| Author |
 Topic  |
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 10:15:57 PM
|
possibility? good job staying grey.....
two words...Kevin Garnett |
 |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 10:16:01 PM
|
I was asked by Massdee if I could come with the section of MGL that has been widely quoted as requiring six months before an elected official could accept an appointment from the administration. I supplied what I thought was the source of that information by copying it directly out of an on-line copy of MGL with little additional comment. For full disclosure, I'm almost positive that I'm one of the people that has used it before. It's almost surely the source of the line in the Globe article as the phrase used in the article almost matches it word for word. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me as two different legal concepts are contained in that section of MGL.
Let me share a real world example of why I believe this law applies. The Town of Wakefield has a new town manager, as of June 1, I believe. He is a former sitting selectman who, when he heard in January that the former town manager was retiring, decided that he wanted the job. He stepped down from his selectman's seat so that he could be considered for the job. I'll readily admit that the period between his resignation and his appointment wasn't a full six month but an attempt was to follow the law. Probably not prudent to go without a town manager for even a short period of time if the former town manager was set on retiring as of May 31. The law, as I read it (again, not a lawyer) makes no distinction about the level of the appointment.
Has this been done in the city before? Absolutely. It has been done in at least other two administration that I'm aware of. I was told before when debating this very issue earlier this year that this was done by asking the state ethics commission for an exception. We debated very heatedly about the issue with my point being that what good was the law if the state ethics commission will always allow an exception. (Don't mean to stir that argument again; only stating what we were debating.)
If I have been wrong about this, I'll be a big enough man to admit it. I think that you'll find if we go thru my posts, I have been very willing to do that in the past. I often apologize for things that I'm wrong about without anybody calling me on it. |
Edited by - tetris on 06/17/2008 10:18:59 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 10:16:44 PM
|
Tails,
Would you please post that phone number so other people reading here can make a phone call, too. Then no one will have to take my word for it. We can all make our own calls. I wonder how happy the mayor will be that Just Wondering tactics will set off many calls to the state ethics board? |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2008 : 10:24:20 PM
|
| why would the mayors happiness on that topic matter? If he's wrong he wrong....but he shouldnt be crucified until that is proven to be true. I think there is one piece of law we an all agree on......innocent until proven guilty |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 06/17/2008 : 10:24:39 PM
|
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Veterans’ Services
600 Washington St., Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02111
617-210-5480
fax: 617-210-5755
MDVS@vet.state.ma.us
You must be logged in to see this link.
Tell them you want to speak with someone from Secretary Thomas Kelley's office.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/18/2008 : 08:41:14 AM
|
Just Wondering,
You were absolutely correct last night; the citation that I used last night as the source of the paragraph that we were attempting to locate was wrong. Last night, I posted that it was:
"From MGL 268, Section 20(a), fourth paragraph:"
The following is the correct citation:
"From MGL 268A, Section 20, fourth paragraph:"
In my haste to locate the paragraph and leave blogging behind for the evening, I got the "a" associated with the section rather than the chapter. I couldn't see that last night. I apologize for any confusion that I may have caused.
Since I've had to make this post, let me take this opportunity to clarify a couple of other things. In my last post of last evening, I made the following statement:
"I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me as two different legal concepts are contained in that section of MGL."
I didn't elaborate on that statement and I felt that I should better explain what I meant by it. The title of that section of MGL is "Municipal employees; financial interest in contracts; holding one or more elected positions". What I believe is that the first three paragraphs of that section address the first part of the title "Municipal employees; financial interest in contracts". The remainder of the section addresses a different topic, namely, "Municipal employees; holding one or more elected positions". As a layman, I can't under why two different concepts like these are addressed in the same section of MGL.
As far as hiding behind the "I'm not a lawyer" phrase, I don't believe that I am. Most of the regulars of the board are probably sick of seeing that it my posts; they are well aware of it by now. I include that phrase regularly (but maybe not as often as I should) so that any new readers of the board will understand that what they are reading is only the opinion of layman that may not necessarily hold up to legal scrutiny. I started to include this phrase when someone questioned my interpretations of MGL, the city charter and its ordinances. As I'm not always right, I only want people to use my interpretations for the value that they see in them, as they should with any opinion. However, I do feel that I have a pretty good track record and I am smart enough to steer away from more complicated sections of the law that truly do require an expert legal interpretation.
If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll attempt to addresses them. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 08:47:03 AM
|
A portion of an article that appears in the North Weekly section of today's Boston Globe (The entire article appears in the board's Globe article thread as well as on Boston.com):
State ethics law requires that no councilors shall be eligible for a local appointment while a member of the council or for six months after leaving office. Erin Deveney, DeMaria's chief of staff, said that before the mayor made his final selection, he required Hickey to get an opinion from the state ethics board on whether the appointment violated rules. Hickey said the board cleared the appointment, according to Devaney. "We obviously take Mr. Hickey at his word that he has done it," Deveney said. "If it became an issue, we can request the councilor to request a written opinion and he can disclose that publicly."
As I previously admitted, I got the citation of this law wrong the other evening. However, I hope that this article puts to rest the notion that the law doesn't exist or doesn't apply to this situation.
Now we understand the Mayor's comment, during the budget hearings I believe, that the VSO position would be filled "any day now"; the administration was waiting for an opinion from the state ethics commission before finalizing the appointment. I'm willing to take Mr. Hickey's word that he did receive the opinion; it would be too easy to prove otherwise. Now I'm back to the point where I was earlier in the year. Why is it so easy to get a waiver from the state ethics commission? That question got me in trouble the last time I posed it so I'm going to leave it alone, at least on this board, for now. |
Edited by - tetris on 06/22/2008 08:49:27 AM |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
136 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 11:15:51 AM
|
I would like to see that request in writing. I have also made calls to the States Veterans Service and they knew of the situation and I was told Tom Kelly's office was handling it. I contacted Tom Kelly's office and they did not say anything about an ethics ruling. I would think state ethics would have contacted them since they are for the entire state. That should be a request from the board of alderman since it must go to them.
|
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 2:34:14 PM
|
| I'm not sure how these things generally work, but I'm curious as to why Hickey got the ruling instead of someone from the city solicitor's office? |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 4:51:55 PM
|
| The way I understand it, everyone is responsible for taking their own issues to the state ethics commission. Ms Deveney had to take her own; Mr. Carlisle had to take his. They should probably do so in writing and the state ethics commission should respond in kind. |
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 5:56:07 PM
|
| Thanks Tetris! |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 09:02:00 AM
|
| Are these responses from the state ethics commission public record? I personally would like to read the responses for the VSO, Budget/Purchasing Director and the Chief of Staff/Solicitor. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 09:26:43 AM
|
| What gets me is by law the VSO position is supposed to go through the BOA. Does this mean Joe Hickey is not sworn in but is receiving pay as a VSO, since (in my opinion) the appointment was not done legally. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Veteran’s Services
