| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 12:49:27 AM
|
| No, what he told me when he was attempting to get elected was that he had'nt made a decision on the issue yet. How convieient. I took him at his word back then, but after talking to others around the city the last couple of months it appears I was duped. I now believe he was firmly against allowing this ammendment to go to the ballot all along and did not wish to disclose that fact because he knew it would cost him votes. Well, it did'nt in 2006 but it will in 2008. Bet on it. |
 |
|
|
Fran
Senior Member
250 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 08:48:28 AM
|
| MM1, it was well documented that Smith recieved funding from those in support of gay marriage so I'm not surprised at his vote. I am not debating his vote just pointing out that I think his position, along with his relationship with Barrios, was expected. |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:32:20 AM
|
| That's fine Fran. If he had been honest about it when he was running for election and clearly stated his position at that time when I asked him I would'nt have a problem with him. I just would have voted against him and moved on. The problem I have , as many here are stating, is that he did not reveal the fact his mind was made up in favor of derailing the citizen initiative process because he wanted my vote. Many candidates take donations to raise campaign funding and don't blindly support one group of contributors over another. He should have told them putting it on the ballot was the right thing to do but, I Stephen Smith am opposed and promise you I will cast MY vote against it in the general election. His taking my right to vote away is unacceptable to me and many others and that's why he should now be prepared to endure the backlash from us. He made the decision, now He has to live with it. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/15/2007 09:33:55 AM |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:41:35 AM
|
FROM THE BOSTON HERALD: And with that, we all move on.
Yesterday’s defeat of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage represents not just a victory for gay couples, but a loss for those who cynically sought political advantage by favoring the most uncompromising version of such an amendment. The latter, like presidential contender Mitt Romney, got what they deserved.
As we noted yesterday, nowhere in the Constitution is there guaranteed the right to a popular vote on a constitutional amendment. Lawmakers had a set of proscribed rules to follow, and with only slight variation here and there (and after some not-so-gentle prodding by the Supreme Judicial Court), they managed to follow those rules yesterday.
Evidently - there is no "right" to a vote as a result of an initiative petition. If you find it in the Constitution, please point it out to me.
I would also imagine, Middleman, that had the anti-gay marriage supporters supported another version of the amendment instead of this "uncompromising version" - there would have been a different outcome. Why not also blame the amendment supporters for not being astute enough to recognize most people favor at least "something" for our gay brothers and sisters.
|
Edited by - Court4Fred on 06/15/2007 09:43:29 AM |
|
|
|
Middle-Man 1
Senior Member
188 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:51:47 AM
|
| Because they don't Court. If you really believed that then why the problem with putting it on the ballot? If what you say is correct the voters would have sent the ammendment down in flames and we all could have gone on with our lives after the majority had spoken. I could have lived with that result if it had come to pass. We all know it would have passed though don't we? That's what necessitated the tactics used. This only makes the process begin anew, it does'nt end it. They can outspend us 10-1 attempting to defeat it every two years until they all go broke as far as I'm concerned. It's only a matter of time. |
Edited by - Middle-Man 1 on 06/15/2007 09:52:37 AM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 09:56:10 AM
|
| It's just my opinion but I think there is a difference between accepting contributions and allowing a group to do a mailing for you that contains their name. I would also suggested to you that when you ask a candidate directly about an issue that you are passionate about that may have a lot of grey to it but has a pretty clear bottom line (for or against), if that candidate can't state his position on it to your satisifaction, walk away from them much as you are doing now. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 10:24:02 AM
|
Well, Tetris, I would suggest that allowing a group (or a person) to do a mailing that contains their name is quite unambiguous. The practice is also legal and practiced without so much as a squeak; to wit, the mailings done on behalf of Senator Barrios by the Teachers Association. On the other hand, in this city - we've had candidates run for office, and had mailings/postage paid for by a third party - without any acknowledgement in either a campaign finance report or the actual mailing. Which practice do you think is improper? Personally, I'd rather know EXACTLY who's paying for the mailing.
As for Middleman's bone of contention with Smith regarding any promises or statements made during the campaign, I hope that Middleman expresses his feelings directly with Mr. Smith. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 11:18:30 AM
|
Court,
Although I may have not expressed it clearly enough, I do agree that a mailing with someone's name on it is not ambiguous. As far as your other issue is concerned, I have to plead ignorance about campaign finance law. I would have thought that any kind of a "contribution" to a campaign would need to be included in a campaign finance report in some fashion. Just something else I need to get educated on.
I too would hope that Middleman expresses his disappointment directly with Rep. Smith. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/15/2007 : 11:50:21 AM
|
| Tetris - believe me, an in-kind contribution is supposed to be on the campaign finance report. Given the lack of oversight, enforcement isn't happening. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/25/2007 : 7:55:46 PM
|
| Stat Smith said at tonights meeting, he is running for School Committee. |
|
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2007 : 09:21:03 AM
|
| GOOD! Thanks for the info massdee didn't see the meeting as of yet. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2007 : 2:55:24 PM
|
| I agree with a lot that Stat Smith has to say but I think he’s starting to go a little overboard. I am NOT defending the Superintendent, he should have been let go years ago, but the article in the paper didn’t have anything to do with FFF and I think this time Stat may have gone too far with his accusations. People can say that FFF buys out the advocate or what ever but Stat needs to calm down and defend himself without accusing other people regardless of who they are. |
|
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2007 : 3:10:07 PM
|
| I agree Tails he does tend to jump up on the soap box lately but, at least we would have some new blood in the school committee and maybe just maybe things would be done properly for the children that are not star athletes. |
|
|
|
Court4Fred
Advanced Member
1201 Posts |
Posted - 06/26/2007 : 4:15:45 PM
|
| Tails - what makes you think the article in the paper has nothing to do with the superintendent? This is the same superintendent that used special education money to take out ads against people who disagreed with him. He's done it before. |
|
|
|
Fran
Senior Member
250 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2007 : 12:27:07 PM
|
Dual officeholders drawing scrutiny
State panel sees potential conflict
By John C. Drake, Globe Staff | July 16, 2007
In Massachusetts, known for its healthy appetite for politics, a quirk in the state constitution allows the state's most ambitious politicos to hold more than one elected office.
For that, Michael Sullivan can be thankful.
Sullivan, from a storied family of politicians, was elected Middlesex County clerk of courts last fall, replacing his 86-year-old uncle, Edward J. Sullivan, who had stepped down after nearly 50 years. Michael Sullivan is also an elected Cambridge city councilor.
His total pay: about $170,000 a year.
A state advisory panel for clerks of court has recommended that Sullivan drop one of the posts, saying conflicts of interest could arise between the dual roles. Sullivan insists he has taken steps to avoid any conflict, and has pulled nomination papers for re election to the City Council. He said he is confident he could continue to handle both jobs.
"It actually wasn't as demanding as I thought it would be," said Sullivan, who has yet to decide if he will run again.
Massachusetts is one of a handful of states with few restrictions on holding two elective positions.
Critics of dual office holding say it creates potential conflicts of interest, allows job holders to collect two public salaries and added pension benefits, and prevents new blood from filling public offices.
It is controversial in some states, but there has been little push to abandon the practice in Massachusetts.
The potential conflicts include the fact that a state lawmaker who is also a city councilor may vote on a budget that affects his own city, while other cities also are competing for cash. In Sullivan's case, his office processes court cases that include him as a defendant.
Besides Sullivan, other double office holders include another Cambridge city councilor, Timothy J. Toomey Jr. , who is also a state representative; State Representative Rosemary Sandlin, who is also a member of the Agawam School Committee; first-year State Representative Stephen Smith, who is serving his last year as a selectman in Everett; and state Representative Thomas Stanley , who is also an at-large Waltham city councilor.
To many of the politicians, the double duty is a point of pride: Not only did the voters elect them once, they elected them twice. They boast that they know the issues at home very well.
"I never have to 'take the temperature,' because I'm always in the middle of everything," said Stanley, a Democrat whose Ninth Middlesex District includes parts of Waltham and Lexington. "I have constant contact with local and state officials as well as constituents."
He earns two public salaries: $14,874 a year plus expenses from the city of Waltham, and $55,569 from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
One government watchdog group says the situation is acceptable, as long as the officials are careful about avoiding conflicts.
"I think we've seen many that are able to juggle those responsibilities well," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts. "Any time you do have a dual role, whether it's elected or having outside employment, there are potentials for conflicted interests. But frankly, I think they're less when holding two elected offices than when in the private sector."
State ethics law focuses on preventing financial conflicts of interest. For example, a state legislator, as a state employee, cannot obtain a contract to provide services to the state. Also a lawmaker cannot receive a second state salary, although there are exceptions, including faculty appointments. But state law says there is no restriction on state officials holding local elected office.
In other states, however, the practice has been controversial.
In New Jersey, Governor Jon Corzine is reviewing recently passed legislation that bans dual office holding. Under the law, current dual office holders would be grandfathered, but any current or future elected official who was elected to a second office would have to choose one.
Brenda Erickson , a research analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said many states ban dual office holding to prevent double dipping for salary and benefits in public coffers.
Generally, city councilors and selectmen are not considered full-time employees, and they often hold private-sector jobs.
Stanley, the Waltham politician, said voters determine each year whether he's doing a good job handling his local and his state responsibilities. He's up for re election to the council and the state Legislature in alternating years.
Having so many elections is certainly time-consuming, he said. He says he probably has knocked on every door in Waltham.
"I enjoy it," he said. "It's like breathing to me."
But not everyone agrees that dual office holders can adequately serve both roles.
Waltham City Councilor Kathleen B. McMenimen challenged her council colleague Stanley in the 2004 primary election for state representative.
She promised to step down from the council post if elected to the House.
The legislative seat encompasses Waltham and portions of neighboring Lexington, and she said the needs of the two communities sometimes are in conflict.
"As state representative, he has a hard enough time balancing the needs of the Lexington constituents with the needs of the Waltham constituents," she said.
But Stanley said he has never felt a conflict in representing both communities.
"That was a concern of mine when I was redistricted into Lexington," he said. "But . . . the communities are more similar than one would think, and I can't think of a situation where I've been in conflict."
In Sullivan's case, the Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committee on Ethical Opinions for Clerks of the Courts weighed in on his dual roles in January.
He had asked the panel for its opinion on handling court cases involving the City of Cambridge. The panel's conclusion was that holding both offices would be "problematic."
The clerk's office controls the flow of cases through the courthouse and handles evidence and court filings. A Code of Professional Responsibility requires clerks to maintain impartiality on issues that could come before the court.
Sullivan says his office is up-front about his dual roles when cases involving the city of Cambridge come before the court. Parties are given the opportunity to move their cases to another clerk's jurisdiction if they are concerned about a conflict.
Several lawmakers who had brief overlap in their local offices and their state offices, say they decided not to run for re election to their local seats, because of the time commitment, the need to get others involved in politics, and potential conflicts.
"I preferred to focus on the one job," said state Representative William Brownsberger , a Democrat who was elected to the Legislature in November while serving as a Belmont selectman. He served out the last three months of his term as selectmen after taking office on Beacon Hill in January.
Sandlin was elected to the Legislature in November while serving as an Agawam School Committee member. She said she decided not to step down from the School Committee because the vacancy would have required an expensive special election for her community.
"I've not missed a meeting on the School Committee nor missed a vote in the House," Sandlin said. "But of course, I'm a very energetic person."
John C. Drake can be reached at jdrake@globe.com
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Stat Smith
