Of Course It's Politics!

Several days ago there were a couple of stories in the papers: one regarding the next leg of the internal audit taking place in the City Clerk's office and the second regarding the vacat56n b4y-back out of unused vacation time to the City Auditor. Both stories "broke" just a few weeks prior to the upcoming Mayoral primary, and the Ragucci and Hanlon camps are both claiming that the release of these stories is "political."

No kidding. Political? Hold on, everyone, because the next thing you know, they'll be telling us that there's no Santa Claus and that Elvis is really dead.

Now . . . let's take a look at these two stories.

First of all -- the story about the next leg of the audit taking place in the City Clerk's office could only have been considered newsworthy once the audit is completed; the only reason this story ran was to be able to point a finger of suspicion at the City Clerk. The "revelations" in this story -- that proper procedures in the reporting of fees to the Treasurer as required by law were not being followed -- isn't exactly latebreaking news. These findings were published in the annual city audit in 2000 and 2001. There was some noise made about them during the 2003 election, but again it was brushed aside as "politics" during an election year. However, the allegations are not insignificant if you consider that there have been other procedural deficiencies noted in the recent state audit conducted as a result of the indictments of the Superintendent and the Maintenance Director at the School Department. And if -- and we emphasize if -- there is suspicion that a department head is pocketing fees that he should be reporting through other channels within City Hall, as required by Mass General Law, at the very least it needs to be investigated. This is true not just in the City Clerk's office during an election year, but at whatever time the suspicion arises. The City Clerk should deal with it, especially if, as he claims, he has done nothing wrong.

Next is the story of a buyback of unused vacation time to the City Auditor, who has been employed by this administration for less than two years, although he was employed for more than seven years during a previous administration, and this previous time worked counts towards his current seniority. It is not unusual for an employee to "negotiate" certain aspects of his employment, particularly at this managerial level, including additional vacation time. What is unusual is that unused vacation time would be "paid out" while the person is still employed. The general rule of thumb is that any unused vacation time gets carried over to the next year, with the approval of the Mayor. This did not happen in this instance, and while it's not illegal (as John Hanlon claimed to the Boston Globe), it is, at the very least, unfair to those who are required to carry over their vacation time when it might be a nice bonus for them to be able to cash out at the end of the year. It was not the wisest administrative decision (particularly when the mayor negotiates all those contracts again) and whether you believe the Mayor's explanation or not, the reality is -- it's his responsibility. He should accept it, decide what, if anything, is going to be done about it, and move on.

What it all comes down to is this . . . it's an election year. Things that might've been handled quietly 12 months ago are now going to be front page news, blown out of proportion, elevated to the level of scandal, all in the name of convincing the electorate that the other guy is no good.

It's time for all parties to grow up. It's time for people to stand up and take responsibility for their actions. It's time for people to take their medicine and move on.