After my blog post about the ethics charges against Jim Graham, I received an email response from the councilman:
Your recent blog post about me stated that the situation was complex. You are right, it is a bit difficult to understand. But there are three things that r crystal clear:
There is no allegation of any crime.
There is no allegation of any illegal financial interest.
There is no allegation of any law being broken.
It’s only fair to get this right. Bests Jim
He’s right on those as far as I can tell, though I responded that my post didn’t make any of those claims, and that I made sure to say that such-and-such newspaper or person “claimed” or “alleged” things.
In any case, the plot thickens: yesterday Graham’s attorneys filed an injunction and a restraining order against the ethics board, arguing they didn’t follow the proper procedure that was in place, and that he’d be in favor of a special investigation of the issue. Council Chair Phil Mendelson also said he’s introducing two resolutions that, in a way, rebuke Graham. One is a reprimand of Graham, while a second one shifts oversight of the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration from a committee that Graham chairs to another committee. Kind of a weird, bureaucratic way to punish Graham, especially since none of this involved ABRA, as far as I can tell.
Council candidate David Grosso has jumped on the “reprimand Graham” bandwagon too, along with Patrick Mara, who I mentioned previously.
Photo by thisisbossi
