The Elmira Star-Gazette and Rochester Democrat and Chronicle report on court documents filed by the Massa campaign in an employment dispute with their fired former campaign manager. One of the accusations against Sanford Dickert, who was dismissed in June, is that he invited teenage boys to his apartment, gave them alcohol and hard liquor, and invited a 16-year-old boy to stay the night.
Massa says that he did not know of any of these things until Dickert was dismissed. Affadavits filed in the case include a number of accusations of against Dickert, including lying on his resume, soliciting donations contrary to campaign finance laws, and distributing literature that did not represent Massa's true positions. Dickert was hired in April and fired June 13.
Reader Rich points out Bob Lonsberry's column, in which Bob clarifies by quoting some of the documents filed. First, the other teenage boys were college-age employees of the Massa campaign, one of whom says that the alcohol was purchased by another 25-year-old campaign worker for her personal use. So I assume "teenage" in that case means 18 or 19. Lonsberry's reading of the filings says that it was Massa's 16-year-old son whom Dickert asked to spend the night.
Lonsberry tries to spin the differences in the affidavits into perjury on Massa's part, and likens the whole case to the page scandal.
The perjury claim is far-out. Employment disputes often devolve into he-said/she-saids, and having different perspectives on the performance of a fired employee does not mean that someone's lying. Also, the affidavit from which Lonsberry quotes is by a student at Cooper Union, where Dickert is an adjunct professor (according to his personal web page). An employment arbitration proceeding would presumably go further into the details of what relationship, if any, exists between Dickert and the student.
As for the "teenagers" and alcohol, Lonsberry claims that the Massa campaign has a special duty towards them, because they were "like pages". I don't think that's true. If they're all college-age (pages aren't), then they are adults, and can be treated as such. If the campaign manager procured liquor for them, he should be fired, and he was. If Massa had called the cops, then the students would be in trouble for the actions of an irresponsible employee. This is an area where discretion should be exercised, and it sounds like it was.
The revelation that the 16-year-old was Massa's son puts a whole new spin on the facts of the story. If Massa's son was the only person at that party under the age of consent, and Massa has heard the whole story of the party from his boy, we have to assume nothing that happened there was worth calling the cops about. Frankly, if I were Massa's 16-year-old son, I'd be a hell of a lot more scared of Eric Massa than the Corning PD.
The real scandal here would have been Massa paying the guy to go away. That didn't happen. But so close to the election, who knows what will develop out of this.
Comments
Great reporting/blogging!
For my statement, please go to www.politicalgastronomica.com.
For clarity sake:
There was no party - Mr. Massa's affidavit creates one. Please see the affidavits of Mr. Kanbar and Mr. Spataro for more information.
The "apartment" of which you mention was the volunteer apartment, which Mr. Massa was aware of, contrary to his affidavit.
Mr. Massa's son - this allegation is offensive and false.
In a document being filed in New York courts today, Mr. Massa clarifies the story regarding his son - which had no comment about a party or anything of the sort.
Mr. Wilson, the reporter for the Elmira Star-Gazette, claims he was unable to contact me. As you found, with a simple google search, my personal website and my contact details. I ask very simply, why did Mr. Wilson not contact me?
Sanford
First I heard of this. Met Sanford once when he announced at local meeting that he was the new Campaign Manager. Said how he had met a local female police officer who stopped him for something. I wondered where the campaign found this guy and who they listened to when they hired him. He was here, then gone real fast. My initial impression of him was that he was real good at pulling the wool over others eyes.
I have no comment on the legal aspect of this as I am not a lawyer and will not be pulled into being a "NCO Club law know it all".
Having been a parent I understand Eric concern and reaction on this matter. I have been in the same position.
LV Vet - nice to have met you - the story I told you was actually the day I left the campaign, where I was in Cattaraugus County and had accidentally run a stop sign near a restaurant. I was on my way to Meet Dan McCandless to discuss with the community on our field plans, if you remember.
I am not sure what you mean by pulling wool over someones eyes - I have been nothing focused intent on winning Democratic seats. Mr. Massa made an agreement to hire me - and was fully aware of my background. If you would like, go to http://www.massavdickert.com and you can see Mr. Massa's letters that he wrote himself - where he understands my background and skillset. This insanity has been something I would never have expected from Mr. Massa - which is why I chose to take the chance to work on his campaign in April.
I had nothing but the utmost respect for the people who I met in the 29th, I am sorry you did not understand.
Move over McCarthy.
This type of scandal is clearly the new communism.
Just the mere accusation of it -- even absent the production of any evidence -- seems to be enough to presume guilt.
I read and re-read Bob Lonsberry's column and couldn't help but wonder why we are all so willing to assume that Dickert is 100% guilty of what Massa alleges without a shred of proof ... and in the same breath we so easily discount signed affadavits from several witnesses that contradict Massa.
It stretches credibility to believe that Dickert or anyone would put himself through all of this very public negative publicity if Massa's allegations were true -- even for a bunch of money.
Thanks to the Internet this kind of public lynching will never fade away.
Perhaps Massa should have to come up with some proof (any proof) before we assume that Dickert is guilty.
Perhaps we all should imagine what it would be like to be falsely accused of such a crime by someone in a position of power and influence.
If you or I were in that situation would we stand up and fight back or cower to the pressure of a bully.
Who knows what the truth is, but before we join the lynch mob it might be worth waiting for the evidence.
Milo, your rhetoric is overblown and unsupported by fact. This is an employment dispute between two parties, not a case of someone being "lynched".
What fact is unsupported?
The legal case is an employment dispute.
Having articles written about you with allegations like these is what I was comparing to a lynch mob.
There are no "facts" on either side referenced in this article - just allegations. Affidavits are simply sworn statements, i.e., the party believes that they're true to the best of their knowledge. The factset at the moment is pretty small, consisting of the fact that Dickert was let go, and that Massa and he disagree as to why.
The "McCarthy" reference smears Massa, just as you claim that Massa was trying to smear Dickert.
An article that summarizes the content of publicly filed affidavits is not a "lynch mob". Get some perspective.
OK, you're right I agree the metaphor is poor. Joe McCarthy in his twisted, deluded mind was acting out of some sick, misguided form of patriotism. It appears to me that Eric Massa might just trying to avoid paying his debts.
If so I can understand where he is coming from. there have been times I signed a contract and wanteed to get out of it. The difference is that people of honor realize that sometimes you just have to chalk up a decision you regret to bad judgment.
RC, given your last post I would assume that you would agree that Dickert should be given the benefit of the doubt until Massa produces some (any) evidence beyond he said-she said?
You know ... innocent until proven guilty.
I'm also wondering what it would take to convince you that Massa did commit perjury.
In the Lonsberry article there were references to where Massa said one thing in court and another in internal emails to his team.
I can understand you being dubious about the credibility of a witness supporting Dickert (or Massa for that matter), but I would hope we could agree that we can take Eric Massa's words at face value.
So if Eric Massa on email says one thing and Eric Massa in court says another -- is that perjury or should we just do the best 2 out of 3?
Maybe I'm confused about what makes good news, but it would seem to me that a candidate contradicitng himself about legal allegations would be news just a few days before an election -- if not weeks ago!
I find it absurd that this is even an issue. Where is the DA? If Massa contradicts himself to the court as a candidate I can't wait to see what he is willing to lie about after a few years in DC.
But I digress ...
I guess I am just a little stunned that the DEMOCRAT is willing to call itself a newspaper when it just repeats the allegations of one side without including the allegations of the other side (and the sworn affadavits of third parties). This isn't journalism.
And only Lonsberry had the cojones to call the DEMOCRAT on this smear campaign.
If that wasn't an electronic lynch mob then I would challenge you to tell me what one is to you.
I guess I am wondering if you seriously defend the article inthe DEMOCRAT as being honest journalism.
The reporter literally cherry picked the facts to slant the article in the way he wanted it.
Lonsberry may have interpreted the story in a manner that you find hard to believe, but at least he gave the reader the benefit of all (or at least more) of the raw data.
I could go on, and my venom is not really directed at you RC. I guess the only person I have seen act in a honest and open manner worthy of being in Congress thus far is Bob Lonsberry.
I think I am going to write in his name on Tuesday.
Like me, Lonsberry has the luxury of almost unlimited space. The reporters in a paper newspaper do not.
How did Massa contradict himself? I haven't seen it. I only see Dickert contradicting Massa and vice versa. That's why this isn't bigger news.
The Lonsberry story called Massa a perjurer based on he-said/he-said. He's no shining knight in this tale, Milo.
OK, I know you must have a ton of info coming at you so let me quote what I am getting riled up about in Lonsberry's column.
Here is why Bob Lonsberry called Massa a perjurer. I don't see how this is he said-she said. This is all in Massa's own words:
... For example, he swore that he had been "led to believe" that Sanford Dickert -- who had been brought to his attention by Nassau County supporter Nancy Mindes -- had a variety of well-developed campaign skills. In actuality, in her own affidavit, Nancy Mindes testified that she personally made Eric Massa aware from the very beginning that Sanford Dickert was fairly new to the political business.
In fact, in an internal campaign e-mail sent out by Eric Massa at the end of April -- when he appointed Sanford Dickert -- the candidate wrote: "Sanford has experience in building and managing small tech-oriented companies, in personal coaching and recently in a tour of duty as the (chief technical officer) for the Kerry for President campaign."
"Sanford knows his strengths and weaknesses -- as do I," Eric Massa wrote. But the newcomer did bring a "valuable and critical tool," the e-mail claimed, "He is loyal to this campaign."
And yet, in his affidavit, Eric Massa claimed not to have known of Sanford Dickert's background, and claims to have been misled. That claim does not seem consistent with other affidavits and with the campaign e-mail.
****
I think Massa really needs to explain this!
And ... while I understand that the newspaper people have limited space the Finger Lake Times seems to have been able to provide a more balanced account.
I find it easier to believe that the DEMOCRAT reporter was seriously biased than that is such a bad journalist that he couldn't go toe-to-toe with the journalistic titans of the Finger Lake Times.
The claim made by Dickert is that he was CTO of the Kerry organization, and quit amicably in June 2004 to go to work for a campaign in Florida. Massa claims that he found out that Dickert was fired. This is the misleading that Massa refers to. He might have discovered it after the email quoted by Lonsberry.
Dickert: If you weren't trying to extort money from Massa, why are you handing out your court documents like candy right before an election? And why do you keep asking for more money? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. And if you're not - well, maybe that's a worse fate yet.
Michael - as you are very aware of the issue (being the Massa Commnications Director), Mike Nolan stopped my efforts to keep this a quiet and private issue the entire time - most recently claiming first amendment rights for the public and the press.
As you have seen, the press has been in many different places with this story from it's release. Since Nolan said that it should be publicly available, and I have nothing to hide, then once the story broke and became national news, I placed the site up.
Ashamed? Mike - I have upset, distraught, exhausted and astonished at the acts from the campaign. At every turn, the campaign delayed, bullied, badgered and tried to intimidate me from getting my wages. As I see how the D&C and S-G characterized the story, it made it seem that I did terrible things and I was a money grubber.
I have always been fighting for what is right - which is why I chose to help Eric, even when I had not been a campaign manager. He convinced me that the task was overcomeable, and my past experiences with Internet fundraising, leading teams and coaching would help us build this into a great campaign. His own letter to the consultants even say that - take a look at: his own letter to Mullen, Secrest and Doyle (Massa's DC consultants). And then, look at the letter he sent me just before I signed from Massa.
Remember, what makes me "high" on you is not your political background but quite the
opposite ... your "coaching" skills (instructor), your drive to accomplish something real
in a very unconventional political campaign, and a sense from both Beverly and I that you
will actually give a shit about the candidate. (Gee what a concept)
Did I swerve from that? Did I not spend my money (~$4200) on the campaign myself - and only take a very small portion of my salary to help the campaign ($2K of the $14K that was owed)?
Nolan said it in his most recent filing in Steuben:
"Given the national spotlight that has recently focused on Congressional secrecy, hiding portions of this dispute from the public could have serious short and long term ramifications or Massa by making it appear as if he has something to hide. This could be potentially damaging because Massa's campaign platform emphasizes, amoung other things, the importance of fair and open government."
Fine. I am done fighting to make this private. And, I did nothing to make this public - it is more than likely an effort of Randy Kuhl's to let the four different reporters know (each of which called me during the past four weeks and threatened stories) and I prepared for the eventual bad spin that would be the most salacious.
Transparency was always something I stood for with our campaign - and it is what I build with my companies, classes and team mates. I am happy to stop posting the documents if you feel it would help.
I don't think we can assume that the "real" Mike Williams is posting here.
I think those emails are rather poor support for your case. Massa wouldn't have hired you if he didn't believe in you. Later, he changed his mind. That kind of thing happens.
Actually Rotten - it is Mike Williams from the campaign, because only he would have any knowledge of the settlement negotiations: "asking for more money".
And I understand your POV - but my statement has always been the same - and I never hid my inexperience as campaign manager or fudged my CV. If you would like, you can see the actual CV that was given to Massa as well.
One last thing - because I am also finished with this thread - The signing of the contract occurred on Apr 28th - we began speaking on Apr 15th. We met in Corning on the 18th(ish). I told him my experiences on the campaigns (Kerry to Deutsch to Kerry). And he signed the contract with plenty of time to research me though other channels - as I suggested. If he or his very well connected consultants found out I was lying, he would not have signed the contract, correct? It is not as if 1) I am difficult to find and 2) difficult to learn that what work I have done.
So, I am going back to my work in NYC - and hope that this is the last gasp of this story.
I just want to say something about Bob Lonsberry's tactics. I don't get to hear him often, but when in the Rochester area I have listened to his program. He is a lot like Rush Limbaugh. He reminds me of a not so nice pit bull who will attack anyone, good or bad. I remember way back when Randy Kuhl was still in Albany. Bob was carrying on about this state senator who was getting DWIs. He literally tore the state senator apart on the air. Said that he had no right to be in public office. Called him a danger to the community. Said he should resign. He even attacked some of the town justices who were involved. This was way before Sam Baren's campaign mgr found out about the dirty deed and went public with it. Way before Sam Baren thought of running for office. Now Bob has forgotten that and is going on with what he thinks is entertainment. Now he is going after the guy on the white horse who wants to remove Kuhl. It keeps Bob around at WHAM until he takes on the wrong person and the boss decides to fire him again.
LV - Bob's an interesting character because he's pretty intelligent. For example, I heard him tear apart a Reynolds ad one day - a really good analysis. His conclusion: vote for Reynolds. Huh?
One thing about the Barend/Kuhl comparison: remember the divorce records uncovered by the Barend campaign were sealed. So it was illegal for Barend's campaign manager to release them. Not so for the Massa v Dickert records: the Massa campaign opposed a motion to seal because they wanted the case on public record. So Lonsberry's just did what any citizen can do. He sent someone to the courthouse to review the public records.
In reality, it was illegal for the person at the clerks office to release them to anyone other than Kuhl, Kuhl's wife or their respective lawyers. That was the person in the wrong. And that person had to sign them out of the file cabinet or computer system, which ever, to make the copies. Those copies should have never left the clerk's office.
My eyes have glazed over--actually, this happened yesterday---from this tempest in a teapot over the fired campaign aide. The guy sounds like a jerk. Can we get back to the campaign and its high-stakes outcome?
LV - If not technically illegal, it was wrong, and politically stupid, for Barend's campaign manager to release those documents.
Pepper - yep. I think the Dickert portion of our program has come to an end.