Patrick-Gate

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dcr400m. Show dcr400m's posts

    Re: Patrick-Gate

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Critics rolled their eyes at Gov. Deval Patrick’s “convenient” excuse yesterday — that his administration can’t crack the mystery of how repeat roadway offender Sheila Burgess became the state’s highway safety director because her hiring records were destroyed in the normal course of business.

    “It’s all too convenient that basically we have no records of how she came to be hired ... particularly for an administration that came in saying, ‘We have to do things differently,’ ” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading). “I’d like to find out who made the final decision to sign off on hiring this person. Was it the governor’s chief of staff? The lieutenant governor? Then I’d like to find out what made you decide that person? Was a background check done?”

    “We’ve tried to get to the bottom of it,” Patrick insisted on WTKK’s “Jim & Margery Show” yesterday. “I think that was in the early days of the administration. We can’t even find the documents because in the normal course those documents are gone, are destroyed.”

     

    Patrick again called her hiring a “screw-up” and said, as governor, he takes responsibility. The administration is still trying to find out how she was hired, but a paper trail doesn’t seem to exist, he said.

    Patrick’s admission that “we look ridiculous” for placing Burgess at the head of highway safety drew mockery from the GOP.

    “This administration,” said MassGOP Executive Director Nate Little in a statement, “ ... not only looks ridiculous but dangerously out of control.”

    Record rules issued by the secretary of state’s office require hiring documents, including letters of recommendation, be kept for three years from the time of hiring. But personnel records, including job offer and acceptance letters, must be kept for six years after the employee leaves. Burgess, a Democratic political operative hired in 2007, resigned this month.

    Patrick officials could not produce documents from Burgess’ personnel file yesterday.

    “Obviously it does raise concerns,” said Pam Wilmot of Common Cause. “It’s important to find out who made the decision and to discipline that person and potentially move forward with reforms.”

    Background checks expire after two years to prevent promotions based on expired checks and to safeguard personal information, said Patrick spokeswoman Kim Haberlin.

    But Jones said he sees no reason to toss other hiring documents so quickly.

    “Keeping letters of recommendation in a personnel file doesn’t seem unreasonable to me,” Jones said.

     

    Lying p o s

    [/QUOTE]

    If you didn't question the masS destruction of records /hard drive removal/etc/ET AL of the Romney administration - then I suggest you take a nice warm bowl of STFU

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Patrick-Gate

    I am not sure there is much a "gate" here.  Patrick owned the mistake, said he took responsibility, and they are still looking into.  He acknowledges that he looks foolish right now over this.  What else is there to be said?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Patrick-Gate

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am not sure there is much a "gate" here.  Patrick owned the mistake, said he took responsibility, and they are still looking into.  He acknowledges that he looks foolish right now over this.  What else is there to be said?

    [/QUOTE]

    Remember in Politics its not the offense that'll get you its the coverup.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Patrick-Gate

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am not sure there is much a "gate" here.  Patrick owned the mistake, said he took responsibility, and they are still looking into.  He acknowledges that he looks foolish right now over this.  What else is there to be said?

    [/QUOTE]

    Were HR records innocently or intentionally destroyed ?

    We should just take him at his word and say "oopsie, that's okay" ?

    You don't sound naive....

    [/QUOTE]


    It is supicious that all references to her hiring are now gone.  I know new MA laws regarding privacy are more stringent but I can't imagine why employment records of a current employee would be purged. 

    My take is given her background and utter lack of qualification for the job someone put her in as a favor, good old political patronage.  The question is who that person is.  Once we know that we should be able to find out why she was hired for the post and what happened to those records. 

    But as far as controversey is concerned this is a bad hire, she didn't mess up the position, or anything like that as best I can tell.  She just should have never been hired. 

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Patrick-Gate

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I am not sure there is much a "gate" here.  Patrick owned the mistake, said he took responsibility, and they are still looking into.  He acknowledges that he looks foolish right now over this.  What else is there to be said?

    [/QUOTE]

    Were HR records innocently or intentionally destroyed ?

    We should just take him at his word and say "oopsie, that's okay" ?

    You don't sound naive....

    [/QUOTE]


    It is supicious that all references to her hiring are now gone.  I know new MA laws regarding privacy are more stringent but I can't imagine why employment records of a current employee would be purged. 

    My take is given her background and utter lack of qualification for the job someone put her in as a favor, good old political patronage.  The question is who that person is.  Once we know that we should be able to find out why she was hired for the post and what happened to those records. 

    But as far as controversey is concerned this is a bad hire, she didn't mess up the position, or anything like that as best I can tell.  She just should have never been hired. 

    [/QUOTE]

    We agree. Champagne ?

    [/QUOTE]


    Lets get stinko

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Patrick-Gate

    Does anybody know how well or poorly Burgess performed in her job?  Not that job performance is nearly as important as historical driving record or anything.

    I can deal with "Do as I say and not as I do" managers. 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Patrick-Gate

    The real issue, missed as usual by the righties, is that she shouldn't have been in the job because she had no prior experience in the field of highway safety or transportation.  the fact that she has a bad driving record is beside the point.  The real issue is that whe wasn't qualified - even with a clean driving record.

    Even when the righties are correct, they still miss the point.  It's like the old sayin about how even a blind dog finds a bone every now and then.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share