Massachusetts to Allow Access to Romney Files

[Hissyspit]

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?irpc=932

[tavalon]

1. Gee, all that money spent,

all for naught. Sorry, Mittens. They are done with you now that they've got the Newt.

[No Elephants]

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.

[tavalon]

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.

[No Elephants]

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.

[tavalon]

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.

[karynnj]

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.

[surrealAmerican]

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.

[No Elephants]

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:

[Mnpaul]

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-campaign-romney-computers-idUSTRE7B500X20111206

Have you ever heard of that happening anywhere? Public employees taking their hard drives with them when they leave office.

[No Elephants]

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.

[Jim Lane]

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.

[No Elephants]

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.

[truthisfreedom]

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.