(BOSTON) – After today’s news reports revealed further details about Republican Governor Charlie Baker's attempt to slip in a change to state law to allow a wealthy venture capitalist to remain on two prominent corporate boards and collect $300,000, Massachusetts Democratic Party spokesman Pat Beaudry called on Baker to answer questions raised by the episode:
1. It appears that Commissioner Mark Nunnelly has been in clear violation of State Law for his entire tenure as Commissioner. Are there other members of the Republican Baker Administration also continuing to take part in outside business interests?
2. Now that Republican Baker admitted Commissioner Mark Nunnelly attended corporate board meetings during his tenure as revenue commissioner, has either Dunkin Donuts or Genpact Limited had business before the Department of Revenue during Commissioner Nunnelly’s tenure as revenue commissioner?
3. Did Republican Baker have any dealings with Nunnelly while Baker was at General Catalyst?
4. Now that Republican Baker claims his team made verbal inquiries to the Ethics Commission before approving of Commissioner Nunnelly's continued employment on these corporate boards, is it this administration's policy not to seek advisory opinions, out of an abundance of caution, when appointing people to positions that require a fiduciary responsibility to the Commonwealth?
5. Considering all the controversial hires and early departures of senior officials in the first 10 months, why did Republican Baker not inform voters of his attempt to change state law to allow Commissioner Nunnelly to collect $300,000 from corporate boards while upholding a fiduciary responsibility to the Commonwealth?
“It’s outrageous for Republican Gov. Baker to think he could change state law and institute a sweetheart deal so one revenue commissioner can remain on corporate boards that are in direct conflict with the revenue commissioner’s fiduciary responsibility to the Commonwealth,” said Beaudry. “Now under fire from ethics watchdogs, this is yet another indication of politics-as-usual in the Baker administration.”