(… And while we endure a national suicide attempt at the hands of our GOP captors … )
Bryon Hefner’s alleged predatory violence against those who have business with the Senate, is sickening.
Hefner knew/believed he could get away with assaulting people because of his supposed pull with his husband, Stan Rosenberg. We don’t know whether Rosenberg’s been an enabler, or to what extent. We don’t know yet how fair it is to have Rosenberg pay for his husband’s sexual violence.
The Globe’s editorial this morning puts these events in the context that Rosenberg had promised a “firewall” between his business and that of Hefner’s. That was always hard to believe; and now it has blown up in everyone’s faces: This is not the first strike on Rosenberg’s judgment vis-a-vis his husband. Power is a matter of perception; and whether Hefner’s actual political pull with Rosenberg was real or not, it was perceived by Hefner’s victims as being potentially real. And so they had to take the abuse, on behalf of their clients. That’s how this stuff works.
I am a fan of Rosenberg’s leadership. The Senate has been doing, on balance, quite good work lately. But he must not be made indispensable at the cost of a safe workplace in the State House. Reluctantly, I have to agree that he should step aside, at least temporarily, while we find the answers to these questions: What he knew and when; and what he should have known.
I only did a cursory look, but is there even a provision to take a leave? Everyone likes Senator Rosenberg, but his statement about how Hefner has no influence on him leaves out the dynamic of what individuals could and could not do or say with the Senate President.
That’s a good point. I think a firewall is possible, but if the person outside the wall breaches it and the guy inside is the boss, there’s little anyone else do.
Of course, I have to add my usual caveat. Elected officials hold themselves up as leaders. If a Senator is too cowed to confront the Senate President over something, they shouldn’t be there.
There is no such provision. You either are, or are not the Senate President.
Rosenberg will step down temporarily — https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2017/12/04/rosenberg-to-step-aside-as-senate-leader-during-investigation
I have to wonder if it’s really temporary, even if he’s exonerated of any knowledge or wrongdoing. The new leader might end up liking the job.
I agree that Rosenberg has to stand down. There is no way an investigation can be sure how pervasive Hefner’s actions were. The Globe uncovered four, but Hefner is the only one who knows how many more victims there were, and whether there was “Senate business” influenced by Hefner. And he can’t testify without incriminating himself.
We are constantly being told that we can have an effect on the legislature with a letter or a phone call. It’s a little insulting to ask us to believe that the husband of the State Senator has no influence at all.
We are constantly being told that we can have an effect on the legislature with a letter or a phone call. It’s a little insulting to ask us to believe that the husband of the State Senator has no influence at all.
I’m not sure I understand your point – are you offended if the husband of a State Senator has some influence? Are you suggesting that all elected representatives should lead monastic lifestyles, free from potentially influencing spouses?
I’m not trying to defend Hefner here – he seems like a scumbag, and if Rosenberg knew what Hefner was doing, he should resign from the senate, but I’m not sure that pretending or even demanding that our elected officials should have “firewalls” around them from their friends, relatives, and supporters is realistic either.
I’m not sure how culpable anyone should be for their spouse’s behavior. If a police officer’s wife gets pulled over and says “hey, my husband is a cop, and he will make your life miserable if you give me a ticket”, should her husband lose his job over his wife’s actions? What if his friend or neighbor does that? Sure, no one should be bullied by public office, but how do you hang the actions of one person onto another?
Rosenberg had previously promised that there would be a “firewall” between Hefner and State Senate business. Obviously, that is a promise that he had no business making. It’s also a promise that nobody should have believed.
I don’t expect the close friends and family of a politician to have no influence, but that is what Rosenberg promised.
I am a StanFan but know he is flawed (we all are). I have been a professional colleague of him since the 1980s when he was with Olver and then at the DSC. I have also had, ahem, vigorous disagreements with him, most recently over casinos. Still, I put a lot of trust in him.
But his relationship with Heffner has been shite since Day One. And there is no such thing as a firewall between two very political people who share the same bed, the same day to day life. Been there, done that. Stan is enough of a straight shooter to have taken the step of removing himself from Senate leadership, but as someone who spent decades learning the rules of both chambers and the JR, I know of no provision that allows him to temporarily remove himself as President. You either are, or are not the President. This could get even messier than it currently is. I wish him well but when lightweight opportunists like L’Italiene immediately jump to the conclusion that he needs to be removed from office for something that somebody ELSE did, you have to expect the unexpected.
Can someone back way up for me here because I’m confused. Does Hefner have a state job or some official role on Beacon Hill? If not why does this involve the Senate at all? I’m not comfortable with anyone falling on their sword for the sins of the spouse. Plus, doesn’t a spouse by definition have influence? I don’t think that’s anything to be ashamed of.
The accusation is that the spouse made deliberate use of his access, including saying he had influence with the Senator, to do bad things. You don’t need to worry about precedent, the precedent has been set.
The only question is what Rosenberg knew, and when. He might not know anything about this.
Even if there was no influence running from Hefner to Rosenberg on legislative matters, the fact that Hefner was abusing people while married to a very powerful person would allow Hefner to engage in that abuse and keep his victims silent. Hefner could use his relationship with Rosenberg to do this regardless of whether Rosenberg knew anything. If Rosenberg knew and helped Hefner silence victims, then he’s absolutely got to go, and there may be something criminal there. If Hefner, as part of this activity, pressured legislative action in some untoward way (I’m with you in that I don’t understand how that would work), then Rosenberg also has to go, and again there may be something criminal there.
It all looks particularly bad because there was a blowup with Hefner early on in Rosenberg’s current leadership role and Rosenberg vowed to take care of things and ensure nothing would happen again. A very problematic result of an investigation is if Rosenberg took steps to intentionally “not know” what was going on.
I am not that connected in the State House world these days, but I never heard anything like this about Hefner. Have others? The stuff I used to hear was more gossip about open relationship kinds of things, not abuse.
It seems like a leave and investigation is the right thing, but if it turns out Rosenberg knew or helped in any way, then he has to go.
Hefner was toxic beyond belief. Case in point is the headline below, from yesterday’s MassLive:
“Senate President Stan Rosenberg’s husband Bryon Hefner sent unsolicited photo of nude male genitalia to state political player”
Source link: http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/12/bryon_hefner_sent_nude_photo.html#incart_2box
My personal belief is that Sen. Rosenberg was in denial, rather than culpable in this mess; however there is a feeding frenzy on Beacon Hill. There are already three potential insurgent candidates for Senate President, while A.G. Healey and Suffolk County D.A. Conley are talking about possible criminal probes.
I think that just the possibility that the fate of your bill was affected by how your lobbyist reacted when the Senate President’s husband grabbed the lobbyist’s genitalia is damning enough.
Can anyone guarantee that’s not the case?