Boston Progressives Should Not Jump to Conclusions About Councilor Chuck Turner
If there's one politician that Boston community and labor activists can count on to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted" it's Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner (G/R - District 7). One of the vanishingly few African-American politicians in this "majority minority" city, he has energetically represented the interests of his largely low-income constituency of color. But he has also been a rare progressive voice in a sea of conservative politicians - most of whom are Democrats, but that's Massachusetts for you - and a bridge-builder to other communities and constituencies around the region. Not coincidentally, he is the only Green-Rainbow Party elected official in Boston. Yet today the city awoke to the startling news that Turner was arrested by the FBI at 7 a.m. this morning at City Hall, and charged with accepting $1000 in bribes from the same government informant who gave over $23,000 in bribes to former state Senator Dianne Wilkerson in exchange for assistance getting a liquor license for the Dejavu nightclub on Melnea Cass Blvd. in Roxbury.
However, progressives in general and the African-American community in particular have little reason to trust the motives of the FBI in this instance - given decades of official government harassment of both groups - and so progressive political lists have been abuzz all day about the whys and wherefores of this case.
Much of the progressive criticism of Turner's arrest is now focusing on the weakness of the case against Turner presented in the FBI's affidavit (available on the Boston Globe website in PDF format).
Having reviewed the affidavit and surveyed the local press on the case thus far, Open Media Boston has concluded that the FBI does indeed appear to be presenting a weak case against Turner - resting as it does on the testimony of a single "Cooperating Witness" - who the Boston Globe tentatively identified as Ron Wilburn, a local entrepreneur who had managed a local nightclub in the past and apparently represented the Dejavu nightclub throughout the FBI investigation. Wilburn's motives still remain opaque at this point, and it is difficult to gauge what would cause him to work so closely with the feds.
The FBI case also relies heavily on their own interpretations of Turner's clandestinely video and audio-taped actions - actions which can certainly be read as legal behavior, and for which there is precedent in the previous actions of other more powerful politicians in Boston. And those politicians were not dragged out to the U.S. District Court in Worcester by U.S. Marshals on the rare occasions when such potential financial infractions came to light. Far from it.
So while, as a news publication, Open Media Boston is bound by social contract to follow the facts wherever they may lead, as progressives, we believe it is critical that we withhold judgment against Turner in this case - as we would in any other case - and assume that the man is innocent until proven guilty. Not just in an often-flawed legal system, but also to the satisfaction of the communities that Turner represents.
We strongly suggest that other progressives do the same. We further recommend that everyone follow the case very closely. Keep on top of it. Stay informed and up-to-date. We'll do our best to get you the news on this situation from the ground-up, not the top-down. As always.
Above all, we should all be watching the watchers. It can be a good thing that the FBI has a Public Corruption Squad in their Boston office, but they certainly missed their own agent John Connolly sending people to their deaths at the hands of mobster Whitey Bulger, and we're still waiting for the squad to bring down some much bigger fish than they're seemingly trying to scare up in this sting.
Given the hundreds of thousands of public dollars that have doubtless been spent on this investigation, one really has to question their priorities - as we strongly suspect that huge corporations are buying off major politicians every day in Boston as around the world, but no one gets so much as a slap on the wrist for such world-class malfeasance. It makes us think, and we hope it makes you think too.
Whether you agree or disagree with us, we'd like to hear from you. All registered users are free to comment on this editorial - as they are on every piece of content on this site - and we'd be thrilled if we got up a good debate on this one.
Full Disclosure: Open Media Boston Editor/Publisher Jason Pramas has maintained friendly working relations with Councilor Chuck Turner for a few years - first as Director of the labor-community non-profit Massachusetts Global Action (formerly Campaign on Contingent Work), then as a graduate student at UMass Boston. Pramas remains on the Board of Directors of Massachusetts Global Action - which does project work with Turner. Pramas also met with Turner at his City Hall office to discuss Open Media Boston earlier this year.
Comments
OMB has fans at Red Mass Group ... check out the details at our blog ...
http://www.openmediaboston.org/node/437
;>
Jason Pramas
Editor/Publisher
Open Media Boston
A hundred or so people are budgeted to our Boston City Council overseen by a staff director and the Council City Messenger. A new staff director is needed that will stop the practice of emotionally extorting "cooperation" from citizens enquiring about Council proceedings. The current staff director demands that no further enquiries be made to remain on or get on the Council's mailing lists for notices of public committee meetings and such. With so many budgeted to our Council there should be greater compliance with sunshine open public meetings principles, freedom of information FOI public records principles of open government.
In the same spirit of not jumping to conclusion, let's not suggest ulterior motives for those whose testimony and cooperation are leading to the arrests of people like Wilkerson, Turner, and whoever else is about to get caught up in this. When you write "Wilburn's motives still remain opaque at this point, and it is difficult to gauge what would cause him to work so closely with the feds", are you not at least somewhat trying to get people to draw conclusions about Wilburn's motives?
In addition, we support him in mounting a legal defense and in attesting to the unique reform leadership on the council. He needs this now regardless of anything else.
To this quaint notion of rushing to the defense of (alleged) bad guys, I add the following reference to an article appearing in today's (Nov 23) Boston Globe:http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2008/11/23/a_shamefu...
PERSPECTIVE
A Shameful Endorsement
It's time politicians realized that when they back a colleague, it speaks volumes -- about their own character.
By Tom Keane | November 23, 2008
What is one to make of the slew of politicians who endorsed now-disgraced state Senator Dianne Wilkerson in September's Democratic primary? An 18-month FBI investigation found Wilkerson allegedly taking cash bribes in exchange for political favors.
But well before then it was obvious something was amiss. Seemingly the entire political establishment -- the governor, Boston's mayor, the leaders of the House and Senate, six state reps, and six Boston city councilors -- backed Wilkerson against challenger Sonia Chang-Diaz. Yet at the time they endorsed her, Wilkerson had compiled quite the sordid record. In 1987, she defaulted on her federal student loans. In 1997, she was under house arrest for not paying $51,000 in income taxes. In 1998, she spent 30 days at a halfway house for violating probation. In 2001, the state Ethics Commission fined her $1,000 for lobbying for the Boston Bank of Commerce, which had paid her $20,000 as a "consultant." In 2005, she allegedly perjured herself at a hearing at the Suffolk Superior Court (the matter is still pending). And this year, the attorney general fined her $10,000 for various campaign violations.
Shouldn't that have been enough? Indeed, Chang-Diaz's campaign against Wilkerson was all about these transgressions (the two had no fundamental ideological or policy disagreements), and ultimately a majority of voters in the district chose Chang-Diaz, a clear message that they found Wilkerson ethically unworthy for office.
But our political leaders did not have the same qualms, and one has to wonder why. I asked. Most ignored me. But a number responded, and their answers are revealing. City Councilor Michael Ross said he endorsed Wilkerson "because of the leadership role she played in Boston's black community." State Representative Martin Walsh said, "We had worked on many issues together." She "consistently helped the people of her district," Councilor John Connolly said.
In other words, it was sufficient that she did her job. Ethical failings and lawbreaking were largely irrelevant. She "has always been a staunch advocate for her community and, in my opinion, before these recent charges, that is what mattered most," Councilor Stephen Murphy told me. "When it comes to deeply moral failings -- at a human level -- it is not for me to judge," said at-large Councilor Sam Yoon. Another city councilor, Chuck Turner, offered up the everyone-does-it defense. "From an ethical standpoint," he said, "I don't think the vast majority of Congress should be allowed to sit." (Turner went on to lecture me about my naivete: "I'm surprised, Tom. I didn't think you were in denial of the reality of the moral depravity of this country.")
I guess I understand what's really going on. Governor Deval Patrick told reporters he endorsed Wilkerson because she had earlier supported him. That's the way it works. Little gets done in politics without the support of one's colleagues, and it becomes quite natural to do whatever is needed to gain their good will. Endorsements are an easy, mostly risk-free way to do this.
As I said, I understand it. That doesn't mean I accept it. There is another way to view endorsements, one with which I think most regular citizens would agree: as an affirmative statement by one politician about the character and ethics of those who serve in public office. Remember last January, when Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama, praising his "extraordinary gifts of leadership and character"? That was not mere logrolling done to curry favor. It was Kennedy's personal vouchsafing of Obama's moral fiber.
Contrast that with those recent endorsements of Wilkerson. Perhaps, by endorsing her, local pols were telling us -- a la Chuck Turner -- that all politicians are corrupt. Or perhaps they were saying it didn't matter. Either way, they communicated a distressing message, one that breeds public cynicism.
I do have this Pollyannish belief that politics is a higher calling. But it's hard to keep the faith when our politicians don't seem to believe it themselves. State Representative Linda Dorcena Forry is chastened. "This experience will certainly serve as a lesson to me in the future," she said. One hopes that, post-Wilkerson, the rest learn as well: The endorsements they make say far more about themselves than they do of the candidates they back.
Tom Keane, a Boston-based freelance writer, contributes regularly to the Globe Magazine. E-mail him at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.