Slashdot Mirror
Peter J. Quinn Investigated for Travel Omissions
tadelste writes to tell us O'Reilly is reporting that a recent story in the Boston News about Peter J. Quinn is nothing more than a desperate attempt to slant public opinion in the Massachusetts OpenDocument frenzy. While we have documents showing Microsoft's lobbyists paying for big trips for the former House Majority Leader and his family to go to England and Scotland, Mr. Quinn seems to be getting the spotlight for incomplete travel records. From the article in question: "On most of the trips, Quinn said, his travel and other expenses were paid for by the sponsors of the conferences. On two of the trips -- to Tucson and Washington, D.C. -- Quinn paid his own way, according to state records and an interview with Quinn."
Is Peter J. Quinn?
I read the article, all set to be outraged by what a PR spin this was to make this guy, and by association, the proposal for Open Document format for Massechusetts, and by meta-association, Open Source, ad nauseum, look bad.
You know what? It does look bad, but it looks bad for Quinn and his possible ethical lapses. If this guy really did schmooze, if he really was on the dole for anyone, then, my "side" or not, it's not good and it's wrong! I hope it's mostly a case of not dotting the i's, not crossing the t's, but if it's not, he owes an explanation.
Quinn had (and still has) the potential to be a contributor to the Open movement. He also has the potential to knock it back a peg or two.
I'm huge Open Source, linux, anti-Microsoft (in the "I-wish-they-would-cut-out-the-monopolistic-abuse- crap" sense), but not
at the
cost of ethics.
They post articles citing Bill O'Reilly as a news source.
The link is already getting slow so here's the info:
u item.2231afa58be831c14db4a11030468a0c/?pageID=itdu tilities&L=1&sid=Aitd&U=quinn_bio_publicsite
Peter Quinn has served as Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since September of 2002 and Director of the Commonwealth's Information Technology Division (ITD). Mr. Quinn is also Founding Chair of the Government Open Code Collaborative (GOCC). As ITD Director and CIO, under the Executive Office for Administration and Finance, Mr. Quinn is responsible for setting information technology standards in the Commonwealth. Mr. Quinn came to public service following a successful career in private sector IT, most recently as the CIO for Boston Financial Data Services
http://www.mass.gov/portal/site/massgovportal/men
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
the chief information officer for the commonwealth of massachusetts.
;-)
Duh!
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
You should see what they say about Thurston P. Quackenbush! I hear he kicked a puppy. Egads!
Seriously, how about a little backstory here? Or just give me the summary: is this good or bad for Microsoft? News for nerds? Stuff that matters? Hello?
Sorry, but this is the IT publshing company, not our friend Bill O'Idiot of Fox News.
http://weblogs.oreilly.com/
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I thought that post was still occupied by Peter I. Quinn! Sorry for the confusion.
+1 funny
I thought you Canadians had a great sense of humor? How'd this one fly over your head?!
It's MS dragging the name of a government official through the mud just because he is choosing open standards over MS.
/. is for.
It's kinda what
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
At worst, if Quinn got free vacations at OSS conferences paid by OSS corporations, it will show that at least OSS corporations are fighting proprietary corporations like Microsoft in an arena where victories are won every day: buying political decisions. The OSS revolution is a practical one, not an ideological one (though some ideologues like Stallman can be useful). Maybe once the tiny sector of government that is its technology formats and software is open and transparent, we'll have some luck fixing the political part. Until then, I remember the fortune cookie "it's best not to know how laws and sausages are made".
--
make install -not war
It's news for nerds because it's about free software in the government - Linux, Openoffice.org, Firefox. It's also sad because Microsoft has to stoop to dirty tricks and can't accept it's loss like men.
looks like scuttlemonkey got his xbox 360
While it is unfortunate that people play politics with legal matters, breaking the law is breaking the law.
And I don't mean breaking copyright law. So don't bring that up.
Anti-corruption laws are there for a reason. You can peddle all the coke, whores, vacations and influence you like, but don't cry "BIAS" if you get caught.
I find it to be an inherently dishonest position to take when someone who broke the law (and/or their apologists) tries to play themselves as the victim of prosecutors.
The only situation (off the top of my head) where its fair to claim you're a victim is if you're being prosecuted under laws that have not been enforced or are so antiquated that they should have been stricken from the books entirely.
It doesn't take an ethics class to figure out that "IT manager Peter Quinn of the Massachusetts state government" shoulda kept his goddamn paperwork in order. There is a reason they make you file all that shit in triplicate.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Unfortunately that is the way of most politicians these days. The need to constantly raise compaign funds has made most of them little more than paid whores. Most citizens are left with voting for "their" paid whore and against the other guy's.
I'm huge Open Source, linux, anti-Microsoft (in the "I-wish-they-would-cut-out-the-monopolistic-abuse- crap" sense), but not at the cost of ethics.
Then I suggest you read both articles carefully, the boston globe one doesn't even list any violations that make sense in reality-land. For example:
Even though a galaxy of computer companies are listed as sponsors of many of the conferences, Quinn did not list any of them on his authorization forms or the business relationships any of them have with the Commonwealth.
If you've ever been to a tech conference you know that the list of sponsors is immense, it would not make sense to list a single company on that list because it is the conference itself (not its sponsors) who decide to pay for your visit when you're a guest. The globe article even points out earlier in the story that the guy's legal advisor didn't know exactly what he needed to do with regards to listing who paid for the trip - and later in the story it notes that when his expenses were paid by a single company he did list the name of the company.
This was a political thing.. some reporter thinks they're smearing somebody... they waited for a long weekend to even report it when he can't respond... this is editorial abuse, heads should be rolling... and not his.
It's not obvious to me that this is a big deal. But the panicky "Another desperate attempt...!" tone of the article certainly makes it sound like a big deal!
I was also unimpressed by :
Uhh, I don't think "Yuo have teh source code so fix it yuorself!" is going to fly in the face of an ADA lawsuit...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
We are talking about lazy documentation on what probably will amount to a couple of thousand dollars by someone who probably makes well over 100k/year. Would you honestly risk a high paying job, one you have invested a great deal of time and effort in, over a couple free trips to CONFERENCES?
If this were real fraud, he would have crossed every t and dotted every i to avoid attention. No, this looks like a case of a really busy, dedicated individual who was a bit careless with some mundane, tedious paperwork.
There are probably millions of government employees who never have this problem because all they do is paperwork and never risk anything based on principles of what is best for the public.
It would be much more interesting to trace the paper-trail for how this article came to existence. . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Is there a function in /. to block articles submitted by certain editors? *cough* scuttlemonkey *cough*. I don't think I can take another microsoft advert in my life, let alone two in a row, but if I see another today I'm going to shoot myself.
I met Peter Quinn at FISl6.0. He certainly did not impress me as any kind a politician, much less a corrupt politician. He seemed like a pretty regular guy.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
"How'd this one fly over your head?!"
It bounced off my Roots touque.
George Radwanski resigned as Privacy Commissioner of Canada over dubious expense claims. Unfortunately, an investigation did back up the charges. I say unfortunately because Radwanski was an effective champion of our privacy rights.
All of this is to say that Peter Quinn may be a good person doing good things but, there is a line that may have been crossed... as PJ points out in her article: It is too bad that 3 time Pulitzer winner Stephen Kurkjian didn't wait until he had the full story before publishing his article.
Given what I know about working for Mass, I strongly suspect that's the case.
<begin anecdote>Back in my last job, I did some consulting for the MBTA. There was no problem with traveling within the state on project business. However, traveling out of the state on project business was a big deal, requiring several levels of approval. At one point we needed to fly to Colorado to conduct some testing - it would have cost several $million to test locally, and several $thousand to test in CO. I think it took something like 2 months for the approval to come through. Since the testing wasn't too time-critical, we just waited for the T to give us approval.
<end anecdote>Given my experience working for the state, and my experience going to conferences, I don't find it hard to believe that Mr. Quinn may have been running against conference registration deadlines, hotel room deadlines, and airfare deadlines - I suspect that he followed proper procedures when he could, but if there was a time crunch (maybe it took too long for a gov't bean counter to approve the first of 12 forms), he may have just asked his boss (and council as TFA noted) for verbal approval.
Frankly, as a Mass taxpayer, I'm happy that state workers are going to conferences. Of course if it was a golfing junket, it would be a different matter. But (IMNSHO) technical people need to go to conferences to expose themselves to news ideas, to meet contacts, and, yes, to schmooze with vendors.
The details are there.
"Pamela Jones of groklaw pointed out that representatives for the disabled were demonstrating an unseemly helplessness in raising their complaint. Because several open-source tools support OpenDocument, anyone who wants accessibility added can pay someone to do the job rather than complaining about it."
So the representatives for the disabled should just "pay someone" to add the kind of accessibility features Microsoft has taken years to develop? Or the government should just "pay someone". Was the time an effort needed to "pay someone" to add accessibility added to the cost of moving to OpenDocument? Accessibility is NOT some lightweight feature you can just hack in. This is a either ridiculous strawman or the author has no idea what he's talking about.
Bill? Is that you?
No matter what he may have done (or not done), the scent of blood is in the water.
We complain about not having good candidates to vote for, but what sane person is going to run for office in this sleazy poliical climate?
Yes, Mass. was proposing an open document format. That would make him a good choice as a keynote speaker at OSS conferences. And they break this on a weekend? This stinks like yesterday's diapers.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
If you've ever been to a tech conference you know that the list of sponsors is immense, it would not make sense to list a single company on that list ...
...
I think this is more about who paid for the travel.
On most of the trips, Quinn said, his travel and other expenses were paid for by the sponsors of the conferences
This guy is supposed to list the companies that financed his travel. He apparently didn't. He fscked up and gave Microsoft amunition. Quinn unecessarily caused the general public to question the motivations behind the opendoc initiative. And all over some simple paperwork.
Politicians -- too bad you can't reboot 'em.
The general public of Massachusetts has an opinion about OpenDocument?
This story is a caricature of a purposefully leaked, politically motivated hatchet job that -- to the glee of the "unnamed sources" who served it up -- got past the Thanksgiving rag tag staff and onto Page One.
It's unclear what this very public investigation about is even about. Misuse of taxpayer dollars? Quinn paid *his own way* to attend two of these technical conferences and was an invited expenses-paid speaker for others. Cozy relationships with corporate sponsors? The article notes that his expenses-paid conferences were sponsored by a "galaxy of computer companies" -- e.g. the free market. Not filling out the proper paperwork? Since when is improper paperwork Page One material? (Maybe Quinn never got the memo about those TPS reports).
So what is Peter J. Quinn guilty of? Being a political liability for Governor and Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney. Having one of your employees piss off the bosses of the world's richest software company is no way to kick off your 2008 campaign fundraising drive.
"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things." -R.P.Feynma
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Assumming the "they laugh at you" is the FUD campaigns, I could deduce we're currently experiencing the "then they fight you" stage.
The Boston Globe is well known for being a horrible newspaper in town, possibly only beat out for sensationalist garbage by the Boston Herald.
This will die out in a week as long as there was no significant ethical breach, no one of significance pays any attention to this newspaper and knows not to trust any information from it unless it's been at least a week after they first reported on the subject (they have the tendancy to discover "facts", or at least imply them, from the most amazing sources).
What!? This isn't offtopic, the original poster just got the phrase wrong, he is refering to Molly Ivin's book "Who let the Dogs in: Incredible Political Animals I have Known." It's a masterpiece that discusses matters such as Bill Gates's lobbying and the effect it has had on governments around the world, among many other things.
7 90523-8815052?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400062853/103-3
council = counsel
little more than paid whores
:)
I think you mean over-paid whores. The standard kind still gets paid, as a matter of definition.
Nobody lists all the fsckin' companies that sponsor a conference when they are being paid by the conference. If I got funded by a tv station, I would list the tv station but not all of its sponsors (advertisers). What you say makes no sense and is not how the real world operates.
The guy didn't fsck up at all. The Boston Globe was trying to raise muck where there wasn't any muck to be found. They published this crap and now they are being ridiculed.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Wow... with those kind of discounts available, maybe Massachusetts should have built their huge highway tunnel in Colorado, too.
Nobody lists all the fsckin' companies that sponsor a conference when they are being paid by the conference.
Look. I'm on your side too. But rules are rules. If the MA state law says you must declare XYZ then you must. That was my point only.
If the state law says you have to list who paid for the trip, and you list the conference, then where is the problem? If you go to E3 as a speaker, EA did not pay for your trip, the E3 conference did. If you are an Olympic athelete, the Olympic committeee pays for your trip, not Coke.
When you ask for reimbursement, you document why and where you went, the costs, mileage (if applicable), and the applicable code. Often the agency will reimburse you, and then the event will reimburse the agency.
I really doubt that this is anything but The Globe making stuff up on this one.
I agree with you that in order to be lawful, the law must be followed. I disagree with your implication (or perhaps the unstated implication of the Globe article that you latched on to) that the law says you have to list all of the corporate sponsors of a group you get travel money from.
I worked in the state of Massachusetts and was paid from federal grants. We had tons of paperwork. We had to fill out time cards for days we hadn't worked yet. There is no way that any of us was required to list all of the corporate sponsors if we were paid travel money to speak at a conference. The idea is absurd. It is possible that the state of Massachusetts has even more absurd paperwork laws than the federal government but I highly doubt it.
If you still don't believe me, just go back and re-read the Globe article. Clearly they are trying to raise some muck. Clearly the guy did not list the corporate sponsors even after consulting a lawyer. Don't you think if it really was a legal requirement then the article would have said so?
It is nonsense. You were duped.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Its all bullshit, and I hope Quinn sues his bosses. He's in an excellent position to win.
Quinn for president!
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
... bit if they're determined to screw honest people over this badly, send him to Canada. We like the cut of his jib.
And I'm glad to fear folks saying this is what /. is for. For a second there I thought it was just another news filter to compete with the Digg. I'm glad to hear news about free software from the place where the developers, users, and fans used to hang out.
No. Thanks for the offer, though. We'll keep him here. We are sending Michael Moore over soon, though. If we can ever get Steven Seagal and Keanu Reeves out of their fantasy worlds we're sending them over, too. Then we'll finally have something to make fun of you canucks for
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
I think the issues is that Quinn didn't say "The coference paid" he said "Paid for by the sponsors of the conference". He's saying the sponsors individually paid, not the conferece.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
> The OSS revolution is a practical one, not an ideological one
I see no reason why it can not be both.
The Boston Globe method was to 1) ask what the disclosure rules are because they didn't know, and then 2) print an article on the front page that says the Governor's administration has launched an inquiry into possible ethics violation by Quinn. Note that the big pile of #2 the Globe put on page one came before they knew what the rules are, or without giving Quinn a chance to respond because they couldn't reach him on THANKSGIVING DAY.
If you can't smell this smear job, you should see a doctor and let him count the holes in your head. It's not about what "side" anyone is on, it's about ethics, and the Boston Globe has demonstrated that they have none.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
He went to several conferences as speaker (ie. he wasn't about to be swayed, he wanted to 'sway' other's opinion). The conference organizers paid his trip. Would you be more satisfied if the Commonwealth paid his trip??? Guess he told other listeners (who went to those conferences) how and why they picked ODF. Why is it good for a government institution, etc. I wonder who told Boston Globe that this guy should be dragged across the dirt.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I agree that the charges involved are obviously fud that is meant to draw attention away from the real issues. Microsoft and company are using the oldest trick in the book...if you can't dazzle 'em with intelligence, baffle 'em with bullshit.
However...
Mr. Quinn, in going up against Microsoft, is challenging the proverbial 900 pound gorilla here. That gorilla is going to use every technique available to him to discredit Mr. Quinn. Mudslinging like this should be expected, and therefore he should have made absolutely certain that all of his i's were dotted and his t's were crossed. If for no other reason than to make sure he's not giving the gorilla fud fodder like this.
If you're gonna play the game (politics), you damned sure better know the rules.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Can anyone else say "double standard"?
This is despicable behavoir on Microsoft's part.
Another Microsoft backed lobbying effort was the fake grass roots movement "Campaign for Creativity", which tried to convince the European Parliament to introduce software patents in Europe, by pretending to represent "artists, designers, writers, photographers, software developers, musicians, engineers, inventors". In reality it was just a site put up by the lobbying firm Campbell Gentry, and financed by companies like Microsoft and SAP.
This (failed) lobbying effort has how been nominated as one of the contenders for the "Worst EU Lobbying Award" 2005.
The "winner" will be selected by an open Internet poll. If you want to donate a mouse-click to the fight against software patents and the companies that try to introduce them by corrupting the political system, you can go to the site and vote online.
The award is organized by a number of watchdog groups that are working for cleaner and more transparent methods in politics, so although the award as such sounds a bit humorous, the underlying issues are quite serious.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
But then why the hell would he (and I assume that the MA CIO has a rather loud voice on such decisions) push forward the very sensible Open Doc initiative? I mean that must have pissed his "sponsors" mightily off.
That a guy in such a position is in demand at such conferences makes sense and it's not unheard off that the organizers pay the tab.
I agree tha state officials should be srupelously clean in their dealings with entities presenting a potential conflict of interests. But I fail to believe in a huge conspiracy by Microsoft to buy MA legislation.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Note that the "www" is reqired. If you just type in campaignforcreativity.org you instead get to a page that promotes the "Advocacy Online" service that the lobbying firm provides.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
Well, you could then go to the conference, ask who the sponsors were and then you'd have your list.
If you *are* paid by a company, you don't list the accountant, authorising agent, managers involved in the decision, banks involved in the transfer and *their* staff so involved. No, you'd list "Acme Ind. Corp.".
If Quinn said "the conference paid", you could smear him by saying "but you must be lying because the conference doesn't get money to pay for attendees - they have to get their money from the sponsors!".
Boned either way.
See Groklaw's comments at:
1 63314567
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051126
Nothing more.
The Globe is owned by the New York Times, which is Sultzberger being used by Bush and cronies to sell the Iraq War. Now we have the Globe being used by Microsoft to attack the Open Document Format decision in Massachusetts.
Once a sellout, always a sellout.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I'm the CTO of Altamente, mentioned in the article. We invited Peter to the conference in Puerto Rico simply because we felt that the government of Puerto Rico needed to hear what Massachusetts was doing with regard to IT. How simple is that? We don't do any business in/with Mass.
It was a great opportunity for one government to share with another some of the challanges and difficulties of budgeting information technology and one possible solution that Peter's office had proposed. Since we're an open source company, it makes perfect sense that we like what he was doing with OpenDocument.
It's just a stupid witch hunt. His trip to Brazil, Puerto Rico and most of the far flung conferences were paid by people who wanted to hear what he had to say, what he was doing, and how they could do the same. As many people wanted to listen to Dr. Edgar David Villanueva from Peru, lots of people want to hear what Peter Quinn has to say as well. Same deal.
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
The guy's just lucky his wife isn't a CIA agent.
t ml
w s/Frontpage/110805/news1.html
or he isn't an Enron snitch:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/baxterautopsy.h
or he isn't actively investigating the powers that be:
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Ne
Instead, he just got Swift Boated.
"When Quinn who spends-the-dough gets here, all the lawyers gonna jump for joy!"
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
It simply looks as though they're trying to find a way of getting him fired. I would get as much written down and signed in future as I could. I am willing to bet that some officials at Masachussetts are having quite a bit of stuff paid for them on the never never.
FTA Romney administration officials are investigating whether Quinn violated travel procedures by not obtaining written authorization for six of the trips... State rules also require employees to provide a detailed estimate of the cost of travel sponsored by private firms and other outside groups... Quinn said he sought the legal advice of Linda M. Hamel, the lawyer for the Informational Technology Division, on the propriety of his appearing at a conference in which his travel and room were being paid for by the sponsors of the conference.
yup it sounds like it, probably more of an ethics thing rather than a legal thing, most likely some executive order that's ignored half the time, by the 1/3 of the people that even know it exists. Seems to me that the state requiring written authorization for travel, might have some serious constitutional freedom of assembly issues if push came to shove.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You people are idiots. Anyone with a two digit IQ got this guy's joke you overzealous mod stooges. Fucking tools.
Heh,
Imagine the fun if he was invited by the BBC to speak about open source and governments...
Listing all 56 million inhabitants of the United Kingdom has got to suck!
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
I sent the following to the Boston Globe Editor:
Microsoft's campaign against industry standards has sunk to new lows. Stephen Kurkjian's Nov 26th muck-raking article on Massachusetts CIO Peter Quinn paints Quinn's personal dedication and industry outreach as potential scandal and corruption. Is a $543 trip to a conference on digital governance by the Commonwealth's CIO really worthy of a front-page article?
Kurkjian writes "a galaxy of computer companies are listed as sponsors of many of the conferences", but then notes that Quinn "did not list any of them on his authorization forms or the business relationships any of them have with the Commonwealth." It was the conference organizers, not sponsors, who paid for Quinn's trips. Should Quinn also be required to list every conference's advertisers and their business relationships with the Commonwealth? That would certainly be a galaxy of paperwork!
Quinn is doing his job. Moving to the OpenDocument format is the equivalent of trying to convert the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to standardized printer paper. He should be praised for his dedication to the Commonwealth in the face of an 800lb industry gorilla, not dragged through the mud for attending industry conferences.
http://plausible.coop
How much does the Globe make each month from Microsoft contributions? How many times more than is beings discussed here?
And much has Microsoft contributed to the good Senator's coffers? Why isn't that in the news?
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
You just want to get back at us for sending you Celine Dion ... guess we owe you for that one :-)
With the exception of flamebait from Anonymous Cowards, /. has far better conversation and information that Digg. Digg is what would happen to /. if Fark invaded.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
...before the election of Bush, at neocon not-close-to-"free" republic web forum, the NY Times was daily ridiculed as being a left wing pinko bedwetting commie newspaper. There were many calls to not use the paper as a source. Funny how things change, isn't it?
What neither the well meaning but unfortunately sort of naieve grassroots Rs (signified by @ freeps) or Ds (DU et al) seem to be able to actually grok despite all the evidence shoved at them, is that contemporary political society is feudalistic in nature, and those arbitrary political melodramatic "parties" are a cooperating venture meant by the aristocratic part of this feudalism to serve as a way of both marginalizing the middle class and keeping the general population in virtual serfdom. By keeping the various politically active by nature persons constantly at each others throats, they effectively keep most of them from every looking beyond a set arbitrary point upstream in the analysis of political events and realities. In truth, it is way more a sick cult behavior than anything rational or coherent, just the reality of it is too hard for most of them to grasp, so they don't. Normal human nature, people stop living in reality when reality becomes too painful. The feudalistic controllers keep them dumbed down, and deliberately so, and effectively so. People who can rise to the intellectual challenge and see beyond the "good cop/bad cop" routines are commonly banned from those two activist sites once they start questioning the status quo of whichever faction they are beholden to. and to be fair I am only using those two sites in reference because they are commonly known and large, it applies in a number of other areas as well, and I am only speaking in general terms without the use of the word "all".
I did not invent the term "useful idiots", but it applies here. THAT is the true nature of current Main Stream Media manipulation,to keep the populations at the useful idiot or below stage of awareness. And also why (non aligned and independent) blogging and podcasting and the anonymous net in general is such a threat to the continuing power of the controller classes, who are, by and large, transnational in outlook, megalomaniacal by nature and ruthless by behavior.
There are very...very few true independent main stream journalists, and even fewer editors. They simply are immediately out of a job if they rock the boat. They get told what to do and how to do it. It is that simple. If you see currently large politician A who previously was "supported" wildly, and then he "seems to slip", you are looking at the result of decisions made high above the normal names associated with political movements. The people who control the cash control "things", they are never elected and not much ever discussed in print, and the decisions and orders flow downhill from there. Named public politicians and parties are a few steps away from where true power politics and high stakes economics are played.
It is nonsense. You were duped.
Um, well this is Slashdot, aka dupes-r-us...
The issue here is not one of Mr. Quinn being on the take. I can assure you he is not. In fact, Mr. Quinn believes very seriously in the effort that he has undertaken, and will fight it to the end.
The real issue here is the antiquated regulations regarding travel in the Commonwealth. I know, because I worked there 20 years ago, and the regulations were antiquated then, and have never been amended to take into account today's business environment.
Basically, the regs state that all employees that travel out of state have to have the permission of their supervisor, and once they have that, they have to pay for the travel themselves, unless they are on a speaking engagement. Even then, they cannot accept payment for the travel if there is a potential that the sponsor would be doing business with the state. These rules were primarily created to make it difficult to ask for approval. And if you did pay for the travel yourself, you were sure to be notified by the Legislature the next year that this obviously discretionary spending would be removed from your budget -- good luck ever getting the State to pay for any travel.
Mr. Quinn had signed approval of at least 5 trips. The signoff was from the former Secretary of Administration and Finance, who recently left government. It was this Secretary that was leading the fight against Microsoft, and Mr. Quinn was fulfilling this Secretary's wishes. Why he didn't get approval for all 12 trips -- who knows? But what does it really matter? All of the trips were for speaking engagements at conferences where there was no clear single sponsor. That being the case, why shouldn't Mr. Quinn allow the sponsor to pay for the travel? It saves money for the taxpayers, and provides exposure to what other entities are doing to implement Open Source.
It's obvious to me that this was a hack job by lobbyists -- something that Microsoft made clear during an open hearing with Mr. Quinn regarding the State's open source philosophy that they were very willing to undertake.