Council to Walsh: Should He Resign?

In two months, William H. Walsh will be sentenced to up to three-and-a-half years in prison for 41 counts of bank fraud and making false statements.

Only then will state law require that he forfeit his seat on the Cambridge city council.

But four of Walsh's eight colleagues want to get him out of public office now.

At the city council meeting on Monday, Councillors Kathleen L. Born, Francis H. Duehay '55, Jonathan S. Myers and Katherine Triantafillou supported on order calling for Walsh's immediate resignation.

Although the councillors argued in favor of Walsh's resignation for more than an hour on Monday, the order failed, with two councillors voting against, two voting "present." and Walsh abstaining.

Although the council would not have been able to enforce the resolution had it passed, the councillors say their intent was three-fold: to preserve the integrity of government, to alleviate tensions within the council and--above all--to tell Walsh that he lacks the confidence of four colleagues.

"The intent of the resolution was to underscore the fact that upon sentencing, [Walsh] has to leave," Triantafillou says.

Walsh says the councillors who are calling for his resignation are acting for political reasons that precede his entanglement with Dime Savings Bank of New York that led to his conviction last month.

The three sponsors of the order--Born, Duehay and Triantafillou--are "my political nemeses," Walsh says.

But Triantafillou says the moral implications of a convicted felon serving in public office are intolerable.

"When a person is convicted of a serious crime like bank fraud," Triantafillou says, "it is...inimical to the the concept of good government."

Triantafillou and Duehay say that Walshremaining in office after he was convicted pointsto an unfair special treatment.

"Public servants are and should be held to ahigher standard of conduct," Triantafillou says."If a police officer were convicted of a crime, hewould be summarily dismissed."

"After indictment, [a city employee] would havebeen pt on an unpaid leave of absence," Duehayagrees.

Walsh's continued presence on the council, saythe councillors, tarnishes its reputation as agoverning body.

"[Having Walsh remain in office] reflects badlyon the city council," he says. "It reflects badlyon the entire city of Cambridge."

"It adds to the cynicism about government thatthe public has," Duehay adds. "Politicians arealready held in low esteem, and this kind of thingaffirms it."

But Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, who voted"present" on Monday, says Walsh's crime hasnothing to do with his work on the council.

"The big tell-tale sign for me was thequestion...if the impropriety was directly tied inwith his activities as city councillor," Sullivansays. "My vote might have been different had thisbeen a case directly in relation to his activitiesas a city councillor.

Community Opinions

Since his conviction, Walsh has justified hisdecision to remain in office by saying it is hislegal right, and by arguing that he can still lprove his innocence.

During the council's Monday meeting Walshdefended himself for more than 15 minutes. Hisprimary argument was his right to try to prove hisinnocence.

"As tough as it is to stay and fight," he saidat the meeting, "I will do so. I am innocent. Ihave to fight to vindicate myself."

But the councillors that have pushed forWalsh's resignation say their convicted colleagueshould not try to prove his innocence at theexpense of the council.

"He can pursue his constitutional rights on hisown time," Triantafillou says. "He should notcontinue to embroil the council in what is hispersonal life."

"He is attempting to use his office and theprestige that goes with [it] to try to get anappeal and a new trial," says Geoffrey Gardner, amember of the Cambridge Tenants Union who spoke atMonday's council meeting. "It completely taintsthe prestige of the council."

Walsh has also defended himself by pointing tohis supporters in the community. He says he hastalked to between 70 and 80 of his constituents,all of whom he says have asked him to remain.

"I believe my constituents want me to stay,"Walsh says,

"Walsh is positively in the minds of manypeople the best councillor," says John F. Natale,a member of the Small Property Owner's Associationwho spoke at Monday's meeting. "He is the onlyreal councillor up there earning his pay."

Walsh says that he does not consider theopinions of his opponents' constituents.

"Not one of their constituents ever voted forme, " Walsh says of Born, Duehay andTriantafillou.

Walsh also says that the failure of the councilto pass the order calling for his resignationproves that he has supporters among his colleaguesas well.

"My other colleagues stood behind me [and] gaveme the reassurance that they think I should staytoo," he says.

Gardner disagrees.

"[Walsh] is not a person to be trusted," hesays. "Morally, he has no right to taint thebusiness and politics in the city and the respectfor truth in the city."

Greater Repercussions

Although councillors point to ethical reasonsrequiring Walsh to resign, greater politicalrepercussions are at stake, they say.

Council relations have been strained by havinga convicted felon on the council, they say.

"A resignation would go beyond the requirementsof the law," Duehay says. "But the realities arethat the city council will not operate aseffectively with this concern hanging over hishead and over everybody else's head."

Duehay says it is anomalous to have a convictedfelon chair the Ordinance Committee, the body thatmakes the laws.

"[Walsh] chairs the committee on local laws andI think it makes the people who sit on thatcommittee and others who work with himuncomfortable to have a person who is in charge oflaws to be a person who has been convicted," hesays.

Duehay is not the only one to voice thisconcern.

"It does create tension because it is anundercurrent in...the council," Triantafillousays. "It's all the attention that's being paid tothe issue by the press and by the people...Weshould be focusing on other issues."

But Sullivan says the council has not sufferedfrom Walsh's permanence on the council.

"I think we work well together," Sullivan says."there is a level of maturity on the council."

Vice Mayor Sheila T. Russell, who voted againstthe resignation order, says Walsh's presence hasnot detracted from the working relations in thecouncil.

"Some people are feeling that the city councilis not doing its work, and I think we are," shesays. "No one has fallen down."

A Little Apathy?

espite the heated debate between some of thecouncillors, others remained noticeably silent atthe meeting.

"There were four who never said a word,"Gardner says, referring to Russell, Toomey, Reevesand Sullivan, who did not express any opinion onthe subject.

"I was going to speak when I voted," saysSullivan, justifying his silence.

And Russell says she did not speak because she"didn't want to prolong [the discussion] anymore"and because the council is not empowered to forceWalsh's resignation--the decision is his alone.

Massachusetts General Law Chapter 279, Section30 requires public officials to forfeit officewhen sentenced to prison for a felony. Walsh hasbeen convicted but will not be sentenced untilJune 23.

Until then, Walsh, though a convicted felon,has a legal right to occupy office, regardless ofany resolution passed by the council.

"We can pass orders till the cows come home,"Russell says. "The law is clear--the seat does notbecome vacant until sentencing."

But Triantafillou says she was disappointed inwhat she calls her colleagues' failure to voice anopinion.

"It's like putting loyalty above the good ofthe council. I don't think that is particularlygood government," she says. "[They should] atleast put on the record their reasons for doingthis. Defend him, or defend the process."

The Damage Is Done

ussell says she was also disappointed by thecouncil's treatment of Walsh at Monday's meeting.

"There wasn't an ounce of kindness in thecouncil last night," she says. "It was terrible. Idon't like kicking a man when he's down."

But others say the council has shown enoughconsideration for Walsh not only during his trial,but also after his conviction.

"Those who filed the motion requesting him toresign were trying to give him a chance to do theproper and honorable thing [by waiting a monthafter his conviction to call for hisresignation]," says R. Philip Dowds who thepresident of the Cambridge Civic Association.

"When it became clear that he had no intentionof doing that, they took matters into their ownhands," he adds.

But even Walsh's resignation may not be enough,Duehay says.

"In a sense, it really isn't satisfactory thathe resign," Duehay says. They damage has alreadybeen done."Crimson File PhotoFRANCIS H. DUEHAY '55Crimson File PhotoR. PHILIP DOWDS

Triantafillou and Duehay say that Walshremaining in office after he was convicted pointsto an unfair special treatment.

"Public servants are and should be held to ahigher standard of conduct," Triantafillou says."If a police officer were convicted of a crime, hewould be summarily dismissed."

"After indictment, [a city employee] would havebeen pt on an unpaid leave of absence," Duehayagrees.

Walsh's continued presence on the council, saythe councillors, tarnishes its reputation as agoverning body.

"[Having Walsh remain in office] reflects badlyon the city council," he says. "It reflects badlyon the entire city of Cambridge."

"It adds to the cynicism about government thatthe public has," Duehay adds. "Politicians arealready held in low esteem, and this kind of thingaffirms it."

But Councillor Michael A. Sullivan, who voted"present" on Monday, says Walsh's crime hasnothing to do with his work on the council.

"The big tell-tale sign for me was thequestion...if the impropriety was directly tied inwith his activities as city councillor," Sullivansays. "My vote might have been different had thisbeen a case directly in relation to his activitiesas a city councillor.

Community Opinions

Since his conviction, Walsh has justified hisdecision to remain in office by saying it is hislegal right, and by arguing that he can still lprove his innocence.

During the council's Monday meeting Walshdefended himself for more than 15 minutes. Hisprimary argument was his right to try to prove hisinnocence.

"As tough as it is to stay and fight," he saidat the meeting, "I will do so. I am innocent. Ihave to fight to vindicate myself."

But the councillors that have pushed forWalsh's resignation say their convicted colleagueshould not try to prove his innocence at theexpense of the council.

"He can pursue his constitutional rights on hisown time," Triantafillou says. "He should notcontinue to embroil the council in what is hispersonal life."

"He is attempting to use his office and theprestige that goes with [it] to try to get anappeal and a new trial," says Geoffrey Gardner, amember of the Cambridge Tenants Union who spoke atMonday's council meeting. "It completely taintsthe prestige of the council."

Walsh has also defended himself by pointing tohis supporters in the community. He says he hastalked to between 70 and 80 of his constituents,all of whom he says have asked him to remain.

"I believe my constituents want me to stay,"Walsh says,

"Walsh is positively in the minds of manypeople the best councillor," says John F. Natale,a member of the Small Property Owner's Associationwho spoke at Monday's meeting. "He is the onlyreal councillor up there earning his pay."

Walsh says that he does not consider theopinions of his opponents' constituents.

"Not one of their constituents ever voted forme, " Walsh says of Born, Duehay andTriantafillou.

Walsh also says that the failure of the councilto pass the order calling for his resignationproves that he has supporters among his colleaguesas well.

"My other colleagues stood behind me [and] gaveme the reassurance that they think I should staytoo," he says.

Gardner disagrees.

"[Walsh] is not a person to be trusted," hesays. "Morally, he has no right to taint thebusiness and politics in the city and the respectfor truth in the city."

Greater Repercussions

Although councillors point to ethical reasonsrequiring Walsh to resign, greater politicalrepercussions are at stake, they say.

Council relations have been strained by havinga convicted felon on the council, they say.

"A resignation would go beyond the requirementsof the law," Duehay says. "But the realities arethat the city council will not operate aseffectively with this concern hanging over hishead and over everybody else's head."

Duehay says it is anomalous to have a convictedfelon chair the Ordinance Committee, the body thatmakes the laws.

"[Walsh] chairs the committee on local laws andI think it makes the people who sit on thatcommittee and others who work with himuncomfortable to have a person who is in charge oflaws to be a person who has been convicted," hesays.

Duehay is not the only one to voice thisconcern.

"It does create tension because it is anundercurrent in...the council," Triantafillousays. "It's all the attention that's being paid tothe issue by the press and by the people...Weshould be focusing on other issues."

But Sullivan says the council has not sufferedfrom Walsh's permanence on the council.

"I think we work well together," Sullivan says."there is a level of maturity on the council."

Vice Mayor Sheila T. Russell, who voted againstthe resignation order, says Walsh's presence hasnot detracted from the working relations in thecouncil.

"Some people are feeling that the city councilis not doing its work, and I think we are," shesays. "No one has fallen down."

A Little Apathy?

espite the heated debate between some of thecouncillors, others remained noticeably silent atthe meeting.

"There were four who never said a word,"Gardner says, referring to Russell, Toomey, Reevesand Sullivan, who did not express any opinion onthe subject.

"I was going to speak when I voted," saysSullivan, justifying his silence.

And Russell says she did not speak because she"didn't want to prolong [the discussion] anymore"and because the council is not empowered to forceWalsh's resignation--the decision is his alone.

Massachusetts General Law Chapter 279, Section30 requires public officials to forfeit officewhen sentenced to prison for a felony. Walsh hasbeen convicted but will not be sentenced untilJune 23.

Until then, Walsh, though a convicted felon,has a legal right to occupy office, regardless ofany resolution passed by the council.

"We can pass orders till the cows come home,"Russell says. "The law is clear--the seat does notbecome vacant until sentencing."

But Triantafillou says she was disappointed inwhat she calls her colleagues' failure to voice anopinion.

"It's like putting loyalty above the good ofthe council. I don't think that is particularlygood government," she says. "[They should] atleast put on the record their reasons for doingthis. Defend him, or defend the process."

The Damage Is Done

ussell says she was also disappointed by thecouncil's treatment of Walsh at Monday's meeting.

"There wasn't an ounce of kindness in thecouncil last night," she says. "It was terrible. Idon't like kicking a man when he's down."

But others say the council has shown enoughconsideration for Walsh not only during his trial,but also after his conviction.

"Those who filed the motion requesting him toresign were trying to give him a chance to do theproper and honorable thing [by waiting a monthafter his conviction to call for hisresignation]," says R. Philip Dowds who thepresident of the Cambridge Civic Association.

"When it became clear that he had no intentionof doing that, they took matters into their ownhands," he adds.

But even Walsh's resignation may not be enough,Duehay says.

"In a sense, it really isn't satisfactory thathe resign," Duehay says. They damage has alreadybeen done."Crimson File PhotoFRANCIS H. DUEHAY '55Crimson File PhotoR. PHILIP DOWDS