Commission is that the former is trying to preserve and create union jobs, while the latter is trying to enrich the already-wealthy.
I know I’m cynical about such things, but at the moment that tells me pretty much all I need to know.
do we really want city officials refusing to issue permits if some external union is not hired? When you try to pull a permit to do some work on your house, do you think it would be ok for the city to refuse to give it to you unless you prove that all of the work is going to be performed by members of some specific union?
A better approach would be for the City to simply stay out of it and issue the permit regardless. As long as permits are made public online, then interested unions can always go find them and attempt to negotiate with the party.
Calling this union busting really cheapens the term. There’s plenty of true union busting going on that should be called out. This isn’t such a situation.
If statute, local codes, or regulations require certain things then such need to be enforced, though it should not be based on someone’s personal whim or show favoritism.
… I think, in terms of the gaming license, and the Brissette situation. With the gaming license, the applicant and the state were involved in a process to determine whether the license would issue. The state commission was entitled to negotiate the most favorable terms for the state. With Brissette, Boston Calling was legally entitled to permits to hold the show. But, Brissette allegedly withheld the permits in order to force Boston Calling to do something which they were under no obligation to do–hire union stage hands–as a precondition for issuance of the permit that they were entitled to. If the Casino reached the point where it had agreements with the state, and needed a permit (that it was entitled to), but the governor told the casino to hire his brother or they would not get the permit, that would be a crime. I think the distinction isn’t always very clear, and may have some real nuances in particular circumstances. That’s why this whole area of law can get very murky.
I would imagine – again, not having read the indictment or anything else beyond this post – that this is the crux of the matter. Was Boston Calling indeed legally entitled to the permit? Or was there some vague “public interest” or “best interests of the city” provision in the permitting regulations that left leeway to impose conditions that maybe aren’t spelled out in advance, but that give city officials some degree of discretion? And if so, when does that leeway get pushed so far that it gets into criminal territory?
Perhaps I’m making an unwarranted assumption.
this lists the reasons that a permit can be refused –
http://www.cityofboston.gov/propertymanagement/events.asp
most are pretty specific (already an event scheduled, group has damaged city property before, etc). The only one that looks like there is more discretion is:
“The use or activity intended by the applicant would present an unreasonable danger to the health or safety of the applicant or other users of the area, City employees, or the public.”
hard to see how requiring union workers (as much as one might want to support unions) could fit into this.
But, I expect that the concert had been approved for quite sometime, and the permits were more admin. permits related to specific things (health/safety), that had nothing to do with IATSE stage hands. The permits were being withheld as a wedge, to try to force union stage hands on Boston Calling.
That’s a nice concert you have planned there. Be a shame if you had to cancel it.
Why was the State not able to prosecute this? Extortion is a state crime, among other things. Why do always have the Feds to step in?
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/Section25
Whoever, verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse another of a crime or offence, or by a verbal or written or printed communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person or property of another, or any police officer or person having the powers of a police officer, or any officer, or employee of any licensing authority who verbally or by written or printed communication maliciously and unlawfully uses or threatens to use against another the power or authority vested in him, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage, or with intent to compel any person to do any act against his will, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than fifteen years, or in the house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or both.
Our state officials have always been a little weak-kneed when it comes to prosecuting public officials like this.
I think that the statute hinges on “unlawfully” – because if it hinged on “compel any person to do any act against his will”, it would be extortion for a health inspector to threaten to shut down a restaurant that was in violation of health codes simply because the owner didn’t want to follow the law.
Is it unlawful to refuse a permit unless an organization hired union labor? Not sure. Is it unlawful when the Springfield license commission tells a nightclub that they need to hire police details as a condition of their license? Not sure. But this seems more like a civil matter than a criminal matter.
It is unlawful to deny a permit if the stated permit conditions are met. I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that denying the permit could be contested as a civil matter. Threatening to deny the permit unless a certain act is performed (in this case, hiring union) makes it a criminal matter.
Face it, the Supermajority sold out to their preferred special interests long ago. To paraphrase CMD, nice job you got there. Too bad if a bunch of primaries happen.
Let’s say that Brissette deliberately and willfully told Boston Calling that they had to hire a union.
So the beneficiary is still TBD by Boston Calling, and Brissette doesn’t benefit personally, unless somehow the union kicks back to him.
How, exactly, would that be extortion?
In other words, is this more prosecutorial overreach? Let’s assume Ortiz’s office sincerely believes there is corruption here. Isn’t there some lesser charge — mallfeasance, maybe? Why extortion?
Seems to me if the Tourism Director is not doing his job correctly the city can fire him. Not even completely sure why this is a legal issue. Is there not a routine appeals process for permit denial that can address this?
The benefit does not have to go to Brissette directly to make it extortion.
This just seems like one of those things that is more firable than prosecutable.
If Brissette had been immediately fired when the story broke out, things would have taken perhaps a different turn, but Walsh jumped to his defense, and called him a ‘good man’. The implication is that, unless it is prosecuted, this kind of permitting abuse will go on at the City Hall.
Would Marty Walsh fire an employee for helping out a union?
…that this would go all the way up to the Mayor doing the firing, though I would expect a Mayor to follow the law as well. I guess the City Council could get involved too if need be, but this still seems more political than criminal. If all the players believe helping a union is important then they should just legislate that stipulation into the permitting process.
Oh, well, Mr. Concert organizer, you’ll just have to pay a lawyer to appeal this civilly. If you’re lucky, that process will happen before the date of the concert. Or, you could just pay some money to my friend over here, and everything will be just fine.
First, I wasn’t suggesting an appeal through the courts, but if there is a tourism board or if not the Council, and it shouldn’t take very long. Also, what I’m suggesting is if the City wants union labor just be up front about it and say using union labor is a requirement for a permit.
But, which union?
…and I’m not even saying I would necessarily support the stipulation, though I would imagine such regulations would just say union labor since which union would probably depend on what specific work needs to be done.
But doesn’t there have to be some sort of relationship established?
It still feels like “extortion” is overreach, but I am not a lawyer.