|
|
« House panel to air bills banning drivers from 'texting' | Today | Governor to announce bill aimed at easing local taxes » January 15, 2008Ethics panel to prosecute former E. Providence mayorPROVIDENCE -- Stepping into a partisan battle over East Providence’s election apparatus, the state Ethics Commission today voted to prosecute the city’s former mayor, Joseph S. Larisa Jr., for violating the state’s ethics code in representing a local official before the city council. Larisa signed on as the unpaid lawyer to defend Thomas Riley, the sole Republican member of the East Providence Canvassing Authority, in a disciplinary hearing stemming in part from a reference to "swapping spit" in an e-mail Riley sent to another authority member, a Democrat. The complaint against Larisa, a Republican, was filed by John F. Conley, the head of East Providence’s Democratic party. It accused Larisa of violating the state’s "revolving door" law, which forbids former officials from representing themselves or anyone else before the agency they belonged to for a year after leaving the position. Its purpose is to keep public officials from abusing their influence immediately after they leave office. Larisa said today that the ban shouldn’t apply to him because he represented Riley for free, but the commission decided otherwise. "They don’t think free public service is an exception to the ’revolving door’ ban. I think it is," Larisa said. Larisa lost to current Mayor Isadore Ramos Jr. during a disputed election and recount in 2006 for the single at-large seat on the East Providence City Council, and Ramos was sworn in to replace him in December. Seven months later, Larisa represented Riley before the council, which was considering disciplining Riley. -- projo.com staff writer Bruce Landis The dispute that put Riley before the City Council grew out of a years-long dispute over the conduct of the city Canvassing Authority, its handling of the city’s voter rolls, its meeting times, access to its records and other issues. The immediate cause was a series of e-mail messages Riley sent to authority chairwoman Dorothy O’Gara, a Democrat. One said that O’Gara should "spend less time swapping spit and holding hands" with canvassing clerk MaryAnn Callahan and more time studying state election law. Just what that meant came up at the council session where Larisa represented Riley. "Swapping spit" is a slang reference to kissing, and applying it to two women offered further rude implications that council members took note of. Riley, on the other hand, says he was only referring to a game where boys sealed a deal by spitting on their hands and shaking on it. The council gave Riley a written reprimand. The next step in Larisa’s case is a trial-like hearing before the commission, with the commission staff presenting the prosecution case and the defendant’s lawyer presenting his side. The other choice, one that prominent public officials have almost universally chosen instead of letting the prosecution play out, has been negotiating a settlement, normally accompanied by a sizable fine, with the commission. Posted by Mike McKinney CommentsConcerned Person | January 15, 2008 6:03 PM link This is a joke. The point of the Ethics Commission is to keep politicians from benefitting themselves with their elected office. How is Larisa benefitting by representing someone for free? This is purely petty politics and Larisa should be acquitted. Free Joe | January 15, 2008 9:38 PM link It is about time someone stepped up and started enforcing the code instead of overlooking it. Larisa is, was and always will be an embarassment to East Providence. Isn't this the same person who was Chief of Staff to the Governor and mayor of the city at the same time, yet claimed this was not a violation of conflict of interst? Seems that if you are working on state issues that could directly affect the city where you are mayor, there is a conflict. I only hope the ethics commission keeps moving forward on these violations and does not go soft again. Time to rid the state of alll of these idiots who think they can get away with anything because they are attorneys or politicos. Jo | January 16, 2008 8:34 AM link Post a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
|
ADVERTISING |
|
|
|
|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006
Free public service isn't an exception. This guy is an embarassment. Larisa is an attorney, and has to know that standing up in front of a body on behalf of someone else, whether they pay you or not, is 'representing' them.