It may be a relatively dry spring so far, but that doesn’t mean there’s no mud to sling.
Two candidates for re-election have come under fire recently for alleged ethics violations. First we have Sheila R. Lyons, incumbent Barnstable County Commissioner, who was been accused by rival candidate Ronald R. Beaty Jr. of accepting campaign donations from individuals who she has interacted with in her official capacity as county commissioner.
First, Mr. Beaty cites on his blog the fact that Ms. Lyons received in December 2011 a $200 donation from Henri S. Rauschenbach, who the county commissioners appointed to co-chair the Special Commission on County Governance.
Important details number one through three: Mr. Rauschenbach was recommended for the special commission by the Cape Cod Business Roundtable, not the county commissioners, who only approved the selection; the donation was made eight months after that appointment; and Mr. Beaty has made his disdain for the special commission very well known and has made a number of efforts to undermine its work.
I’ll also point out that this is a complete 180 from December, when Mr. Beaty publicly showered praise on Ms. Lyons. In an e-mail sent out to Cape media outlets, he called Ms. Lyons a “shining star” and a “pragmatically insightful and pleasant woman who cares deeply about social justice, the welfare of individual Cape Cod residents as well as Barnstable County as a whole.”
Of course, he wasn’t running for Ms. Lyons’ job at the time.
Mr. Beaty further noted that Robert Ciolek, an independent consultant to the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative, also donated to Ms. Lyons in 2011 — several months after (I repeat: after) he was contracted by the commissioners to serve as the CCWP’s consultant.
Mr. Beaty claims these donations could constitute legal conflicts of interest, but there’s an important piece missing from this equation: did Ms. Lyons derive direct personal financial benefit? There’s nothing to suggest she did, so unless someone can prove otherwise, the claim here falls flat.
(Not that campaign donations for political favors aren’t a real problem, but it’s important to draw a clear distinction between politics as usual, which is unfortunate, and true graft and corruption, which is despicable.)
Ah, but what about the fact that Ms. Lyons last month received a $75,000 bank loan through the Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank, for which Dorothy A. Savarese serves as president — the same Ms. Savarese who sat on the aforementioned Special Commission on County Governance?
Well, unless Ms. Savarese personally signed or pushed through the loan application, the accusation of a conflict of interest is again hollow.
In the case of Mr. Beaty, he appears to be venting his ire at the special commission and its recommendations — specifically to reformat county government and to explore the creation of a regional wastewater management entity — at Ms. Lyons, perhaps in an attempt to undermine her re-election and prime his own campaign.
Problem is, if these charges cannot be proven and do not result in any sort of official sanction by the state ethics commission, Mr. Beaty’s tactic could backfire.
The same could be said for Brian R. Mannal, who is challenging State Representative Demetrius J. Atsalis (D – Barnstable) in the primary. Mr. Mannal last week filed a formal complaint against Rep. Atsalis with the state ethics commission over an e-mail sent by the incumbent.
That e-mail was sent from Rep. Atsalis’s State House e-mail address to Lee Fisher, former lieutenant governor of Ohio, asking if he remembered Mr. Mannal from his and then-Governor Ted Strickland’s 2006 campaign.
Apparently, Rep. Atsalis was trying to clarify Mr. Mannal’s party loyalties, noting that his opponent was involved in President George W. Bush’s campaign in 2000, later got a gig with the state of Ohio under a Republican administration, and remained a member of the GOP until 2004 (Mr. Mannal has openly admitted to jumping ship to the Democratic Party that year).
Rep. Atsalis acknowledged the e-mail, which he called “innocent,” and said he sent it through his State House e-mail account in error.
Here, an ethics violation might not apply because the e-mail did not have any sort of monetary value attached to it, but the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance does prohibit the use of public resources such as state e-mail accounts for campaign purposes.
It should be noted that Rep. Atsalis already has one official strike from the OCPF. In June 2011 the OCPF fined Rep. Atsalis $3,125 for “numerous recordkeeping and reporting errors” on his campaign finance statements from 2007, which he failed to rectify by 2010. He was also required to practice strict “enhanced reporting requirements” through 2014 or face an additional $2,500 fine.
This brouhaha has a little more legitimacy to it than the Beaty/Lyons kerfuffle, but I think the voters might like to see a little more debate on the issues in the coming weeks rather than back-and-forth accusations of ethical lapses (especially if there is no merit to them).
***
This coming Tuesday marks the last day for candidates for county and district elected offices to file their nomination papers, and as things stand this week, we’re looking at a rather empty local ballot.
To date only three incumbents have declared opponents: Senate President Therese M. Murray (D – Plymouth), State Representative Randy Hunt (R – Sandwich), and Rep. Atsalis. That leaves State Senator Daniel A. Wolf (D – Harwich) and State Representatives Timothy R. Madden (D – Nantucket), Cleon H. Turner (D – Dennis), and David T. Vieira (R – Falmouth) running unopposed.
There’s also been no buzz for two county seats that are up for grabs this year: the Register of Deeds, a seat currently held by John F. (Jack) Meade, and the Clerk of Courts, now held by Scott W. Nickerson.
Political news and announcements may be e-mailed to Michael Bailey, senior political reporter, at bailey@capenews.net.
Tags: Barnstable County Clerk of Courts, Barnstable County commissioners, Barnstable County Register of Deeds, Brian Mannal, Cape Cod Business Roundtable, Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank, Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative, Cleon Turner, Dan Wolf, David Vieira, Dorothy Savarese, Henri Rauschenbach, John (Jack) Meade, Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance, President George W. Bush, Randy Hunt, Robert Ciolek, Ronald Beaty Jr., Scott Nickerson, Senate President Therese Murray, Sheila Lyons, Special Commission on County Governance, State Representative - 2nd Barnstable, State Representative - 3rd Barnstable, State Representative - 5th Barnstable, State Representative - Cape & Islands, State Senate - Cape & Islands, State Senate - Plymouth & Barnstable, Tim Madden
The views and opinions in the Enterprise blogs are those of the author and are not neccessarily shared by Falmouth Publishing.
Relative to the potential ethics violations by County Commissioner Sheila Lyons, the respective matters are currently being examined by the State Ethics Commission for their determination regarding the releveant issues in question. As for the positive statements that I made about Ms. Lyons last December, that was several months before the present problems had been discovered. As with all persons, I am quite sure that Ms. Lyons has her good points, as well as her faults. It just happens that several of her less-than-positive actions have recently come to light which have a direct negative impact upon the residents of Cape Cod (the Cape-wide Sewer Authority with taxation powers, and the attempt to eradicate the democratically elected county legislature!) Thank you. RON BEATY, West Barnstable, MA
Two points: a wastewater authority that has not been fleshed out in terms of form, function, or finances, and a proposal to “eradicate” the assembly that would also need to go to a ballot vote — the “negative impact” of which is at present entirely theoretical and subjective.
Don’t forget Hon. Sarah Peake Barnstable 4th is currently also unopposed.
…Mike, with regard to your comments about the ongoing decision-making process related to both the regional wastewater authority AND the proposal to abolish the county assembly, your points are absolutely correct…and therein lies the inherent problem…the decision-making process must continue in a positive, transparent, unfettered manner without undue political influence. All official actions and decisions pertaining to the respective recommendations issued by the Special Commission on County Governance need to be appropriately deliberated and processed in a manner which is in the best interests of the residents, voters and taxpayers of Cape Cod. In reference to the brief comment made by Town of Dennis Assembly Delegate, John Ohman, it is my understanding that State Rep. Sarah Peake is less than happy with several of the Special Commission recommendations, including the Regional Wastewater District/Entity and/or Authority recommendation. Though I could be mistaken, I believe that along with at least a few other members of the Cape & Islands Delegation, she may now feel that the spirit and intent of “Think regionally, Act locally” is not being actively pursued at the present by the proponents of the Regional Wastewater Initiative. With that in mind, I would strongly support Rep. Peake’s re-election…Thanks again. RON
…oh,and Mike, before I forget, relative to the MA Conflict of Intereest Law, “even if no concrete conflict exists in a given situation, certain political donations can create the appearance of impropriety…which is also not a good thing because it can erode public confidence in our government institutions.” Regards, RON
Where does it say this exactly? The law itself (http://www.mass.gov/ethics/laws-and-regulations-/conflict-of-interest-information/conflict-of-interest-law.html) does not contain that exact sentence. Nor does that exact sentence show up in a Google search. Further, the “appearance of impropriety” is a subjective accusation. If you’re going to accuse anyone of impropriety, you cannot simply point to two circumstances connected only by a campaign donation — that is correlation, not causality.
My whole point here is that these accusations are flimsy and smack more of campaigning than raising a legitimate point; they feel like an effort to weaken an opponent by questioning her integrity on a weak “ethics” argument than an attempt to engage her and voters in a serious discussion on a serious issue.
Mike, as with all members of the public at large, you are certainly entitled to your OPINION, and that needs to be respected. The bottom line, however, is that these matters are presently in the hands of the State Ethics Commission, and it will be up to them to decide the final status of the respective issues in question…not you or I. I have no problem with that. At this point, we will simply have to agree to disagree. In any case, if you still want a few references regarding the appearance of impropriety then here are a few of them: “Unless you make a proper, public disclosure in writing — including all the relevant facts — you may not take any action that could create an appearance of impropriety, or could cause an impartial observer to believe your official actions are tainted with bias or favoritism.” *Introduction to the Conflict of Interest Law for the Public Sector, http://www.mass.gov/ethics/laws-and-regulations-/conflict-of-interest-information/public-employee-trifold.html – Advisory 05-01: The Standards of Conduct, II. “APPEARANCES” OF CONFLICTS (G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(3)), http://www.mass.gov/ethics/education-and-training-resources/info-section-7/advisories/advisory-05-01-standards-of-conduct.html – Summary of the Conflict of Interest Law for County Employees, (f) Appearance of conflict. Acting in a manner that would make a reasonable person think you can be improperly influenced is prohibited. (See Section 23(b)(3)), http://www.mass.gov/ethics/education-and-training-resources/implementation-procedures/county-employees-summary.html – Thank you for your engaging comments. It makes for an intellectually interesting dialogue. One final observation, it has not escaped the attention of a number of persons, just how extremly protective you appear to be of the county commissioners and the various officials supporting the Special Commission recommendations, but that is your prerogative. After all, this is your blog. Take care, and have a good week guy. RON
Oh, and Mike, there is one very specific element within the Special Commission’s recommdation number 17 which I believe would be a very good one to adopt for the Board of County Commissioners, it should be made non-partisan, which would bring it in line with the County Assembly of Delegates (which are also non-partisan). I also think following components are pragmatic as well: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11. RB
Mike, don’t just focus upon Sheila, because according to what I am being told by my contacts in Falmouth, Mary Pat Flynn is extremely vulnerable to losing her seat on the Board of County Commissioners this year, and her seat on the Falmouth Board of Selectmen the next time she seeks re-election. In all likilhood, because I am a non-party candidate, they probably do not have too much to fear from my candidacy, but if another Democrat or Republican should enter the race, then either or both of these ladies could lose their respective seats on the Board of County Commissioners. What do you think? Regards again. RB
>> it has not escaped the attention of a number of persons, just how extremly protective you appear to be of the county commissioners and the various officials supporting the Special Commission recommendations…….Once again, an accusation without merit. I don’t live on Cape Cod anymore, ergo I don’t give a toss about who wins any elections, about how the government is run, or how wastewater is handled. None of it impacts me personally, which makes me the most neutral person you could ask for. I’m not protective of either county government or the special commission’s recommendations, I’m simply not letting anyone running for public office, incumbent or otherwise, make inaccurate claims against the processes underway if they have no basis in fact. I expect defensible arguments and sound evidence. If a candidate provides their claims? Good. He or she is backing their argument and showing voters they’re not just spouting empty sound bites intended to generate a visceral reaction. They fail to prove it? Good, because now voters can see how much hot air they’re blowing.The fact of the matter is the processes stemming from the special commission’s report are just beginning, and treating anything like a done deal that will come to pass without any public influence is disingenuous.