Left In Lowell

David outlines how the article claimed by DiMasi to protect his records from investigation is, well, no such thing.

What is clear from the text of [Article 21] is that even if it does apply, it does not somehow require DiMasi to keep the records secret. Nor does it even appear to entitle him to do so. To the contrary, the main purpose of the Article is to shield legislators from civil or criminal liability for things that they say in public, on the floor of the legislature.

So that’s pretty much that. Article 21 reads:

The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever.

David’s seems to be quite a reasonable interpretation of the Article. It appears to be a protection of legislators to say things in debate and not expect to be prosecuted. How it would protect personal records is beyond me. Though I guess the state Supreme Court will have to weigh in on that one.

The frustrating thing about this is, if there isn’t any wrongdoing here, this whole secretive thing is undermining confidence in the House, in the leadership, and jeopardizes DiMasi’s hold on the Speakership. Presumably he’s doing this in order to protect his leadership (whether actually guilty, appearing guilty but actually innocent, or completely innocent). If on one hand he is guilty, well, I guess we’ll have to ferret this out the hard way. If innocent, however, protecting himself in this manner (ie, acting guilty) is only likely to lose him the leadership. Of course if he’s found to have done something wrong I want him gone. But if he goes, and we find out this was a trumped-up witch hunt, we’re going to regret it, and to a large extent, it’ll be his own damn fault.