Rudnick Calls on Sen. Creem to Recuse Herself from Alimony Reform

Charles Rudnick

This just in from Charles Rudnick:

NEWTON (July 19) – The following is a statement from Charles Rudnick, Democratic candidate for the State Senate seat representing Brookline, Newton, and Wellesley:

“Sen. Cynthia Creem must immediately recuse herself from any role in legislation pertaining to divorce law given the clear and disturbing conflicts of interest detailed Sunday and today in the Boston Globe. This type of conflict undermines the public’s confidence in the Legislature and its ability to manage issues like this impartially. I have pledged to be a full-time Senator to avoid even the appearance of such conflicts, as well as to provide more effective leadership on the complex challenges facing the Commonwealth. I hope Sen. Creem’s volunteered recusal will help end the logjam on meaningful alimony reform.”

Charles Rudnick is running for the Democratic nomination for the First Middlesex and Suffolk State Senate District. He has experience in the public sector, in the community, and in the private sector, and has run programs to strengthen the rule of law in Bosnia and Kosovo. Charles spent the past seven years at Boston Scientific, a medical device company, and is now working on his campaign full time. A parent of two school-age children, he serves on the Cabot Elementary School Council and PTO in Newton and coaches Little League baseball and youth soccer. His grassroots campaign is building momentum, and Charles is out every day meeting voters at house parties, doorsteps and community activities across the district. You can learn learn more about the Rudnick for State Senate effort at www.charlesrudnick.com.

The Boston Globe has in the past few days run a major story by Bella English on Alimony Reform critical of Creem, and Adrian Walker today wrote an editorial about Creem’s conflict of interest. Our blog had a story about this issue a few months back.
Although I agree that Cynthia Creem definitely has a conflict of interest, I think people are jumping the gun a little bit. Creem’s Task Force has been meeting, and there is still a chance to see meaningful reform passed this year. Whether these criticisms of Creem are valid will really depend on whether the bill is voted on, or if Creem’s task force tries to run out the legislative clock.

8 Comments

  • July 19, 2010 - 6:26 pm | Permalink

    No legislator should be allowed to vote on any bill where they have a direct financial conflict of interest. This is just a form of corruption. Cynthia Creem got an award from the Mass. Bar Association and it was obviously because she was protecting their interests over those of our children and the public she was elected to represent. We need any politician who thinks this is okay removed from office as they are revealing the fact that they do not even understand ethics.

  • July 19, 2010 - 2:26 pm | Permalink

    No legislator should be allowed to vote on any bill where they have a direct financial conflict of interest. This is just a form of corruption. Cynthia Creem got an award from the Mass. Bar Association and it was obviously because she was protecting their interests over those of our children and the public she was elected to represent. We need any politician who thinks this is okay removed from office as they are revealing the fact that they do not even understand ethics.

  • Mike
    July 21, 2010 - 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Sen. Creem perhaps you should have reviewed the conflict of interest laws before you engaged in the stonewalling of the Alimony Reform Laws while sitting as the judiciary chair woman and a current practicing divorce attorney and the owner if a law firm that specializes in divorce. You have clearly violated these conflict of interest laws and have been called on it and asked about it and denied it. You own a law office that specializes in divorce; your actions make it clear you are ensuring future income. You have also stonewalled the shared parenting bill. You seem to have a problem with not only the conflict of interest laws but also the equal protection and due process. Your attendance record speaks for its self your priorities are not founded in the oath of office you swore too.

  • Mike
    July 21, 2010 - 9:00 am | Permalink

    Sen. Creem perhaps you should have reviewed the conflict of interest laws before you engaged in the stonewalling of the Alimony Reform Laws while sitting as the judiciary chair woman and a current practicing divorce attorney and the owner if a law firm that specializes in divorce. You have clearly violated these conflict of interest laws and have been called on it and asked about it and denied it. You own a law office that specializes in divorce; your actions make it clear you are ensuring future income. You have also stonewalled the shared parenting bill. You seem to have a problem with not only the conflict of interest laws but also the equal protection and due process. Your attendance record speaks for its self your priorities are not founded in the oath of office you swore too.

  • Terry
    July 23, 2010 - 9:45 am | Permalink

    While I appreciate Charles Rudnick stating his belief that Senator Creem should recuse herself, he has yet to declare his position on Alimony Reform. I think he owes us as much on both Alimony Reform and HB 1400 (Shared Parenting) which is also stalled in the judiciary committee.

  • Guest
    July 27, 2010 - 3:03 am | Permalink

    Cynthis Creem is a despicable person. May she lose her election bid and lose big.

  • Guest
    July 26, 2010 - 11:03 pm | Permalink

    Cynthis Creem is a despicable person. May she lose her election bid and lose big.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>