| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2009 : 12:57:07 PM
|
Tails,
Let me first start off by saying that although state law allows it, I’m not a fan of public employees running for elected office. I can stomach it in limited cases, such as running for a city government seat when you work for the school department or the housing authority. I say that because those are separate entities that the elected position would have little or no authority over. That said, I also believe that there is a difference between working for one of these entities and holding an appointed position in one of them, especially when the appointment came from outside the entity itself and the seat you are running for would normally have a vote for confirmation of the appointment. Obviously, it would be a conflict of interest to vote for yourself, so you’d have to excuse yourself from the vote; but I just find it distastefully to put your colleagues in a position where they may be put into a position where they may have to vote on your appointment. Just my opinions though.
However, I think that if we left the discussion here, people would get the impression that public employees can run for office but they would have to do so on their own dime if they didn’t take a leave of absence from their jobs. That’s not the case. To explain how that is supposed to happen, let’s turn to a document produced by the Office of Campaign and Political Finance that we referenced earlier this year, “Campaign Finance Guide - Public Employees, Public Resources and Political Activity.” The web address of the document has changed since the last time it was referenced on this site; a current link appears below:
You must be logged in to see this link.
An excerpt from page 6 of that document:
“Public employees may also run for public office. If, however, you are a public employee and you plan to raise money as part of your campaign for public office, you must organize a political committee and have the political committee handle all fundraising activities for you.
A public employee who is a candidate may not even solicit or receive contributions for the committee organized on his or her behalf. Rather, the employee must refer all questions about fundraising, including offers of contributions, to the committee. In addition, a committee organized on behalf of a public employee may not solicit or receive any contribution from any individual who has an interest in any matter in which the public employee candidate participates, is an employee of the candidate or is otherwise the subject of such employee's official responsibility. For example, the appointed head of a state agency who runs for public office may not solicit or receive contributions from any employee at that same agency, since its employees are the subject of the public employee candidate's official responsibility.”
So, if you are a public employee and you set up a political committee, it’s pretty much the honor system that “prevents” you from raising funds for your own campaign. I don‘t think that any of us are naïve enough to believe that abuses of these rules can‘t happen all the time though. Unfortunately, it’s a question of not having the resources available to monitor it more closely.
The document referenced above does not contain the “leave of absence” provision detailed in your post but in no way am I trying to say that it does not exist. It’s not part of the law (MGL Chapter 55, Section 13); rather it’s a rule used by the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, seemingly regularly and consistently. In a ruling made by that office (You must be logged in to see this link.), they explain the reasoning behind the use of that rule:
“The four/six month rule which has often been articulated by the Office is based upon two factors. First, a substantial unpaid leave of absence must be required to remove a "public employee" from the constraints of M.G.L. c.55, s.13 in order to prevent abuse that short-term leaves would be likely to engender. Second, the four/six month rule was articulated to coincide with statutory requirements for the filing of signatures for nominations during the regular election cycle. See M.G.L. c.53, ss.7 and 10.”
For the life of me, I couldn’t understand why a rule used by the OCPF, apparently since at least the late 80’s at least, hasn’t become part of the law. Then you think about and realize that the people who would be most affected by changes to campaign finance laws are the ones that write the laws in the first place and they generally won’t do anything about these types of changes until they are forced to.
Also, to attempt to answer your other question, another excerpt, this time from page 3 of that same document:
"M.G.L. Chapter 55, Section 13 prohibits paid state, county, city or town employees, other than elected officials, from directly or indirectly soliciting or receiving any contributions or anything of value for any political purpose. “Political purpose” includes fundraising activity on behalf of any candidate or political committee, including parties, PACs, people’s committees (an offshoot of PACs) and ballot question committees on any level – local, state or federal."
So, free reign is given to elected officials in raising money for themselves and any other candidates they choose to support. Maybe it’s just me, but I could care less about what candidates any public figure supports. To me, every candidate for any seat needs to stand on their own merits. Are there some combinations of office holders that may work better than other? Sure there are. But what we expect from the people that we elect to office is for them to work together to do their best for all of their constituents, no matter what. Am I naïve enough that always happens though? Of course not. When it doesn’t, we just have to hope that we will be able to correct it in the next election cycle. That's probably a pipe dream too though. |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2009 : 1:12:15 PM
|
Thanks, Tetris. As usual your post is most informative.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2009 : 3:30:35 PM
|
The information I received was past letters to cities and towns from OCPF that they posted by their director and past director.
My problem is…. people that are appointed by the mayor, for any paid appointment or is already a paid city employee should not be running for public office. It sets the stage for any one person (any mayor) to have complete control, and that is obviously not good. So unfortunately, I have to call it out for what it is. Anyone that knows this Lieutenant knows he’s friends with the mayor.
School department employees are not appointed by the mayor or work for the mayor. It could not be more obvious what's going here.
Senator Galluccio does not live in Everett, nor does he vote in Everett. I feel it’s wrong to use political standings to “help someone out” Do you think that Senator Galluccio really cares who becomes Alderman Ward two? I don’t.
Senator Galluccio did not say “why” he is “all of a sudden” supporting Mike Mangan and soliciting donations. If that’s the case, why is he not supporting Sal DiDomenico for Common Council so publicly…..like he is Mike. That is his employee. The whole situation stinks, and reeks of nasty politics. Let win fairly, not win because the mayor is your friend that pulls a favor and asks to use Galluccio’s name. What does Galluccio care who’s alderman in Ward 2 City of Everett? I know why the Mayor cares. I'd like to know - is Senator Galluccio supporting other city council members in other cities and towns or is he letting those residents vote on for their own people because I haven't seen it.
|
Edited by - Tails on 07/20/2009 3:37:36 PM |
|
|
|
carlost everett
Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2009 : 09:39:41 AM
|
| Lets be real. Mangin is being supported because he's already sold his soul to the devil. Anyone who can't see that is selectively blind. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2009 : 7:20:14 PM
|
I like Mike Mangan as a person, believe me.
What does he want?
He gets paid from the MBTA, he gets paid from the housing authority and now he wants Alderman too? If he stepped down from the housing authority then MAYBE. For someone to become alderman that so openly supported the mayor the way he did, and is currently in a position, appointed by that same mayor..... is TOTALLY wrong. I don't care what anyone says, contact the Office for Campaign and Political finance.
This paragraph is from THEIR website, and it certainly is an issue. Not just for Mike, but the lieutenant that thinks he has a cold day in hell's shot, at beating Chuck DiPerri. I'm real and I can see past clean streets too. It's the mayor stacking his cards. End of story.
This office has advised on numerous occasions that public employees wishing to participate in campaign fundraising activities are exempt from the prohibitions against political solicitation set for in section 13 if they take an unpaid leave of absence at least four months before a primary election or at least six months prior to a general election. Upon taking such a leave of absence a public employee would be allowed to to participate in fundraising activities. See AO-92-07 and advisory opinions cited therein for further information addressing these issues.
|
|
|
|
Fran
Senior Member
250 Posts |
 Posted - 07/27/2009 : 07:52:55 AM
|
There is nothing illegal about a city employee running for office. The stipulation is they can only receive one paycheck. In fact, if you saw (I realize even though we have three newspapers in this town delivery is in consistent)Mike Mangan's announcement he specifically wrote that he would not take the salary. Now, if elected, he could have opted to take the hire Alderman salary but he has made a decision not too.
I have to ask, why is it not illegal for a city employee to run for the same seat? Simonelli works for the school department. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 08:02:54 AM
|
I believe Cornelio and Ranieri also work for the city.
"Deb" |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 08:07:46 AM
|
Personally, I don't think any city employee should be alllowed to run. Even though they recuse themselves when there's a vote that directly affects them, I still believe there's a conflict.
Ultimately, the Mayor is the boss. I know I try to avoid [publicly] disagreeing with my boss because it would be hazardous to my employment. Is being an elected official really any different? |
|
|
|
Fran
Senior Member
250 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2009 : 08:32:00 AM
|
| Joe King used to serve on both the Housing Authority and Common Council at the same year. He only collected one paycheck. Bob Carrario is doing the same know with the School Committee and Housing Authority. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2009 : 11:41:32 AM
|
This week’s Leader-Herald contained an updated (as of July 28th, according to them) list of candidates that have pulled papers to run for office in Everett this fall.
Highlights/Changes/Comments about the current list:
- Competition for all School Committee seats, including Stat Smith finally being reported as having pulled papers.
- Two new Alderman candidates, four new Common Council candidates (and one name correction) and four additional names for the Charter Review Committee.
- A few of the “newer” candidates (Demato, Santagate, Lamontage, Scholsberg) pulling papers for multiple seats. In two of these cases, the second seat is a Charter Review seat.
- Joseph Internicola running for a School Committee seat in Ward 4 rather than the Alderman seat in that ward.
- Another member of the Smith family (Carlie) looking to enter local politics.
Current list according to the Leader-Herald:
Charter Review:
James P. Murphy
Dorothy Martin
Joseph Nolette
Joseph Hickey
Teke Ndi
Stephen Bruce
Patricia Foley
Dorothy Martin Long
Ronald Keohan Jr.
Joseph P. McCarthy
Alfred Lattanzi
Thomas P. Messina Jr.
Dominic Puleo
Jason Marcus
Claire Laidlaw
Craig Hardy
Larry Cardinale
Michael Bono
Brian Schurko Sr.
David Pretti
John F. Hanlon
Doreen Kelly
George Spencer
Nancy (Mayo) Fraser
Lisa M. Tufts
Frances Ryan
Michael Gilbert
Kathleen O’Brien
Thomas Mills III
George Desiderio
Bennie P. Schiavo
Robert E. Sansone
Karen Lamontagne
Mayor:
Carlo DeMaria Jr.
Teresa Lee Morris
Board of Alderman:
At Large
Joseph W. McGonagle
Joanne Parris Gregory
Richard Cannatelli
Ward 1
Wayne Matewsky
Mille J. Cardello
John M. DeMato
Ward 2
Stephen Simonelli
Michael Mangan
Dennis DiBiase
Ward 3
Michael K. Marchese
Ward 4
L. Charles DiPerri (Chuck)
Ward 5
Robert Van Campen
Ward 6
Salvatore Sachetta
School Committee:
At Large
Michael McLaughlin
Michael Phillips
Richard Baniewicz
Lester MacLaughlin
Joseph Santagate
Stephen “Stat” Smith
John E. Collins Jr.
Ward 1
Allen Panarese
Margaret Cornelio
Ward 2
William A. Mullin
Joseph Guliano
Joseph A. LaMonica
Ward 3
Frank Parker
Kenneth Magno.
Ward 4
David Ela Jr.
Joseph Internicola
Ward 5
Alexander "Sandro" Colarusso
Joseph Santagate
Ralph Shalsi Jr.
Ward 6
Robert Corriero
J. Al Spaulding
Common Council:
Ward 1
Kenneth Giannelli
Peter Napolitano
Sergio Cornelio
John M. DeMato
Ward 2
Eloy "Lou" Sierra
Joe King
Jason Marcus
Arthur Murphy
Nicholas Paul Saia
Ward 3
Leonard Jordan
Stephanie Smith
Rosemary Miller
Sal DiDomenico
Thomas Catalano
Carlie Smith
Ward 4
Johnathan Grover
Adam Ragucci
Stacy Caralis
Daniel J. Napolitano
Len LoRusso
Leo McKinnon
Karen Lamontagne
Ward 5
Jessica Caracciolo
Lorrie Bruno
Rosa DiFlorio
Nicholas Montesano
William Cardello
Philip L. Morris
Paul Schlosberg
Ward 6
Anthony Ranieri
Cynthia Sarnie
Katherine Tomassi Hicks
Christian Costa
Joseph W. McGonagle |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 07/30/2009 : 9:56:48 PM
|
It looks like the school committee elections could get very interesting.
How many do we vote for on the Charter Review Commission?
"Deb" |
Edited by - massdee on 07/31/2009 09:32:11 AM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 10:16:42 PM
|
| I'm pretty sure it's 9. |
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2009 : 11:08:04 PM
|
It is soooooooooooo transparent what is going on in the School Committee races. You'd have to be a one eyed blind man not to clearly see the moronic attempt at a chess game. I, for one, don't appreciate being played by an self absorbed pot calling the kettle black.
I sincerely hope; however, that a couple of the races do bring a breath of fresh air to city government......
Just MY Humble Opinion.....
"Cruller DaHville"
 |
Edited by - Cruller DaVille on 07/31/2009 11:08:52 PM |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2009 : 09:48:56 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cruller DaVille
It is soooooooooooo transparent what is going on in the School Committee races. You'd have to be a one eyed blind man not to clearly see the moronic attempt at a chess game. I, for one, don't appreciate being played by an self absorbed pot calling the kettle black.
I sincerely hope; however, that a couple of the races do bring a breath of fresh air to city government......
Just MY Humble Opinion.....
"Cruller DaHville"
It may be transparent to you and those people who know the players, but there are a lot of people who don't therefore won't see what you see. Why don't you just spit out what you think you know?
You have a way of posting that only tells those people who know what you know, and think like you, understand. If you really want to get your point across, why don't you come down a notch or two and stop talking in code?
|
|
|
|
Cruller DaVille
Senior Member
148 Posts |
Posted - 08/01/2009 : 2:23:53 PM
|
Justme... It is certainly not my intention to speak in code. From what I've seen in the past four to five years, I've come to the conclusion that the people who contribute here keep up with the players and the politics. They certainly appear to do so. No offense to anyone, I certainly respect and do not speak down to anyone. Never have, never will.
You've made this comment previously Justme and I'll say what I said before, not all of us appreciate the styles of others. That certainly doesn't mean we dont have anything valuable to say!!!! I would never be so narcissistic to think that I was the be all and end all! In fact, may other contributors here come on much stronger than I do and are much more infatic. Plenty of individuals share here and rely that others have some common knowledge when they speak. Perhaps that isn't the case, and if it isn't, I've made the wrong assumption; however, I am hear to say infatically, that it is certainly not deliberate.
That being said, what I was referring to is simply that the word around town from people who have been approached at the Derby, the street and other venues, that Stat is trying to run a slate of anti FFF people to assist him and his benefactor, Andronucci's quest to unseat the Super.
The individuals that have been asked to put their names up against incumbants are precisely the ones that people are saying Stat is trying to get signatures for. As a matter of fact, its being said, that Stat sought individuals out to run precisely for this purpose. I've been told he is actually carrying around these people signature sheets and telling people that these are "his" people. It is also being said that there are a couple of individuals who are being paid $2.50 a sheet by him to collect signatures for "his" slate. These rumors have been around for a couple of weeks now.
I, for one, am not a huge fan of people who run for office pledging their loyalty to someone other than the people of Everett before or after they decide to run. I don't appreciate someone using my vote to satisfy someone else's chip on their shoulder. I dont appreciate one dimensional public servants either and, I dont know about anyone else, but this ridiculous banter Stat has brought to School Committee meetings has gotten truly old. Get on with it!!!! There are tons of truly important things to discuss rather than what he's told to do by this benefactor. Honestly, considering how he's tarnished his reputation at the State House,since picking the wrong choice for speaker candidate and how that negatively affects us in the City of Everett. I would much rather see him repairing his position there and try to get a committee assignment rather than beating this dead horse for Andronucci. Truth be told, I never bought into the fact that he had any interest in the children or the school department other than Andronucci's vendetta against FFF. AND BEFORE anyone reads into this that this is a pro FFF against Stat stance, it is not. It is purely a waste of resources to see this really bad play being acted out each and every week.
Anyway. That is just MY, personal, opinion. Nothing more!
I also said that I truly hoped that a couple of the better contested races reap good results. The Alderman at Large race is of great importance to me. I'd love to see Vancampen get some help on the Board. To date, most of them have been paid off (one way or anohter) and wont take on less than stellar accomplishments of this administration. I also think that a couple of the Council races will prove interesting as well.
So, you see, nothing sinister here. Just me expounding my own personal opinion. Sometimes popular, sometimes not.... Isn't that what this forum is about? I do apologize if my style of posting isn't quite your ballywack and causes you angst; however, it is not meant to be anything more than what spills out my head, on to the keyboard. My personal contribution!!!
It makes me less ornary to express my frustrations as a retired Everett taxpayer and I sincerely enjoy other peoples opinions as well. Although, you may be like my wife and say that my opinion doesn't matter. LOL.... The debate can be be fun at times, dont you agree?
Have a nice day! :)
Just MY Humble Opinion.......
"Cruller DaHville"
|
Edited by - Cruller DaVille on 08/01/2009 5:32:37 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Nomination Papers
