The US Attorney's office in Boston reports Kenneth Brissette, Boston's director of tourism, has been indicted and arrested for "union-related extortion" involving the Boston Calling music festival on City Hall Plaza and the filming of "Top Chef" episodes in Boston.
According to the US attorney's office:
It is alleged that between July and September 2014, while the company was awaiting the issuance of certain permits and approvals required for its music festival, Brissette, and at least one other city official, repeatedly advised the company that it would need to hire members of Local 11 to work at the music festival. Local 11 had attempted to obtain work from the company since March 2013. The company told Brissette that it had already entered into a contract with a non-union company and hired all of its labor. Nevertheless, Brissette allegedly insisted that half of the company’s labor force consist of union members, although he ultimately agreed that eight members of Local 11 would suffice. As a result of Brissette’s demands three days before the music festival the company entered into a contract with Local 11 for eight additional laborers and one foreman. Shortly thereafter, the City of Boston issued the necessary permits.
In closely related activity in the summer of 2014, Brissette was involved in pressuring a non-union production company filming a reality television show in Boston to hire union workers. When the Chief of Operations for the City of Boston and the Director of the Massachusetts State Film Office learned that Brissette had been pressuring a non-union film company to hire union workers, they separately told Brissette that it was not legal to withhold city permits based on a company’s union or non-union status and could not discriminate on the basis of whether or not a company was union or non-union.
Brisssette could face up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
Five Teamsters members were arrested last year on charges they tried to extort jobs out of "Top Chef" producers and, when they didn't get them, managed to force filming out of Boston and then harassed crew members at a Milton restaurant.
In the indictment against the Teamsters, prosecutors detailed phone calls Brissette allegedly made to both the Omni Parker House and Menton, a Barbara Lynch restaurant on Congress Street on June 9, 2014:
A representative from the City of Boston called the Omni Parker Hotel to inform it that Local 25 was planning to picket Company A's filming at the Omni Parker House on June 10, 2014. The city of Boston representative made similar calls to Menton.
As a result, the hotel told Top Chef not to bother showing up, and producers decided to film an episode in Milton instead.
Mayor Walsh hired Brissette in 2014 to fill the newly created job of director of tourism, sports and entertainment to " to bring major athletic and cultural events, conventions and conferences to Boston, and aggressively market the City nationally and internationally."
After news broke of the Teamster indictments, Walsh hired a former prosecutor in the Whitey Bulger case to investigate any inappropriate Teamster/City Hall connections.
The mayor's office reacted:
The Mayor asked Attorney Brian Kelly to review the city's interactions with Top Chef last year and he produced a report that concluded no city employee was involved in any illegal activities. Attorney Kelly has also been reviewing Boston Calling and he is conducting a comprehensive review of the Office of Tourism, Sports and Entertainment to ensure that the proper policies and procedures are in place.
Ken Brissette is currently on paid administrative leave.
Mayor Walsh himself said, in a statement:
I am deeply concerned about today's news. Everyone who knows Ken knows him to be a good and hardworking person. We will continue to work with the U.S. Attorney's Office to get to the bottom of this. Everyone in my administration should know that there is only one way to do things and that is the right way.
Innocent, etc.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Not necessarily related...
By Dave-from-Boston
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 1:18pm
but the Boston Herald is reporting more potential difficulties in City Hall.
A top campaign adviser for Mayor Martin J. Walsh — who lobbied him to support the Boston Grand Prix — confirmed to the Herald he was a part owner of the race, while new questions are emerging about what happened to the proceeds from ticket sales of the canceled event.
Chris Keohan, a key architect of Walsh’s 2013 election win, said he got stock in the Grand Prix of Boston, the local promotion group running the now-defunct street race that Walsh championed for more than a year.
Keohan’s company CK Strategies, which includes another former Walsh aide, Kathryn Norton, was paid a monthly fee by the promoters, but it was reduced in exchange for Keohan getting “sweat equity” — or ownership stock, an arrangement that could have paid off big if the race had been a success.
A Walsh spokeswoman said last night “he was not aware” of Keohan’s ownership interest.
it's starting......
By cybah
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 1:24pm
The snowball.....
Bye bye, baby, bye bye!
Meanwhile, all those who
By anon
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 2:33pm
Meanwhile, all those who championed the Olympic bid got cushy jobs at the BRA.
Totally above board, but still stinks.
BRISETTE
By GROVER
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 2:15pm
CONNOLLY IS DELIGHTED
So in the event that Marty has to go...
By CopleyScott17
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 4:59pm
...do we get Michelle Wu?
I could live with that.
Agreed
By anon
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 5:28pm
Look, we've tried the born and bred Bostonians and now it's time for a carpetbagger to run this place. Carpetbaggers unite! It's time for a woman mayor from Chicago - take your pick.
Meanwhile...
By Felicity
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 6:30pm
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_politics/20...
Marty's not going anywhere
By anon
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:34pm
You don't get to be where he is, from the path he took to get there, and go down for something like this. Especially in Boston.
Water off a duck's ass.
Spoken as an observer, not a fan.
Apply Rules Evenly
By Arthur
Thu, 05/19/2016 - 10:42pm
Why do some city workers get paid administrative leave when they're indicted and others get unpaid leave? Sexual discrimination, maybe?
It's pretty even
By Waquiot
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 10:55am
Unless a manager is screwing up, you put an employee on paid leave if they need to be removed from their duties right away. Then, you have an investigation, gather evidence, hold a hearing, then fire them.
Being the target of a criminal investigation complicates things, since the evidence is tied up in the courts.
Of course, if a manager puts a city worker on unpaid leave, any union rep or labor lawyer could sue the city for wages and win easily.
what kind of threat is picketing?
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 10:42am
look, I understand that intimidating someone by yell foul things at them is crime, and slashing tires is a crime. These things happened and the people that did that are criminals.
But to tell someone that you are going to hold up sign telling everyone that Top Chef, Menton and the Omni are part of the greedy 1%, that believes that workers have no right to a better share of the profits that they create is not a criminal threat.
If workers were treated fairly, then there would be no need for unions. I want the city to hire more union workers. I voted for Marty Walsh because of this. Why is it a crime? I am sick and tired of stupid lemmings that worship at the alter of "job creators" as if it is a privilege to work 40 hours a week.
What is a crime?
By bosguy22
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 10:48am
Withhold city permits until someone hires union workers.
why is that a crime?
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 11:03am
why is that a crime?
If you have to ask that question
By bosguy22
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 11:45am
You won't understand the answer.
Because the city process is
By MattyC
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 12:10pm
Because the city process is open for everyone, whether you believe in unions or not. There is no constitutional guarantee that says unions need to be employed, but there is a constitutional guarantee to open and fair access to all. Sorry if that disrupts your narrative.
it doesn't Matty. But I
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 12:42pm
it doesn't Matty. But I think we need unions here. I think that if you believe that unions prevent open access then you are drinking the 1% kool aide. if the access is open and fair, then why wouldn't some of the jobs go to union members? Does "right to work" defend people from paying a union dues or should it be called "right to profit"?
You're some kind of idiot.
By MattyC
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 12:54pm
You're some kind of idiot. This issue is specifically only about denying open access to city services based on someone's notion that you must use union work in order to do so. I'm not drinking anyone's kool-aid and you can go fuck yourself with that kind of bullshit.
It wasn't the union that
By piscis
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 1:07pm
It wasn't the union that prevented anything here, it was a hack who works to serve the people. While he may believe that union workers should be used, his job is approve permits for applicants that follow the rules. If he doesn't like it, he can find another job where he doesn't have to approve permits for non-union employers.
I'm not certain how access wasn't open and fair, but I would think that the jobs went to people that the companies thought to be the best for the job.
It's even worse than that
By MattyC
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 1:13pm
The "Minister of Fun" as he likes to refer to himself, doesn't have any permitting authority. He was actively impeding the release of permits by other city agencies until such time that his demands were met.
the 1% kool aid
By bosguy22
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 1:56pm
You know there are non-1%'ers who aren't union. Should they not be have access to jobs in this City because the Mayor and his hacks are in the back pocket of the unions?
I agree. (Did you reply to
By MattyC
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 2:19pm
I agree. (Did you reply to the wrong post?)
Sorry
By bosguy22
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 2:24pm
that was for Cinnagirl
from what it says here,
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 3:29pm
from what it says here, during the 3 previous years of the music festival they hired zero union workers. The "hack" asks them to hire 11 and they hire 8. How is hiring zero union workers open and equal access? It seems that the non-union workers have a better chance than union workers. Especially since everyone is willing to believe that union workers are lazy and overpaid. But Massachusetts is a prevailing wage state. That means that many of the jobs we are arguing about, pay wages based on the union contract whether or not they are in the union. I think that automatically assuming that hiring union workers is unfair to everyone is misguided. Some people in unions have done bad things, but not all of them. I think something is wrong here, if people in unions are automatically evil.
take breathe Matty and see if you can express yourself without cursing.
Why is a government official
By bosguy22
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 3:56pm
Asking them to hire anyone? What gives him the right to withhold permits until he gets the people he wants hired?
was it certain people, or
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 4:11pm
was it certain people, or union workers?
I can't tell if you're being
By MattyC
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 4:00pm
I can't tell if you're being intentionally intellectually dishonest, or if you are woefully ignorant of what the extortion charge is about. In either case it will be obvious to most readers that you haven't got a clue.
What I am saying it that it
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 4:10pm
What I am saying it that it seems to be generally accepted that unions are bad. And that if zero union workers are hired that is perfectly fair.
Literally no one in this
By MattyC
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 4:33pm
Literally no one in this thread has said unions are bad. Extorting a business for permits is bad. If zero union workers are hired for a thing, thems the breaks. It is not legal to mandate that union workers be hired for a thing, as a gating factor for city approval, official or implicit. Why is that so hard to understand?
he was indicted for his actions in Boston Calling
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 6:35pm
The reason this company hires zero union workers is because they charge people $10 just to fill out the application. And they charge them $185 deposit for their admission to the event. I can't find anywhere if or how much these people are paid.
That's called extortion.
By anon
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 3:40pm
That's called extortion.
@cinnimngrl- the crime:
By Anony-Mouse
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 12:33pm
So, it's not legal, according to city and state officials, to withhold a city permit based on union vs non-union.
According to the indictment, that's what Marty's guy did. Thus, indictment.
But why aren't all film
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 3:33pm
But why aren't all film company employees allowed to unionize? And I honestly don't think it should be illegal. Did he ask for all the employees to be union, or just some? why is it ok to exclude union workers?
Because the company
By martybarrett
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 3:49pm
hosting the festival had a labor company hired for the festival and they were being forced to take work away from that company and give it to union workers in order to gain permits. That's textbook extortion
I think that you should look into this company.
By cinnamngrl
Fri, 05/20/2016 - 6:31pm
The reason they don't "need" union workers is that they are not paying most of the people that work there. You have to pay $10 to just apply for a position. You also have to give them $185 deposit against your festival admission. They will hold the $185 for 7 days after the festival to determine if the person's work was satisfactory. If anyone needs a union, its the people that "staff" boston calling. just google "boston calling volunteer 2016"
Who fucking cares?
By Kaz
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 11:54am
That has NOTHING to do with what Brissette is alleged to have done. If that company wants to run itself as a slave-driving shit heap, then that's their business. As long as whatever they do doesn't violate labor laws, then they're free to treat their employees like shit. If we need better labor laws, that's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. But city officials don't get to change labor laws by telling the company that they have to split the work with other companies that have union labor or hire union members at union wages or else they don't get to work in the city. That's not how the law works. That's extortion.
So, your argument that this company is scum doesn't matter one iota to what Brissette is alleged to have done.
Not that you care. You have an axe to grind and are either ignoring what multiple people have now told you or are too stupid to understand what's being said to you. You're either simple or a troll..or a simple troll.
What are you scared of?
By cinnamngrl
Sat, 05/21/2016 - 2:59pm
"slave driving shit heaps" are Y unions were invented.
The fact that I have an opinion that can't be intimidated away by repeating the same thing over and over in ALL CAPS and calling me names does not make me a troll.
I think that this situation is driven by an anti-Union bias that serves greedy companies. I guess that is a pretty lonely opinion. I don't think that sentiment was just created by the stupid thugs that decided to promote the union by committing crimes. I think it has to do with the fact that we started just worrying about our jobs and our contracts instead of all working people.
You are wrong
By Kaz
Sun, 05/22/2016 - 10:36am
It's a lonely opinion because it's just wrong on its face. This isn't anti-union bias. It's corrupt political officials. No matter how you attempt to spin it, you are constantly running into the fact that nobody hates unions here. There's no anti-union bias. None. The greedy corporations didn't sue the city. They even played along with this guy. The FEDS are investigating. The Feds aren't anti-union. So, the only reason you think there's "anti-union bias" is because it's the only way to fit your story that unions are under attack in this situation. While unions are under attack by shitty companies, that's not this situation.
Unions aren't going to be the solution by allowing politicians to strong-arm them into jobs illegally.
Pages
Add comment