Hey, there! Log in / Register
Ross: Turner must go, like, on Friday
By adamg on Mon, 11/29/2010 - 2:32pm
City Council President Mike Ross says he is reluctantly urging his colleagues to expel Roxbury Councilor Chuck Turner at a meeting on Wednesday.
In a letter to councilors, Ross said he appreciates the long years of hard work Turner has put in, but said the council has little choice but to expel him immediately now that he's a convicted felon, rather than waiting to see if a judge lets him out on probation in January, as Turner had requested, in the hopes he could finish out his term:
We have but one judicial system in this country, and whether we personally agree with the verdict or not, a jury of his peers found Councilor Turner guilty of very serious crimes. As public officials, we are sworn to uphold the laws of this city, state and nation. We are not above the law and none of us is above the rules we have established as a body. If we act as if we are this body loses its credibility, its integrity and the trust of the people we serve. Many are cynical of government as it is, we cannot add to their distrust.
Ross said if the council agrees, he would also move to continue paying Turner's staff members to continue their constituent work and to hold elections in Turner's District 7 as soon as possible.
The council meeting begins at 3 p.m. in the council's fifth-floor chambers in City Hall.
Ross's letter and background material (1.5M PDF file).
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Turner's come, not gone
I don't know why, but cases such as this, it seems to me that the city council should stay out of it. The people (his people, as Chuck Turner would no doubt phrase it) elected him; perhaps they should be the only ones who choose to vote him out?
At least it should wait until the judge's sentencing. If he can't make it to city council meetings because he's in the clink, then he should be kicked off.
I dunno. I might be in the minority on this one.
Same.
Haven't followed this much- but when you have informants paid 30 grand to snare a guy for a 1 grand bribe- well- you wonder what is up with that? I'd let his constituents make the call. But then again- if the city council isn't disturbed by such investigation tactics directed against their ranks . . . Then maybe I shouldn't be either.
I think you are
Rules is rules, irregardless of Turner's past good deeds. The council has to think about their own integrity. Would you have taken the same position w/ Rod Blagojevich? Should their state house have stayed out of it? And I believe he was impeached w/out a conviction.
Don't know . . .
. . . about the Blago guy that much. All I know about Blago is that he had like 10 grand to his name at the time of the big ruckus about him and- if a scoundrel- not a bright one or a big one. And I guess the council is deciding that the perception of their integrity matters here and they are not concerned about the why's and how's of the investigation that snared Turner.
The other funny thing about Blago that I always remember
was that he was in the news like a week before all the corruption talk started, for threatening to halt state business with stingy, bailed-out Bank of America.
Coincidence- or CONSPIRACY???
Alls I'm saying, is that if Blago and Turner ever become cellmates, the System had better watch its back. /tongue in cheek.
Not the trial
Turner's trial was in federal court. He lost. Wednesday's hearing is required by Council rules whenever one of them is convicted of a felony. He was convicted of four. Their question now is whether that Councilor still qualifies to be a member.
I have a bloggy take on this. It's the battle of alleged integrity by Turner and of duty by Mike Ross. I have to admire Ross for calling for a timely meeting to clear the air and for asking for expulsion with the reasoning that keeping a convicted felon in the body destroys trust in the Council and all of city government.
Seven other Councilors have to agree with that for them to toss Turner.
Let his constituents decide
I agree that his constituents should decide if he remains on the council. The court case and decision hasn't affected his work ethic or ability to be an effective councilor one bit. As his constituent I have the utmost trust in and respect for Councilor Turner and I view the council as a body no diiferently now than before his conviction. I hear the same from a majority of my neighbors and friends who live in the district.
More Loose MA and Boston Loophole Law?
I can't believe that he is even allowed to keep his seat under state law, let alone city law after being convicted of a crime directly related to his occupation of his office.
The looseness and loopholes in some pretty basic laws in this state bothers me.
Rules maybe rules, but I think this is pretty screwed up.,,,,
Rules maybe rules, but I think this is pretty screwed up. Turner is a pain in the ass, but the guys works very hard. No one can discount that. All the guy has done his whole life is fight for the oppressed. Did he ask the informant for money to get the job done? The answer is NO. Its one thing for a guy to give you money, its another thing to say, "for me to do this for you, you need to give me $1k." He didn't do that. This guy busts his ass 24-7 for his constituents. That's more than I can say for many of the councilors, like Mike Ross who went to law school full time.
What Year is This?
He took a bribe.
Repeat: HE TOOK A BRIBE.
What part of that do you not understand. It makes NO difference whether he asked first. HE TOOK A BRIBE.
You sound like those person-on-the-street interviews when Mavroulous got caught. "Gee, what's the big deeel". I realize that was "how business got done" around here 30 years ago, when the mobs were still very active, but it ain't the way things roll now. You take money, you get caught, you lose bigtime.
I realize he busted his arse - that makes him a good rep. Taking a bribe makes him a felon - no matter whether he asked or just took it when offered IT DOES NOT MATTER.
If this were a DUI or some non-official capacity felony, I'd argue for leniency. But this is an offense that was directly related to his office.
Sorry Toto, but we ain't in 1965 anymore.
I still think
it would have been cool for the FBI to have produced some footage of Polaski, Ross, Steve Murphy, or whoever refusing a bribe. Guy attempts to give "preacher's handshake" to Consalvo or Tobin, and a look of disgust comes across the councilor's face: "I'm sorry, sir, but that's just not the way I do business." Throws cash back at the guy, maybe even starts to call the cops, before the grinning FBI agents come out from behind a wall to tell him he passed the test. That would just be such a heroic, heartwarming thing to see.
Yes, I also think others are overlooking this
That says it all. Can it be made any more clear?
I don't care how hard he works, or how well he represents his constituency. He took advantage of his position as councilor and was found guilty - end of story. I don't care if you disagree with the verdict, he was still found guilty . He is a cancer on the council.
There are a number of issues we discuss here at UHub that have a certain amount of gray area allowing some wiggle room. This is not one of them.
30 grand informant for a one
30 grand informant for a one grand bribe. That's "wiggle room" I would consider if I were his constituent.
Already considered
The $30G was already considered by the jury when deciding their verdict, and they found him guilty.
Yeah.
And the constituents can decide for themselves what that verdict is worth in light of the fact that a 30 grand bribe was paid to get a man for a one grand bribe.
What's the difference?
Would it make a difference if the informant was only paid $15K? $5K? Because it doesn't change the fact that Turner took the bribe. He certainly didn't know how much the informant was being paid, after all.
Look, I don't know about you . . .
This is what I know. I’m a Wellesley kid- born and raised. (have lived on Boston waterfront now for ten years). And before that my parents were what some might call “lace curtain Irish” from Belmont. Bay State Road Father’s side- and Highland (I think) road Mom’s side. Maybe some people might remember the old Dowd Paper Company trucks that used to rumble around Boston? The Dowd Paper Co. did a lot of business with the local governments. If you went to a Red Sox game back in 70’s or even the 80’s maybe- the napkin for your hotdog came from Down Paper Co. and the toilet paper in the bathrooms- at least that is what my family lore says. That was my grandfather’s business. Had their depot and HQ in Cambridge.
Also in my family were a lot of Great Uncles and Uncles who worked for the city of Boston and who lived in Southie and Dorchester. So I come from a family that, I think, knew a thing or two about how politics works and how business works with government and what not. I also worked local Wellesley political campaigns- worked with old Roy Switzler- who came to my Mom’s funeral (much appreciated by the way Roy, if you by long chance, stumble across this post)- and for John Locke and his son one campaign season. Yeah- I was a Republican- born into it I guess in Wellesley. Independent now.
What I’m saying in this- if some agency I know really nothing about went after John Locke back in the day when he was literally like the only voice of opposition to anything the Bulger machine was doing- and snare him with an informant paid 30 times the amount of the bribe they pushed at him . . . I would look at any jury verdict on a case like that - decided by people who may not be from Wellesley or his district- and say- WHATEVER. We’ll decide, thank you very much, if we want John Locke to continue on as our State Senator.
I don’t know Chuck Turner or anything much at all about his district or the people whom he serves. I do know this- if that were my rep - and I lived there- a 30 grand bribe from some powerful government agency paid to an informant to snare him in a one grand bribe . . . would be cause for concern and a jury verdict on just the “facts” of the bride would not be my only consideration.
Soooo...
You'd be okay with Bernie Madoff, Jack Abramoff, or Rod Blagojevich helping run your city's council if they could get together a large enough voting block in their district to look past their criminal acts and see the good in their heart?
Sorry, but when your *convicted* crimes are to lie, cheat, or steal, particularly as it relates to a position of public trust...you should lose your right to represent the people.
He had opportunity to undo himself from that bribe (like hand it right back to the guy). He didn't.
He had opportunity to tell the truth about it to the FBI. He didn't...three times.
The rest of his defense of his actions are completely red herrings. His past acts of kindness and heroic acts of defense of the defenseless should factor into his sentencing, but they can not make him above reproach for his current position of public trust. Regardless of what his constituents think about him, the *rest* of the city should have a say because his decisions weigh equally upon them in the end.
His acts affect more than just his constituents
Sorry, but Turner's bribe-taking affects more than just the people he represents in his district. His actions affect the whole city of Boston. As a result of taking bribes, any decisions he makes are not made in the interest of the city, but rather, are made in the interest of Chuck Turner. He's gotta go.
Besides, the outcome has already been determined - he has been found guilty. You don't get another chance.
Not that loose
Under state law, if he is sentenced to prison he automatically loses his seat.
Pretty loose
Nothing kicks in until someone gets sent to prison? That's loose.
The Council rule is an automatic hearing as soon as there is a felony conviction. Yet, there is no automatic expulsion. That's loose.
How about at any level from municipal through federal, if you are convicted of a felony while you are an elected official, you lose your job? You can run again in the next election, but it's an automatic reset.
I wouldn't go that far
I think it should be automatic expulsion upon conviction for any crime where somebody has used their office for criminal activity (bribes, collusion, etc.). The bar should be lower for offenses of a private nature.
Although I agree with Dan that it would be interesting to see how many other politicians were investigated in this manner - they might have been, and they might have refused the
bribe"tip" for their wonderful constituent services.Turner explains why he won't just quit; why he's like Rosa Parks
The Fenway News posts a statement from Turner.
Please.
"I'm innocent," is in the middle, almost as an after-thought. "They're out to get me."
But he's not willing to go back to court and appeal his conviction. If there was so much corruption involved in his prosecution, doesn't he feel any duty to expose that?
He is a convicted felon. And an embarrasment to the City of Boston. He needs to go.
Interesting.
If Turner's allegations are true- that's frightening. But I guess this is all just about "the law" and how Turner "broke the law" huh? That's why they went after this guy- no other motive than just pure federal goodness - to make us have better local government. Uh huh.
Come on now
What Turner conveniently IGNORES in his conspiracy-to-defame-him ranting is that the Feds had thought to even slap a conspiracy charge on HIM for conspiring with Wilkerson! It's so "obvious" they're out to get him...because in their investigation of Wilkerson, she told the club owner that she was working with Turner to get him the license and he should meet with Turner as well! The informant understood that to mean that he'd have to grease Turner's palm the same way he'd been greasing Wilkerson's....and then Turner took the bribe just the same as Wilkerson had been doing!
And then he has the gall to compare himself to Rosa Parks? Disgusting.
"In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt
But, being season'd with a gracious voice,
Obscures the show of evil?"
--Bassanio, Merchant of Venice Act III, Sc. 2
Chuck Turner expulsion hearing streaming live
I didn't realize the Boston City Council streamed live. The Turner expulsion hearing is good theater!
http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/live.asp