Group calls for new leadership at the Massachusetts Democratic Party in wake of damning investigation
Press Release November 6, 2020
[BOSTON] The Bay State Stonewall Democrats released the following statement in response to the final investigation and report conducted by independent investigator Attorney Cheryl Jacques into allegations of misconduct by Massachusetts Democratic Party Chair Gus Bickford and Executive Director Veronica Martinez :
“The report is extensive and conclusive: Gus Bickford and Veronica Martinez violated the policies of the Massachusetts Democratic State Committee prohibiting staff from participating in contested primaries, lied to members of the Democratic State Committee, and attempted to cover up their actions, all to spread homophobic rumors and tropes about a gay elected official and rising star in our party.
“Not only are we outraged by the extent of the unethical actions from these two Party leaders, but we are extremely disappointed in their refusal to acknowledge and apologize for their actions in perpetuating a homophobic attack from within the Democratic Party.
“We are calling for a new Chair to take the helm of the Party to ensure the recommendations in the report are properly implemented, but also provide for an avenue to repair the relationship between the party and the LGBTQIA+ community. It is clear from his public statements to the media that Bickford is unwilling to take on this task.
“We would like to thank Attorney Jacques for conducting a thorough and independent review into the unethical behavior of party leaders. We would also like to thank Vice Chair Deb Kosikowski, Leon Braithwaite, and Personnel Committee Chair Mark DiSalvo for guiding this process during difficult times within our Party.
“Now is the time for uncomfortable conversations and decisions within our Party. We look forward to being a part of those conversations and discussions and stand ready to play a role in the healing process that has directly impacted our LGBTQIA+ community. But, these discussions cannot begin until the current Chair and Executive Director take responsibility for their egregious behavior and step aside — for the good of the party.
###
NOTE : The author is a longtime proud member/activist of Bay State Stonewall Democrats.
It should be noted that DSC members received an email today signed by some members of the LGBT Outreach Committee dissenting from the idea that homophobia played a role.
It is ABSURD that nobody will publish the darn report.
Did the author of this piece read the actual report? If so, then publish it for crying out loud, verbatim.
If by the author you mean Fred, then he should not have since he’s not a DSC member, but with all the leaking who’s to say? If you mean the author of the press release that is pasted into this diary then that is possible since there are DSC members on the Stonewall board.
I meant the author of the press release.
Seriously, people — seriously FRED — if you have a copy of the report, then publish it. If you don’t have a copy of the report, then it is irresponsible and, frankly, just plain cheesy to issue a press release without actually seeing the report.
This is bush-league stuff that makes me embarrassed to be a Democrat.
For the first time in my life, I’m seriously contemplating pulling my registration and joining the ranks of the unenrolled.
Do it, Tom! It’s like finally getting the courage to leave an abusive partner! I did it last spring and have never once looked back.
I can’t believe you are directly advocating a deliberate breach of confidentiality! Some of us appreciate a reputation that we can be trusted.
I can’t believe you are directly advocating a deliberate Watergate-style coverup. Some of us appreciate public figures whose first obligation is to the truth.
The quoted excerpt reads with the authority of someone who has read the report. Tell us again how it is appropriate to publicly speak about a report like this and simultaneously refuse to disclose the report itself.
Tell us again who is being protected by keeping this report under wraps.
I am NOT calling for a cover up. I am calling for the release of the report, but that is not my unilateral decision to make, nor should others have quoted it directly without authorization. I’d like to not speak about it without it being released, but for now the alternative is to not speak up at all in defense of good people and that’s not acceptable either. The only people who might be protected by not releasing are the college students who are not public figures, but I actually think state party leadership would look better with the release of the full report minimally redacted to protect the identities of the students. I emailed the Vice-Chairs and Personnel Committee Chair asking that it be released and was told that since the DSC collectively is the client that engaged the services of Cheryl Jacques a vote of the full DSC is required to do that. I am committed to pursuing this in the proper manner. Meanwhile, the reputation I desire for myself is of one who does not breach confidences except in extreme circumstances where withholding information might put someone in danger or something like that.
You’ve provided a lengthy and detail explanation of how the DSC rationalizes its cover-up. Of COURSE the people you correspond with aren’t going to admit to the cover-up, especially in writing.
The effect of your stance is to encourage the cover-up. I am responding to your direct words to me:
Based on what you’ve written, you are in fact calling for a cover-up. What you’ve written is a defense for that posture.
I don’t know how much clearer I can make this.
I WANT the report released.
I’m NOT authorized to do it myself.
I get that you disagree with this approach, but I’m asking that you acknowledge I’m acting in good faith. Neither the “crime” nor the “coverup” comes anywhere close to Watergate and I am beginning to resent what feels like a personal attack.
You attacked me for saying that the Bay State Democrats should publish the report before writing the above piece describing it. I’m defending my posture in response to that attack.
I’m not attacking you personally, I’m instead reminding you of the effect of the decision to keep this report under wraps.
I’m certainly not accusing you of any Watergate-style crimes. I’m saying that it looks to me as though your trust and good faith are being betrayed by the people you are defending.
So I do indeed acknowledge that you are acting in good faith. I think you are being betrayed. The crime of Watergate was much more than a two-bit burglary of a Washington DC office. The Watergate coverup was about much more than the actions of a handful of Cuban exiles and CIA agents.
The refusal of the party to publish this report makes me wonder if there is similarly something more than just this particular episode at play. Who else did Mr. Bickford have similar exchanges with? Was this episode a part of a larger operation, in the same way that the original “Watergate Seven” were part of a larger plan?
I am not attacking you. It looks to me as though your trust and good faith may be being exploited.