Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Massachusetts to Allow Access to Romney Files

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 09:22 PM
Original message
Massachusetts to Allow Access to Romney Files
Source: Reuters

Massachusetts to allow access to Romney files

WASHINGTON | Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:04pm EST

By Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts will allow some public access to hundreds of previously off-limits boxes of official records generated by Mitt Romney's office when he was governor from 2003 to 2007, a state official said on Tuesday.

Romney has asserted that a 1997 decision by the Massachusetts state supreme court means that while paper records of his administration are property of the state, they are exempt from public disclosure.

But the state had allowed access to some of the estimated 600 boxes of paper records from Romney's governorship held by the state archives.

The surge in requests to review the records comes after reports that Romney spent nearly $100,000 in state funds to replace computers in his office at the end of his term as part of an unprecedented effort to keep his records secret.

Read more: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7B600H20111207...
Refresh | +16 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gee, all that money spent,
all for naught. Sorry, Mittens. They are done with you now that they've got the Newt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I am not sure if it was for naught. I tell you what.
I like to think of myself as an honest person.

I try very hard not to even make sincere factual mistakes in what I say (which is why so many of my posts contain highly qualified statements).

However, I honestly don't know if I could resist the temptation to shred if I were going though my files or the files of someone I really cared about and I came things that seemed potentially incriminating.

I've never done anything like that because I have never been in a position where it seemed necessary to protect my papers or those of a loved one from public (or court) scrutiny, but I honestly don't know what I would do if I were in that position.

Do you, dear reader? What if, say, your kid had (as an adult) written a note on a memo that, in hindisight, seemed like it could be a huge problem for him or her?

Political staffers can be very loyal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. I'm a nurse
I use that as a qualifier because everyone else who is a healthcare provider will know that it is ingrained in us from day one. No getting rid of documents. Even if a mistake is made on the record, single line and initial it. If you don't want it read, don't put it in the record. I see this as him or his staffers feeling over-entitled to change history. I hate over-entitlement. It pre-supposes that you are better than me, have more privilege than me. Not okay at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. A nurse?
I have spent a lot of time in hospitals. Well, one hospital, again and again.

I worship at the feet of nurses.

That will not stop me from disagreeing with one on a message board, but it is true.

In my experience, a doctor cuts and prescribes and I do not mean to belittle that in the least, but nurses heal. At least the good ones do.

Blessings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Yeah, you see it about right
On my unit, the Doctor shows up between 9 to 10 AM. We run the unit the rest of the time.

I don't mind if you disagree. Really, we just have different POVs and I'm lucky because my kid will never be an adult and so will not ever do something that I might be tempted to cover up. When you have a severely autistic kid, you look for the little silver linings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. Very true and very candid
Like you, I consider myself honest and I have never been in a position where I had files that could have made me or a loved one look guilty or bad. But I know how bad it feels to when I read well researched articles that show a person I admire fails to live up to standards I (presumptuously) expected they would. If I took that a step further and considered what I would have done if I were a staffer in a position to keep a bad decision hidden, it really is uncharted territory. One huge complication would be if, in spite of the incident I could hide, I still believed the person could accomplish a lot of good. As I have never been a staffer and know nothing that I didn't find in the public domain, I have never had this dilemma.

In the case of Romney, there is also the possibility of personal gain or even just being able to say that you once knew the Presidential nominee well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. Unless you are a governor, those are probably not ...
... official public records. We are not talking about his personal papers here. The state owns these records; they should never have been secret to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. How do you spend $100,000 in state money to destroy public records without destroying them?
On the other hand, if Romney only archived files and did not destroy or carry them away, what was all the flap about?

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mnpaul Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-06-11 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. They did carry them away
"When Romney left the governorship of Massachusetts, 11 of his aides bought the hard drives of their state-issued computers to keep for themselves. Also before he left office, the governor's staff had emails and other electronic communications by Romney's administration wiped from state servers, state officials say."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-usa-campai...

Have you ever heard of that happening anywhere? Public employees taking their hard drives with them when they leave office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. That cost $100,000?
Okay, so nail him with messing with state property.

But, then again, that might leave us with Newt, who I think is even less desirable as President than Romney or Huntsman--and that is going some.

So, I'm back to giving Romney a pass.

I hate this. I want to sue the Republican Party for the lousiest primary field in history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 04:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. He destroyed electronic records and some paper records, but some paper records survived.
As the OP notes, Romney had opposed allowing public access to the limited files that escaped his purge.

Incidentally, at least one authority has said that Massachusetts law doesn't require that the emails be made public but it does require that they be preserved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I've read that as well. That the statute did not specify "Governor,"
so the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court (our highest court) has held that, because of that, the Governor's records are not required to be made public.

Maybe it was some sort of Executive Privilege type thinking when the law was written--Just a wild guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-07-11 05:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. Honestly, there is no rethug choice. Every single, and I mean EVERY SINGLE candidated is a clown.
They've put them in the clown car and they're driving cross-country in a Ringling Brothers side-show, and we're throwing water balloons at them.

They're a hopeless lot. Worthless, hopeless, and tragic. I feel sorry for the rethug party. Truly sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC