Comments on: What we still don’t know about Dan Totten

By: InsiderNegot

InsiderNegot — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:29:08 +0000

The critical thing to know, at least as far as Totten’s credibility, is whether the person whose name he signed was aware of it and whether this was a practice. If so, this is obviously an attempt by the other signer to oust Totten and/or separate herself from him with regard to the recall. This still does not and cannot condone what he did, if he did it.

On the other hand, if this was done without consent or knowledge, it would obviously require the Union to launch an investigation to insure that it had not happened before.

Either way, Totten will unlikely be able to remain as President and this will almost assure a Department of Labor investigation.

In any event, another blow to the membership of the Guild.

By: O-FISH-L

O-FISH-L — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 23:49:48 +0000

Dan, point taken. I was just narrowing it to the specific person whose name was signed, but I see what you’re saying.

By: John Seidenberg

John Seidenberg — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:38:00 +0000

Dan,
I’m a freelance writer in the D.C. area and filed a story today on Totten. I saw that you wrote earlier about both the Globe and Herald covering this. I’m including a link to my story.
Best wishes.

By: gilded

gilded — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:31:31 +0000

no love for the guy. he acts like a dunderhead often. but true the story sounded much worse the first day, as did the letter sigined “in unity” that was reprinted by the phoenix on-line. curious that there was one member of the exec committee who was not a signatory, carl younger. you’re right, dan, that there are more questions than answers. another to add to your list, did the exec committee throw totten overboard to try to mollify members fo the newsroom who were planning a recall?

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:51:13 +0000

Fish: I thought point #2 covered that, but yes, absolutely.

By: O-FISH-L

O-FISH-L — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:29:21 +0000

Dan, a fifth bullet point, along the lines of your fourth, might be whether the person whose signature was forged was aware that he was going to sign for him/her?

I think if he is being persecuted and potentially prosecuted for signing someone’s name, after that person said over the phone “go ahead, just sign my name” then we might all be guilty of that at some point in life.

OTOH, if he signed someone’s name without that person’s consent, I think he has a bigger problem, even if he was entitled to the money.

One confusing aspect of the Herald story is the report that the union is going to file “charges” against Totten. Are these internal union charges, charges brought by a criminal application in the district court, charges in a lawsuit? What type of “charges” are we talking about?