Guilty Walsh Defies Calls for Resignation

If city councillor and convicted felon William H. Walsh has his way, he'll keep his city council post, even though he was found guilty last week of 41 counts of bank fraud and making false statements.

And Walsh will hold on--and hold on tight--to his seat, despite the pleas for resignation by friends and foes alike. Friends and colleagues may have supported the beleaguered councillor during the trial, but it seems Walsh will have to appeal his case alone.

Indeed, the stubborn criminal defiantly attended last night's city council meeting, despite calls for his resignation from several of his fellow councillors.

Walsh, who was convicted of heading a scheme to defraud the Dime Savings Bank of New York out of $2.9 million, is presently walled around with legal protections.

His seat is protected at least until his sentencing on June 23, since state law only requires him to step down if he receives jail time.

In the meantime, he has until April 22 to file an appeal of his conviction.This appeal would not delay the initialsentencing, however, and Walsh is expected to getbetween two and a half and three and a half yearsin prison.

But the appeal is not Walsh's only way to avoidjail time. The convicted councillor may plead fora non-jail punishment so that he can take care ofhis aging mother, with whom he still lives.Walsh's mother attended the entire trial and brokedown in tears when she found out her son was afelon.

If Walsh is successful in touching thesentencing judge's heart, he could be placed onprobation or house arrest or receive a suspendedsentence rather than prison time. He would not begoing to jail and thus could legally remain a citycouncil member.

And it seems as though only the legal sanctionof the state law will force Walsh off the council.He has told The Cambridge Chronicle that he has"no intention" of resigning; there is speculationhe may even defy the state if he is sentenced toprison.

His intentions are of immediate concern to hisfellow council members, who appear likely todivide largely along party lines on the issue.

The council cannot force Walsh to resign, butit can issue a resolution calling for him to stepdown. Such a resolution by Walsh's colleaguescould affect the decision of the sentencing judgeand hurt his chances for a lighter sentence.

Several political opponents, and even someallies, have already said Walsh should leave,whether or not he is forced out by the state law.

They argue that his presence is a distractionto the council and that a convicted felon has noright to hold public office.

City councillors Jonathan S. Myers andKatherine Triantafillou wish him to resignimmediately.

Both are members of the Cambridge CivicAssociation, which makes them the politicalopponents of the Independent Walsh on such issuesas rent control. Walsh has been a key voiceagainst rent control in Cambridge.

"The city has gotten itself bogged down in thesituation," Myers said. "It takes us away fromwork that we could be doing."

But even Walsh ally Denise Jillson, chair ofthe anti-rent control Massachusetts HomeownersCoalition, said Wish must resign "to get his lifeback in order."

Myers, Tiantifillou and the other two other CCAmembers on the council, Katy Born and Francis H.Duehay '55, are likely to introduce and support aresolution calling for Walsh's resignation.

That could set up a council face-off againstSheila T. Russell, Michael A. Sullivan and TimothyJ. Toomey, Walsh's fellow Independents.

While the Independents seem unlikely to comeout publicily to support a felon's presence on thecouncil, they could stall the resolution by votingto table it or calling for a character right.

The political question mark on the matter isMayor Kenneth E. Reeves '72, Reeves is a CCAmember, but the testified as a supportivecharacter witness at Walsh's trial.

Walsh provided one of the four Independentvotes that kept Reeves in the mayor's seat,defying Reeves' fellow-CCA members. The questioncould be whether Reeves will stick with his CCAroots or pay his recent political debt bysupporting Walsh.

But regardless of the council's action, thereis some question whether the only thing that couldreally force Walsh off the council the--state lawagainst prisoners serving in government--has theteeth it needs.

Even if Walsh is sentenced to prison, theElection Commission has no power to enforce thestate law, and city solicitor Russell Higley couldnot act on the mater unless approached by the citycouncil.

The state attorney general's office could alsodecide to intervene and enforce the resignationlaw. If it didn't group opposing Walsh could filesuit to force his resignation.

Should the state law actually be enforced byeither the attorney general's office or the citysolicitor, Walsh has still another escape hatch:he can challenge the constitutionality of thestate law in court.

If he does so, the court could issue him arestraining order preventing his removal fromoffice until the constitutional question'sresolution. In this scenario, Cambridge would haveone of its city councillors governing from aprison cell.

And that could play out with another politicalbattle on the city council, because even Walsh'sIndependent allies seem unlikely to stall aresignation resolution for a man in prison.

Besides, they would likely lose a council vote,since Walsh would be unable to attend meetings.His replacement under Cambridge's proportionalrepresentation election system would almostcertainly be another Independent, either AnthonyGalluccio or James P. McSweeney

But the appeal is not Walsh's only way to avoidjail time. The convicted councillor may plead fora non-jail punishment so that he can take care ofhis aging mother, with whom he still lives.Walsh's mother attended the entire trial and brokedown in tears when she found out her son was afelon.

If Walsh is successful in touching thesentencing judge's heart, he could be placed onprobation or house arrest or receive a suspendedsentence rather than prison time. He would not begoing to jail and thus could legally remain a citycouncil member.

And it seems as though only the legal sanctionof the state law will force Walsh off the council.He has told The Cambridge Chronicle that he has"no intention" of resigning; there is speculationhe may even defy the state if he is sentenced toprison.

His intentions are of immediate concern to hisfellow council members, who appear likely todivide largely along party lines on the issue.

The council cannot force Walsh to resign, butit can issue a resolution calling for him to stepdown. Such a resolution by Walsh's colleaguescould affect the decision of the sentencing judgeand hurt his chances for a lighter sentence.

Several political opponents, and even someallies, have already said Walsh should leave,whether or not he is forced out by the state law.

They argue that his presence is a distractionto the council and that a convicted felon has noright to hold public office.

City councillors Jonathan S. Myers andKatherine Triantafillou wish him to resignimmediately.

Both are members of the Cambridge CivicAssociation, which makes them the politicalopponents of the Independent Walsh on such issuesas rent control. Walsh has been a key voiceagainst rent control in Cambridge.

"The city has gotten itself bogged down in thesituation," Myers said. "It takes us away fromwork that we could be doing."

But even Walsh ally Denise Jillson, chair ofthe anti-rent control Massachusetts HomeownersCoalition, said Wish must resign "to get his lifeback in order."

Myers, Tiantifillou and the other two other CCAmembers on the council, Katy Born and Francis H.Duehay '55, are likely to introduce and support aresolution calling for Walsh's resignation.

That could set up a council face-off againstSheila T. Russell, Michael A. Sullivan and TimothyJ. Toomey, Walsh's fellow Independents.

While the Independents seem unlikely to comeout publicily to support a felon's presence on thecouncil, they could stall the resolution by votingto table it or calling for a character right.

The political question mark on the matter isMayor Kenneth E. Reeves '72, Reeves is a CCAmember, but the testified as a supportivecharacter witness at Walsh's trial.

Walsh provided one of the four Independentvotes that kept Reeves in the mayor's seat,defying Reeves' fellow-CCA members. The questioncould be whether Reeves will stick with his CCAroots or pay his recent political debt bysupporting Walsh.

But regardless of the council's action, thereis some question whether the only thing that couldreally force Walsh off the council the--state lawagainst prisoners serving in government--has theteeth it needs.

Even if Walsh is sentenced to prison, theElection Commission has no power to enforce thestate law, and city solicitor Russell Higley couldnot act on the mater unless approached by the citycouncil.

The state attorney general's office could alsodecide to intervene and enforce the resignationlaw. If it didn't group opposing Walsh could filesuit to force his resignation.

Should the state law actually be enforced byeither the attorney general's office or the citysolicitor, Walsh has still another escape hatch:he can challenge the constitutionality of thestate law in court.

If he does so, the court could issue him arestraining order preventing his removal fromoffice until the constitutional question'sresolution. In this scenario, Cambridge would haveone of its city councillors governing from aprison cell.

And that could play out with another politicalbattle on the city council, because even Walsh'sIndependent allies seem unlikely to stall aresignation resolution for a man in prison.

Besides, they would likely lose a council vote,since Walsh would be unable to attend meetings.His replacement under Cambridge's proportionalrepresentation election system would almostcertainly be another Independent, either AnthonyGalluccio or James P. McSweeney