Is it proper for the city solicitor's firm to host a phone bank for...

Sort of like the Barrett sign that just appeared on the empty house down the street. I know it's Halloween, but are ghosts and dead people voting for Barrett too.

Caped Crusader wrote:

<quoted text>
Truthstretcher - Do you really think this is BIG news to the anyone outside of North Adams. Lets step back and think for a minute. How many lives were lost? How many people were hurt?

you gotta be reaaaly stretching to try to gloss over political malfeasance by saying that at least nobody got hurt while they were being corrupt.

i notice nobodys saying this didnt happen...or that its not illegal. just that its a waste of money and nobody got killed.

HOLY COW! What are these Barrett and DeRosa thinking?!?!?!

Illegal? Possibly
Unethical? Yes

There are two issues.
The law firm is a corporation. Corporations are not allowed to solicit or endorse a candidate using their resources. The resources used are the phones from the firm's office. The endorsement is thier name on the caller IDs. When the receiver receives a call with the Freedman Derosa Rondeau name on the caller ID, and the message is to support Barrett, it's easy to assume the firm is endorsing Barrett. Illegal or not, it's a dumb move for the firm to involve itself in the campaign when they have city contracts.

That brings up the second issue. The firm is partly owned by the city solicitor who is an employee of the city. The solicitor should know better than to give the impression he is doing the mayor a favor to keep his job, or the mayor is forcing him to use his office to keep his job. There wouldn't be another good reason why the solicitor would put his business at risk unless he felt it benefitted him or his firm.

Someone posted earlier that DeRosa is supporting Alcombright behind the scenes. If true, the solicitor is out for himself and could care less who wins. There's good ethics for you.

One more time:

Make no mistake, I do give Barrett credit for the things HE'S ACTUALLY DONE. Not those things started by other, that he didn't support, but now claims as his own. e.g., Mass MoCA.

However, how can any Barrett supporter defend the mayor for Friday's phone calls by Freedman-Derosa, the city solicitor, when it is a clear violation of state ethics and election laws?

How can you defend Barrett's clear vindictiveness and taking of lists of house numbers with Alcombright signs?

The defense I hear all the time is, "He's done a lot of good." Yeh, well I knew a lot of priests that "did a lot of good" in their parishes and community. They turned out to be diddling altar boys, but according to your standard of "it's okay", they should NOT have been punished and defrocked.

So, John Barrett and John DeRosa shouldn't be punished because it's "okay" because "they've done a lot of good". By your standards, the law should only apply to the unknown individuals, and not long-term officials like Barrett. By your standards, all of the convictions of U.S. Senators and Governors by the Justice Department should be overturned because after all, despite breaking the law, "they've done a lot of good."

Laws apply to people whether they're a panhandler on the street, a drug dealer, a thief, a lawyer, or the mayor. In fact, a lawyer and a mayor are held to a higher standard because they most certainly know better.

What happened by Friday can not be justified in any way, shape, or form. The laws (posted on other forums/threads on Topix) are crystal clear. It is also crystal clear as to what should be done.

If DeRosa doesn't terminate his relationship, Barrett should terminate him if he (Barrett) knew nothing about it. But that's not the case here, so Barrett should pull out and quit.

If they're unwilling to do what's right, they should be sanctioned by the state, and even prosecuted.

We have investigated the claims made by Truthsayer -- or Truthslayer -- and others and found them baseless.

Foremost, Truthslayer should know, if he is indeed a lawyer, that the Ethics Commission cannot confirm or deny complaints or investigations (and won't unless charges are brought or a fine levied). Neither can Campaign Finance.

However, spokesmen from both offices confirmed Monday that Freedman, DeRosa and Rondeau is a limited liability partnership. As such, it can make a contribution or in-kind service donation — which a call bank falls under. The limit is $500 per partner, and the donation must be disclosed on the finance report.

The Transcript will not be doing a story on this, seeing as these charges have been brought anonymously by a person who doesn't have the courage to put his name to his claim. If and when this person decides to get some guts and make the charges publicly -- not as some poison-pen rumor to feed the anti-Barrett crowd -- we would certainly report on it in print.

I thank reporter Jennifer Huberdeau for researching this.

One final comment to Truthslayer and pals: Do you really think you are doing the Alcombright campaign a favor with such spewing of misinformation and flying off the handle? Dick Alcombright is a good man. He must be cringing at the thought of such "help" from the likes of you.

We will leave this particular post up. All other posts relating to this topic will be eliminated.

Transcript_GlennD wrote:

We have investigated the claims made by Truthsayer -- or Truthslayer -- and others and found them baseless.
Foremost, Truthslayer should know, if he is indeed a lawyer, that the Ethics Commission cannot confirm or deny complaints or investigations (and won't unless charges are brought or a fine levied). Neither can Campaign Finance.
However, spokesmen from both offices confirmed Monday that Freedman, DeRosa and Rondeau is a limited liability partnership. As such, it can make a contribution or in-kind service donation — which a call bank falls under. The limit is $500 per partner, and the donation must be disclosed on the finance report.
The Transcript will not be doing a story on this, seeing as these charges have been brought anonymously by a person who doesn't have the courage to put his name to his claim. If and when this person decides to get some guts and make the charges publicly -- not as some poison-pen rumor to feed the anti-Barrett crowd -- we would certainly report on it in print.
I thank reporter Jennifer Huberdeau for researching this.
One final comment to Truthslayer and pals: Do you really think you are doing the Alcombright campaign a favor with such spewing of misinformation and flying off the handle? Dick Alcombright is a good man. He must be cringing at the thought of such "help" from the likes of you.
We will leave this particular post up. All other posts relating to this topic will be eliminated.

You are correct that the Ethics Commission can not lawfully - at any time, even with charges - release the names of the complainants. However Glenn, the complaints have been filed.

Truthsayer, what the hell are you doing?? Stop this nonsense. You're bringing Alcombright's campaign down. Stop before it's too late.

Truthsayer wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct that the Ethics Commission can not lawfully - at any time, even with charges - release the names of the complainants. However Glenn, the complaints have been filed.

Just wondering- since banks are specifically identified in 55.8-- does that mean that Dick is prohibitrd from contributing to his own campaigm??? accepting for the sake of argument your reading of the statute (wrong in my estimation) that "any Corporation applies-- where does that put Bo Marblehead or Julia Bowen----just asking- necause I don't know Jack--- chbpod

Transcript_GlennD wrote:

We have investigated the claims made by Truthsayer -- or Truthslayer -- and others and found them baseless.
Foremost, Truthslayer should know, if he is indeed a lawyer, that the Ethics Commission cannot confirm or deny complaints or investigations (and won't unless charges are brought or a fine levied). Neither can Campaign Finance.
However, spokesmen from both offices confirmed Monday that Freedman, DeRosa and Rondeau is a limited liability partnership. As such, it can make a contribution or in-kind service donation — which a call bank falls under. The limit is $500 per partner, and the donation must be disclosed on the finance report.
The Transcript will not be doing a story on this, seeing as these charges have been brought anonymously by a person who doesn't have the courage to put his name to his claim. If and when this person decides to get some guts and make the charges publicly -- not as some poison-pen rumor to feed the anti-Barrett crowd -- we would certainly report on it in print.
I thank reporter Jennifer Huberdeau for researching this.
One final comment to Truthslayer and pals: Do you really think you are doing the Alcombright campaign a favor with such spewing of misinformation and flying off the handle? Dick Alcombright is a good man. He must be cringing at the thought of such "help" from the likes of you.
We will leave this particular post up. All other posts relating to this topic will be eliminated.

I would suggest that the "spokesmen from both offices" examine the following Conference Committee recommendations adopted by both Ethics and Election Commissions in July of 2009:
"Section 33. This section would amend section 8 of chapter 55to clarify that professional corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, and limitedliability partnerships are not permitted to make political donations"
As with all things in the Commonwealth, and in The Transcript, there is always something missed in their version of the truth. I would enjoy an explanation as to why this exists at the State Ethics Commission website, but it's contrary to what you've posted Glenn.
I'm confused.

Transcript_GlennD wrote:

We have investigated the claims made by Truthsayer -- or Truthslayer -- and others and found them baseless.
Foremost, Truthslayer should know, if he is indeed a lawyer, that the Ethics Commission cannot confirm or deny complaints or investigations (and won't unless charges are brought or a fine levied). Neither can Campaign Finance.
However, spokesmen from both offices confirmed Monday that Freedman, DeRosa and Rondeau is a limited liability partnership. As such, it can make a contribution or in-kind service donation — which a call bank falls under. The limit is $500 per partner, and the donation must be disclosed on the finance report.
The Transcript will not be doing a story on this, seeing as these charges have been brought anonymously by a person who doesn't have the courage to put his name to his claim. If and when this person decides to get some guts and make the charges publicly -- not as some poison-pen rumor to feed the anti-Barrett crowd -- we would certainly report on it in print.
I thank reporter Jennifer Huberdeau for researching this.
One final comment to Truthslayer and pals: Do you really think you are doing the Alcombright campaign a favor with such spewing of misinformation and flying off the handle? Dick Alcombright is a good man. He must be cringing at the thought of such "help" from the likes of you.
We will leave this particular post up. All other posts relating to this topic will be eliminated.

Does legal always mean ethical? Are ethics only defined by the law?

I gotta disagree with you pretty strongly on this one.

chbpod wrote:

<quoted text>
Just wondering- since banks are specifically identified in 55.8-- does that mean that Dick is prohibitrd from contributing to his own campaigm??? accepting for the sake of argument your reading of the statute (wrong in my estimation) that "any Corporation applies-- where does that put Bo Marblehead or Julia Bowen----just asking- necause I don't know Jack--- chbpod

Clark that section specifically speaks of groups that WORK with or for the city. It wouldn't have anything to do with Dick or his campaign.

Bo and Julia are people (believe it or not) and can contribute to whomever they like.

Church Street Resident wrote:

<quoted text>
Clark that section specifically speaks of groups that WORK with or for the city. It wouldn't have anything to do with Dick or his campaign.
Bo and Julia are people (believe it or not) and can contribute to whomever they like.

My comment about Bo and Julia- was in response to the allegation that NO corporation or its principals could contribute-- which I think is fallacious--but Dick is an elected official on the City payroll--and he is a principal at the bank---sounds fishy to me that he couldn't contribute to his own campaign---but I was only reading the text 0f 55.8---tjos is all so bizzarre-chbpod

I agree that it's bizarre... I just don't like the way these calls smell. It just doesn't seem like Barrett calls should originate from the city's lawyer's office. It may be legal, but I just think it smells.

A corporation cannot contribute in MA. LLCs (as partnerships or sole proprietorships) can but the donation will "count" against one of the partners. So, basically if I own a company, I wouldn't be able to donate to the max twice, once as me and once as the business.

But these laws are bent all the time.

For example the law says that all candidates must have their finance reports in today. Barrett is notoriously late with his. Do you think he got his in today?

Glenn, I don't agree with you on everything, but I do think you're a good journalist who believes in doing the right thing. Can you please look into Post #50 - Truthsayer does seem to have something here...or maybe not. Is it possible you missed something? Or are we beating a dead horse? I really can't tell.

Church Street Resident wrote:

A corporation cannot contribute in MA. LLCs (as partnerships or sole proprietorships) can but the donation will "count" against one of the partners. So, basically if I own a company, I wouldn't be able to donate to the max twice, once as me and once as the business.

Or maybe that's my answer? Someone? Anyone? I agree that it doesn't smell right, but if it's legal, it's legal, and we should move on.

See comment 50 wrote:

<quoted text>
Or maybe that's my answer? Someone? Anyone? I agree that it doesn't smell right, but if it's legal, it's legal, and we should move on.

If it is legal, the law needs to be changed.

The solicitor's office needs to appear to be impartial to do the city's business. The city solicitor is NOT the mayor's attorney.

Letting his firm's phone number and name pop up on every CallerID screen in town endorsing Barrett is simply thumbing his nose at the concept of impartiality.

From an ethical point of view, John DeRosa should write a personal check for $500 to Barrett rather than to put the weight of his city contracted firm behind the sitting mayor who hires and fires the job.

This is not the contribution of an individual, but rather it appears to be a contribution by the firm, and that is wrong.

It smells. It smells really bad.

There were pages of committee amendments that were allegedly adopted this year including the one in Post #50 from me. Go to the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission website. Using their own search engine, type in: "Limited Liability Corporations and Elections and Political Contributions."

You get a highlighted list of the committee report and changes.

The problem with Massachusetts - and I don't blame The Transcript - is that there are so many changes in rules, and executive orders, that the rank-and-file employee you talk to doesn't know about these changes. Yet, you go to their websites where the tens of thousands of pages are now available as both pdf and Word files, and you dig, and you find your answer.

If you listen to the employees instead of digging, you end up with egg on your face. Maybe it's something, maybe it's nothing, but it IS there.

chbpod wrote:

<quoted text>
Just wondering- since banks are specifically identified in 55.8-- does that mean that Dick is prohibitrd from contributing to his own campaigm??? accepting for the sake of argument your reading of the statute (wrong in my estimation) that "any Corporation applies-- where does that put Bo Marblehead or Julia Bowen----just asking- necause I don't know Jack--- chbpod

I thought you and Jack Daniels were friends.

quiet 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought you and Jack Daniels were friends.

Met him a couple of times- but I can't say that we are close friends-- chbpod