Hey, there! Log in / Register
State: Kineavy shouldn't have double deleted
By adamg on Thu, 10/22/2009 - 10:53am
The Globe reports Secretary of State Bill Galvin has ruled Michael Kineavy "inappropriately" deleted e-mail messages that should have been preserved as public records. He's referred the case to Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is no doubt relieved she won't have to decide what to do until after Nov. 3.
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
All politics
This is all politics at this point. Nothing has been found in the e-mails. Let's stop the politics and talk about the issues.
How do you know?
Do you work at the FBI or AG's office? If not, then you wouldn't know if anything had been found.
I'm glad you're so tolerate of people breaking laws and impeding federal investigations.
Although, in the end, I'm sure nothing will come of this. Corruption is tolerated here by both the government and the voters.
RE: How do you know?
In the 5000 emails released so far, there has been no evidence of criminal activity beyond the actual deletion.
More over, all the emails that could be reasonably recovered have been recovered.
So, yeah. If there was any criminal activity in the emails, I'm sure that story would have broken. All we've seen is the sometimes ugly side of how government works.
Furthermore, Galvin says that "the Supervisor is satisfied that the City has implemented new policies and procedures to prevent the deletion of records in the future."
That means the problem has since been resolved. Which goes back to Todd's point: that talking about the email scandal at this point is politics, and the campaigns should focus on the issues.
A last point, re: "I'm glad you're so tolerate of people breaking laws and impeding federal investigations."
Galvin's statement says that "[i]t is the jurisdiction of the Attorney General’s office to make a determination whether there has been a violation of law."
As Adam says,
Innocent, etc.
Screw you
The act of deleting the e-mails was ILLEGAL. That's not politics. It's law.
Whoa there!
Yeah, let's start shouting "Screw You!" at people we disagree with. That's the way to go here.
Todd's point was that discussion of the email scandal is mainly political, not the scandal itself. There has not been any criminal activity found in the emails that have been released to the public. In addition, all the emails that could reasonably be recovered were recovered:
While Galvin finds "that some records were deleted inappropriately and without permission," he also says that "[i]t is the jurisdiction of the Attorney General’s office to make a determination whether there has been a violation of law."
As Adam usually says, "Innocent, etc."
The scandal is just one of many issues in this campaign, and Todd just would like to focus on some others.
-Foxed
Thanks for the translation
Thanks for the translation, but Todd's point was clear. To Kaz's point, I'm not comfortable with his subject line either, but his point was equally clear. The failure to maintain public records, the failure to adequately answer subpeonas, failure to turn over possible evidence to the Secretary of State, the failure to implement and enforce coherent records policies, ignoring a warning from a judge in regard to this, telling lies to the public (explanations from City Hall conflicted, so at least one or two had to have been lies) are all issues in and of themselves. Separate from whatever the content of those emails was. Separate. Issues.
And not "innocent, etc." They admitted they deleted the emails, and that they knew they were supposed to keep them.
No, really
I can also state that the sky is green, but that doesn't make it true and to continue to propagate that noise in an attempt to hide the truth and actionable offenses in the matter *IS* the very political nature he is railing against. So, yes, screw him. This isn't just about an election and it isn't just about the lack of evidence implicating Kineavy in anything to do with the FBI probe.
This is the modus operandi of politics these days. If you can make an ugly fact into an argument, even if one side is arguing from absurdity, then between the confuscation and argument-fatigue in today's insta-news world, the problem will dissipate without public action or concern. It's spin politics' favorite cookbook, and Todd's using it (yet again here, I believe).
This case is pretty cut-and-dry now. He broke the Public Record Law. There need to be repercussions or there will be no trust in the government or those sworn to uphold the law. (We can't even say "Who's watching the watchmen?" because it seems these days that we don't even have watchmen to watch!)
The whole point of the Public Record search was to find the *exact* forms of e-mail that CAN NOT and WILL NEVER be recovered now (e.g., sent from outside of City Hall to his e-mail but he didn't reply via e-mail)! It's a red herring to point to what's been recovered as some sort of exoneration! And to mix metaphors, it's a pile of red herring shaped like a horse that's been beaten to death...and still being beaten upon like it means anything (other than continued obfuscation of the matter at hand).
There can be little doubt the public records law was broken....
... though issues such as perjury and obstruction of justice will have to be resolved through appropriate legal proceedings. As you say, the _content_ of the e-mails is almost irrelevant on such issues.
I suppose the content of these _might_ be relevant in the event there was a wider conspiracy to conceal some (as yet unknown) thing.
Shenanigans
As I mentioned before, I doubt they find anything because they had plenty of time to destroy any evidence. Kineavy's old computer (that he supposedly never knew had been replaced) was in another "location" for months. If the FBI had taken Kineavy's computers back when the Turner/Wilkerson indictment came down, I would feel a lot more comfortable that we will get the whole story.
FOI Freedom of Information public records sunshine open meetings
The stenographic machine record of the last public meeting of Boston City Council is kept at too long an arms reach from the public by Council President Mike Ross. The stenographic machine records more of proceedings, transactions, Councilors debate than the all too brief arcane Council minutes. see also http://sunshineboston.blogspot.com
This is an IT issue
Yes, as much as kaz wants to hang the whole Menino adminstration because someone deleted some emails (something we all do every day), I can't get too excited about it. Yes, there's a lot of sleazy stuff going on - too bad. Let's keep it in perspective - we're talking about deleting emails. If you can't prove any other wrongdoing, turn the page.
The main problem is that the city has a records retention policy that is dependent on users *not* deleting emails. That's absolutely absurd. All emails should be archived thru the server where a "double delete" would do nothing.
I think Flaherty's relationship with the firefighter's union is just as sleazy as anything the Menino hater's claim.
Disclaimer: I don't even live in the city and don't really care who gets elected. You have two candidates who both have serious flaws - take your pick.
Yes and No
Unless you can show that IT had the decision latitude to implement backups, or was directed to do so, I think it is actually a POLICY issue. The administration is responsible for those, and jealously guards that sort of power if the record serves as a guide.
Otherwise, there seems to be a culture of intentional incompetence at work - politicians simply won't and don't hire anybody who would challenge or insist on such sensible policies, even though they are the professional standard, because that's "not being a team player". Much better to hire your loyal longtime friend rather than a challenging professional to head a particular department.
More reasons that I think that Coakley is just sitting around waiting to pin all of this on some hapless, powerless IT geek rather than hold the responsible officials responsible for those things which they insist on being responsible for until caught.
Stop broadbrushing, it tickles
I don't speak to indicting anyone over this other than Kineavy. I think it reflects poorly on the Mayor that he'd allow such incompetence at *whatever* level of his administration that would so easily allow someone to ignore the Public Record Law. The law is pretty simple and should be easily implemented by *any* combination of archival and non-deletion policies. So, my problem with the Menino administration over this is one of either incompetence or ignorance of the law they were sworn in to execute faithfully. I strongly feel that the Public Records Law (and other FOIA-type laws) are absolutely critical to good government and its responsibility to the people. They don't have to criminally "hang" at all, and I don't believe I've said such a thing, but how can I trust other crucial aspects of their administration haven't been willfully ignorant or incompetent?
Because it isn't crucial
Crucial? Anything said in an email could just as easily have been done over the phone or in a conversation while walking down the street, methods that aren't controlled by public records law. That's why I don't get too worked up about it.
While speaking of trust, how can you trust a guy that's had his own public records issues and is essentially in bed with the firefighter's union? Look, I don't care who you vote for, but your reasons contradict themselves.
Not that I have to answer to you
But I would have preferred McCrea. I voted in the primary for Yoon. And I will probably vote for Flaherty, by default.
My decisions go further than public trust issues (Flaherty's wasn't a public records issue, but an open meeting issue. Similar, but worth being clear about).
The BRA weighs heavy and full of problems for me. I'd like to unhook it from the Mayor's backing.
I believe Yoon can be a positive influence inside of City Hall and would hate to lose that talent.
There's also almost always an inverse relationship between quality and length of time in office for any politician. The world changes and the person in charge doesn't always change with it (311, voicemail at City Hall, etc). Term limits should be introduced and Flaherty has agreed to do so.
So, no, they don't contradict. I'm not flattered with Flaherty's past transgressions any more than I am with Menino's current ones. Then again, Flaherty *has* at this point publicly owned up to doing wrong...and Menino has not. Basically, I'm going to have to vote for someone who has at some point abused the public's trust in governing openly. I will have to choose on a different criteria. There's no contradiction in that.
gotta agree with you
Menino appears to be such a bozo that it draws attention away from his smoother but equally corrupt associates. You can be sure that someone in his inner circle has already conducted a mock trial on this issue.