Hey, there! Log in / Register

Wilkerson withdraws from race but won't quit job - yet

She promises another announcement on Nov. 5 about her position as a state senator. Her term runs out in January.

The Globe reports she made the statement after a meeting with black clergymen, a number of whom called on her to resign yesterday.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Jon Keller and John Henning quickly kicked her up and down the hall too. One conclusion was that waiting until Wednesday to say what she intended to do about the rest of her Senate term. The conclusion was that she would want to spin stepping down as her idea.

up
Voting closed 0

Who cares about her ideas. She's dead to public service.

Unless there's a rule involved that applies, the other Senators should STFU. This is between the rep and her constituents. It is up to them to tell her to go away.

If I lived in her jurisdiction, I'd start a rally and go protest her every minute possible until she goes away.

This is not the responsibility of other senators, or the senate, to waste everyone's time and money on her drama.

up
Voting closed 0

have already voted her out in the Democratic primary, and presumably will ratify that choice next Tuesday. After that, it's out of the constituents' hands, as she (and all other legislators) has two months of lame-duck term before the new members are sworn in.

It's fun to speculate on what would have happened had she won the Democratic primary, however. Would the voters elect the Socialist Workers candidate next week?

up
Voting closed 0

Losing a primary election as an incumbent does not mean your term ends... I know that's not what you meant, but the primary vote is immaterial to whether or not she remains in office after being indicted.

My point was the Senate passed a resolution, great... she wants to stay in, great... let's move on.

Unless there's an actual rule of law where other officials can force her out, her accountability lies with her constituents, so if they want to convince her to change her mind and resign, they should, otherwise... let's move on! :)

I do agree that her winning the primary would have made this rather interesting. But I personally believe this would not have gone public at this time if she had won the primary. No citations available for that hunch.

up
Voting closed 0

"... and presumably will ratify that choice next Tuesday..." The presumption is pretty safe now that she's suspended her campaign.

up
Voting closed 0

I think Ron is wrong on that one. I'd predicted a big loss before this arrest. Lots of folk thought she'd forever rise from the dead no matter how deeply she was buried. I didn't. As they say in Strangers with Candy, now we'll never know.

As for forcing her out, there is a clear mechanism, which has been put in play. The Senate Ethics Committee can meet, evaluate a member, and recommend expulsion. That is in play and in the rare instances it happens, it is almost certain to pass.

They don't like to do it, but they can.

Moreover, with Jim Marzelli arrested for multiple sex-related charges, they likely wouldn't want to do that, only to face folk saying, "What about him?" The answer there seems to be that his charges do not relate to his job. A lot of folk don't agree with that reasoning.

up
Voting closed 0

Unless there's a rule involved that applies, the other Senators should STFU.

Wilkerson is accused of federal crimes. That widens the sphere of people who can claim an interest.

Perhaps there isn't a senate rule, but the general feeling that this makes every single last one of them look bad gives them every right to tell her to GTFO rather than STFU.

up
Voting closed 0

"Perhaps there isn't a senate rule, but the general feeling that this makes every single last one of them look bad gives them every right to tell her to GTFO rather than STFU."

And they did, with the resolution, which I am not trying to oppose with my little posts as it was a sensible reaction... but it's over, they made their statement, and absent a formal ouster process they should go on with their business and not spend more time and money on the matter which would just be a waste.

Being indicted on federal charges doesn't change anything in my view - just which cops are arresting you and which prison you might go to. It doesn't give the State Senate new powers of ouster, or constituents new powers of protest.

They can either ouster or not, and they will either protest or not.

In this case, they can't ouster (AFAIK) and she won't resign, so it's up to the protesting constituents to convince her to resign or otherwise she remains.

The question here is how much time and money is the Senate (and other gov't entities most likely) going to waste on the matter? My hope is that this is minimized and she is quickly forgotten.

up
Voting closed 0

Try again?

up
Voting closed 0

Oh, it's BZ. I bet it wants to call Java. Try this one. That brings up an open/play dialog for me.

up
Voting closed 0

It had

a hef =

So, Bostonians, please remember: You can't drop your Rs in HTML!

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

Not sure what this has to do with Wilkerson's *federal* charges, but hey, I'm in the giving mood right now:

1) Attend law school.
2) Become a lawyer.
3) Get MA Bar certification.
4) Read the instructions on the page where you email the person listed there and ask for a login and password by giving her your BBO (MA Bar association) number.

That system is for lawyers to get trial court info. It's not for you, that's why there's a login and password.

up
Voting closed 0

That [state court] system is for lawyers to get trial court info. It's not for you, that's why there's a login and password.(*)

The federal system, PACER, where US v. Wilkerson can be found, is available to anyone. You have to register, and you generally have to pay 8 cents a page to look at court documents, but you don't have to be an attorney or even a US citizen to do that. Hopefully the Mass. system will move in this direction soon. The Appeals Court and the Supreme Judicial Court are already partially online, and free.

For what it's worth, there is currently nothing of interest on the federal docket in US v. Wilkerson other than the FBI affidavit that the Globe posted.

(* Not intending to pick on Kaz here, who was just stating the facts.)

up
Voting closed 0

Are the motions to seal and unseal the complaint against Wilkerson until after she was arrested. Well, and the appendix to the complaint, which has all those video stills.

up
Voting closed 0

for assuming that those were just mechanics.

up
Voting closed 0

Chris Lovett has more on what the ministers said about Wilkerson.

Mike Ball reports from the State House, where Gov. Patrick announced his new panel to look at ethics in state government and where Chang-Diaz appeared conciliatory rather than vituperative.

up
Voting closed 0

I as well as at least one reporter at Deval's announcement picked up on the mention of home-rule reform as well. He noted that these begging routines are often bargaining chips. He said that this is the time to let local communities conduct their own business and advance their micro-economies. I bet pols who are used to waving this carrot won't like it, but I think he's right.

up
Voting closed 0