Farewell, Salvatore DiMasi (No Question Mark Needed)

Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi's resignation last week raises a familiar but important question. Are a politician's ethical shortcomings forgivable if his tenure and legislation is otherwise forward-thinking and accomplished?

DiMasi is a 21st-century version of this dilemma. One hundred years ago, politicians would create municipal sewer, trash removal and police systems while feeding a corrupt system of patronage to staff them. Circa 2009, DiMasi preserved gay marriage in Massachusetts, steered the passage of its universal health care law, blocked the casino industry from coming here and championed bills to promote the biotech and renewable energy industries, and helped craft an oceans management policy for the state -- estimable matters that rightfully deserve celebration -- all while offering exclusive access to the State House to a few of his good friends.

To be clear, DiMasi has not been charged with any ethical or criminal wrongdoing, though that seems quite likely considering his former campaign treasurer has been criminally charged with lobbying state legislators while not being registered as a lobbyist. This campaign treasurer calls it "business consulting" and has pleaded not guilty. It all sounds like dangerous semantics, especially considering this campaign treasurer gave DiMasi a $250,000 mortgage on his North End condo and paid off DiMasi's in-law's legal bills, both things that would have been a crime if he were registered as a lobbyist, as he should've been.

Fred Salvucci, the poppy of the Big Dig, had an op-ed column in the Globe a few weeks ago addressing this dilemma. He wrote it was "hunting season" for reporters "trying to bag their third consecutive speaker" and that "the enormously positive public benefit of DiMasi's leadership needs to be considered before the media blitz hustles us into driving him from office." Fair enough, but that argument can only be made while wearing rose-colored, Kool-Aid-tinted glasses. Forget the argument that public officials need to be supremely ethical because their salaries come from tax dollars. Public officials need to be supremely ethical because we expect them to be our leaders and create the foundation of a society that is better for all. When the Massachusetts House Speaker is taking a mortgage from one of his friends and then favoring his client's legislation -- on ticket brokerage, of all the inane topics possible -- there is no way he can live up to even a faded replica of this standard.

As a side note, DiMasi's resigation leaves Gov. Deval Patrick as the longest-tenured of the three leading politicians in the state, surprising because he is only starting his third year. That his budget proposal for next fiscal year, one of the first things he did in his newly ascendant position, includes higher or new taxes on meals, hotels, candy and liquor stores doesn't prove he's a stereotypical 20th century liberal, only looking to raise "revenues" wherever possible, as many have argued. Instead, it only further proves that Massachusetts' state government is too unwieldy, exhausting and voracious to reform, and defeats even a man as remarkable and intelligent as Gov. Patrick.

Update: It also should be noted that DiMasi appears headed for a second career in lobbying or consulting on health care policy, considering he was speaker when Massachusetts passed its historic law. How exactly he qualifies as an expert on this befuddles me. He handled the political end of things, not the policy one, correct? Perhaps this also speaks to Mr. DiMasi's character.