I brought this up on earlier threads, but after thinking more about it over the weekend, it seemed worthy of being its own thread.
During the Ward 5 City Council debate candidate Paul Coletti, who is running this fall a decade after having served as a member of Newton’s Board of Aldermen for 32 years, made a revelation that startled me when he alleged that “many, many” of his former board colleagues profited personally “doing business with the very people they were giving permits to.”
Watch Coletti’s comment here…
There’s likely nothing that can or should be done about what happened a decades ago. And to be clear, Coletti does not say that he engaged in this process (but it would be great if some enterprising reporter would ask him that just to clear the record). But this same type of alleged behavior recalls a current controversy in Boston surrounding conflicts with members of its Zoning Board of Appeals.
Certainly, it should remind us all as to why we need strong ethical guidelines and enforcement at all level of government. And perhaps it’s also a good argument for removing some of the smaller permitting decisions from our councilors’ plates.
If we’re looking for ways to prevent corruption, we should look at our current structure for choosing cannabis store licenses, where the Mayor is the ONLY elected official who makes the decisions, after consulting with city staff. I am in no way suggesting that Mayor Fuller has or would engage in corruption on this issue, but the state legislature is considering outlawing this type of sole decision maker process after the mayor of Fall River was accused of taking $400,000 in bribes from marijuana companies seeking licenses.
Coletti responded to a question about Councilor pay increases.
Political debates can lead to some murky discussion.
This thread topic is not a suitable place to continue this public
enquirey.
Probably some truth to what Paul is saying.
People sometimes mis-speak in debates. I know and personally like Paul Coletti. He’s a straight-up, honest gentleman. He doesn’t always express himself as intended.
Paul Coletti is *not* someone who would witness unethical or illegal behavior by “many, many” fellow Councilors and just quietly sweep it under the rug for a couple decades until now. It won’t convince the conspiracy theorists out there, but I believe Paul Coletti started with one thought and ended up on the wrong tangent.
@Dulles: It’s great to have faith in folks. But I prefer “trust but verify.” And I don’t think any public official should just get a pass for saying something, especially in public, they didn’t mean to.
I do think there are ethical issues worth exploring: One did it happen? Did any of our current councilors or Coletti engage? Is this still happening? Why did Coletti sit silently all these years?
@ Greg at the state level you have lawyer legislators with active law practices practicing before State Judges, Commissions and Agencies that through the legislative budget process they approve the departmental funding and salaries of those individuals. Potential for conflict? I think so. I believe Paul was simply highlighting that there is potential for conflict, not that Councilors are engaged in inappropriate behaviors.
@Peter Karg: Nope. He was saying it took place and that “many, many” participated.
Listen to it again.
I was also confused about the debate exchange between the candidates on this issue. When Alderman Coletti brought up this point, Councilors Downs and Crossley both pointed out that strong ethics laws currently exist.
When I did a little bit of research, I ended up at the State Ethics Commission:
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/about-the-state-ethics-commission
It says that the the Commonwealth’s ethics law (G.L. c. 268A) dates back to 1963, and the Commission itself was formed to do civil enforcement in 1978.
This pages says, “The conflict of interest law governs what state, county and municipal employees may do on the job, what they may do after hours or “on the side,” and what they may do after they leave public service. It also sets standards of conduct for all public employees. The law requires that public servants give undivided loyalty to the government they work for and act in the public interest rather than for private gain.”
“Under the financial disclosure law, political candidates, elected state and county officials, and state employees in designated “major policy-making positions” are required to annually file a statement of their financial interests and private business associations.”
(You can learn more about what today’s ethics law covers, with examples, here: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/summary-of-the-conflict-of-interest-law-for-state-employees )
Can someone provide more historical context about the ethics law and how it has evolved over time?
Alderman Coletti’s service to Newton fully overlaps with the existence of G.L. c. 268A and the State Ethic Commission.
This begs the question, did the other Alderman to which he refers disclose their conflicts of interest? Independent of that, was their behavior ever challenged? Ignored? Condoned? Was it an open secret?
These charges are very serious; these actions were prime for abuse as a betrayal of public trust.
I was pretty shocked how these revelations came up so matter-of-factly during the debate.
Coletti is absolutely correct, of course. The reason that the vast majority of elected officials serve in an otherwise thankless local government is to either boost their pensions or to spread the word about their private business, whether it be as an attorney or home decorator.
Beyond the simple act of business promotion, one bit of legalized collusion that’s been pervasive for years is cross-representation of clients in neighboring municipalities, whereby elected board members in one town serve as counsel representing clients before the boards in neighboring towns one month, and vice versa the next month, i.e. end up hearing petitions of individuals represented by the board members of the neighboring towns that they just appeared before. Builders and developers know that this is basically the only way to do business if you want your permits approved.
I was surprised by Deb Crossley’s smug, but disappointingly naïve response:
Michael, I don’t think Alderman Coletti’s example stopped at spreading the word about services. He said that sprinkler installers would network with developers to whom they granted special permits.
The entire reason he brought up this point was to say that there should be stronger ethics requirements so that Councilors wouldn’t “be doing business with the people they are giving special permits to.”
From what I can tell, there were ethics and conflict of interest laws that covered this stuff even then. At the very least, Aldermen were supposed to declare their conflicts. Were people flaunting the laws then? Should this have been stopped earlier?
A bunch of interesting questions come out of this discussion. For example, was this practice so widespread that Newton purposefully became more reliant on special permits rather than as-of-right development (i.e., more fingers in more pies)? This isn’t an accusation; this revelation just opens up a bunch more possibilities than I ever would have previously considered.
Michael raises an interesting observation. Can we get an Investigative Reporter on it? Perhaps, one of Gail’s BU journalism students can do some research.
There is no place in our politics for casual accusations of corruption. At every level of government, it has become far too easy to impugn people’s motives rather than argue the policy.
I hope Paul will clarify his meaning, as others here suggest he didn’t mean to imply corruption, and hopefully that’s true. Public officials are held to a higher standard – they should not use their office to impugn their colleagues without evidence.
Corruption should in all real cases be rooted out and justice be served, but it should not be a casual political tool.
@Mike Halle is correct. If you do business with people who come before the City Council, you should be filing an ethics disclosure at minimum. Depending on the conflict and the details, you may be able to disclose the appearance of a conflict and still participate in the matter. You may be required to recuse yourself from the matter. If you are given something in exchange for the use of your official position, that is a quid pro quo and a BIG nono. Source: I am counsel to a state Senator and also interned at the State Ethics Commission.
There is lots of really interesting, thoughtful discussion here. It’s very impressive!
To offer a counter-point, I *want* industry subject matter experts to sit on the committees and in the Council. When a developer submits a proposal to the city, I want real estate specialists, legal experts, architects, and a similar caliber of representatives to grill ’em knowledgeably. Could you imagine if we only let people without kids run for School Committee, to avoid conflict of interest? 🙂
It’s not realistic to say a company the Councilor works for may not bid on any aspect of a project that they vote on, or may not work with that developer in the future. Civic and commercial activity must be kept completely separate. It is realistic (and ethical) that Councilors should disclose if they’ve done business in the past with a developer submitting a project.
I missed the word “later”: the civic (vote) and any commercial activity need to happen out of sequence and be completely unrelated.
If a Councilor votes on a project and later, separately the company they work for bids for some aspect of it — well… ok.
If a Councilor works for a company has a bid, or has already won business on a project that is coming up for vote — disclose and recuse.
Dulles, there are more specific examples of ethics violations and non-violations here:
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/summary-of-the-conflict-of-interest-law-for-municipal-employees
Turns out there is a special exemption for school board members voting on fees that cover their own kids.
There is another aspect of this political conundrum.
Former elected officials know the varied levels of city employees.
These connections can be very useful after individuals leave office.
There are a multitude of ways people can experience financial gain from years of building connections in the political arena.
In general if you work for the state you should be excused and not run for office.
Another point the mayor’s son is chief of staff at the MBTA which is a conflict for the mayor trying to get the T to work with the city.
I will enthusiastically cast a vote for Paul Coletti. Paul will be a voice for moderation and fiscal responsibility.
His sound judgement and clear thinking is exactly what we need on the City Council.