Guild treasurer files charges against Totten

Boston Newspaper Guild treasurer Patrice Sneyd has filed charges against Guild president Dan Totten, according to Boston Globe reporter Robert Gavin. Totten is accused of misappropriating money or property, violating the union’s constitution and disobeying orders. The Guild is the largest union at the Globe.

Totten, out on leave, has previously denied any improprieties. Sneyd’s action could lead to an internal trial. Though it strikes me as odd that Totten could be accused of mishandling funds without law enforcement somehow becoming involved, perhaps we’ll find out soon exactly what has been going on. (Via Romenesko.)

Earlier coverage.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “Guild treasurer files charges against Totten”

  1. “Though it strikes me as odd that Totten could be accused of mishandling funds without law enforcement somehow becoming involved, perhaps we’ll find out soon exactly what has been going on.”

    This action certainly begs the question as to what “laws” Mr. Totten will be tried under and whether or not he will be afforded the presumption of innocence.

    Will this “trial” be conducted under the banner of the kangaroo?

  2. It is quite likely that involving law enforcement could be more of a distraction than beneficial. The Union and Mr. Totten should be able to, and most likely will reach a separation agreement.

    Further, it could be determined there are contractual violations, but not criminal. In the scope of things, this appears rather small and should be resolved and become history soon.

  3. It doesn’t sound like they are accusing him of a one-time technical breach of “rubber stamping” the 2nd signature on his standard (as in the same amount every pay period) paycheck – which might be understandable (or not) if the other required signer were on the other coast, for example. But by accusing him in terms of “misappropriating” it would seem as though there is more to it than a simple paycheck which he was otherwise entitled to receive. And “disobeying orders” implies that he was put on notice that whatever he was doing was not allowed, but then did it anyway.. since disobeying orders was mentioned in addition to “violating the union’s constitution”.

Comments are closed.