Tom Vannah expressed concerns that Mayor Clare Higgins' endorsement of the Safe Passage Hot Chocolate Run "smacks of shameless self-promotion by the mayor." He also suggested that the mayor, "who is listed on the race website as 'title sponsor,' has paid for that designation through her campaign coffers."
These comments are troubling and false.
Domestic violence is a community issue that we all should and must feel committed to addressing. We all know someone who is being abused by her/his partner. We all know someone who is abusing her/his partner. We cannot turn away and pretend that this is not happening in our communities.
The Hot Chocolate Run is a community event! It is an event that brings in much-needed funds for Safe Passage to allow us to continue our work. People who participate—as runners, walkers, cheerers-on—are gathering to acknowledge the prevalence of domestic violence and to make a contribution to the valuable community lifeline for survivors of domestic violence.
The symbolism of the mayor's endorsement of this run and her participation in the event is enormous and inspiring. It says—this is our problem and we all, as a community, gather today to acknowledge the prevalence of domestic violence, to support the survivors, to assist Safe Passage, and to say "No" to violence in the home.
We invite all of you, Tom Vannah included, to support Safe Passage and to do your part to help to end violence in the home. Donations can be made through our website, safepass.org. Click "donate."
Gail Kielson
President of the Board of Safe Passage
La Wanza Lett-Brewington
Executive Director of Safe Passage
*
Vannah responds:
Gail Kielson and La Wanza Lett-Brewington are referring to a comment I made at the bottom on an online version of a Jan. 29 story about the use of the Academy of Music for a presidential inaugural event as conceived by Mayor Higgins. That comment, one of 11, reads as follows:
"While Nancy may be right about the mayor's motivation, the mayor nevertheless allowed (if not encouraged) her name to be linked to the event in a major way. Incumbents have a great advantage in the electoral process; they receive regular media attention simply by performing the basic duties of the office. As Roessler said in the piece, the mayor could have orchestrated the event at the Academy while remaining in the background, not directly associating her name with the event and by extention our wildly popular new president. By doing so, she'd have avoided the appearance that she was using the Academy and the inaugural event as a vehicle for political self-promotion. State ethics laws use the term "appearance of conflict of interest" to avoid getting bogged down in questions of motivation, which are impossible to prove one way or another. What matters is how things appear, or might appear, to reasonable people. I think about how this issue appears to would-be candidates for mayor.
By the way, though I've never said it publicly, I've never been comfortable with the Mayor Higgins' Hot Chocolate Run for very similar reasons. While it's a great event for the city and the charity it supports, it is also smacks of shameless self-promotion by the mayor. I don't know the financial arrangement, but I assume that the mayor, who is listed on the race website as "title sponsor," has paid for that designation through her campaign coffers, just as John Hancock pays to be title sponsor of the Boston Marathon. If she doesn't pay for the title, that raises a host of other interesting questions. But either way, she undoubtedly derives a political advantage from her sponsorship that none of her challengers can similarly match. To say so is not a meanspirited attack on the mayor, but an expression of concern for the fairness of the campaign process."
Posted by Vannah on 1.28.09 at 15.12
The off-the-cuff comment did not appear in the print edition of the Valley Advocate. Nonetheless, I stand by it.
As you can see, I made it clear that I didn't know whether Higgins paid for her title sponsorship through her campaign coffers. It is interesting to note that Gail Kielson and La Wanza Lett-Brewington don't refer to the event's formal name: Mayor Higgins' Hot Chocolate Run for Safe Passage. It is specifically the use of her official title that I questioned. While I could find no state law that specifically addresses the use of official titles, there are two sections of state law that may apply. 1) According to state Ethics Law (MGL Chapter 268A, section 23),"No current officer or employee of a state, county or municipal agency shall knowingly, or with reason to know use or attempt to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals." 2) According to state Election Laws (MGL Chapter 55, section 1), a political contribution is defined as a "gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit of money, or thing of value, except a loan of money to a candidate by a national or state bank made in accordance with the applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of busines & discount or rebate not available to other candidates for the same office and to the general public…." If the title sponsorship came to Higgins free of charge, it may well constitute a campaign contribution and would need to be disclosed in her campaign finance reports.
