IN THE MATTER OF JOHN A. DELEIRE
Date: May 14, 1985
This disposition agreement (Agreement) is entered into
between the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and John DeLeire
(Mr. DeLeire) pursuant to s. 11 of the Commission's Enforcement
Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final
Commission order enforceable in Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c.
268B, s. 4(d).
On September 25, 1984, the Commission initiated a preliminary
inquiry pursuant to the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A,
involving Mr. DeLeire, the then police chief of the city of Revere.
The Commission concluded its inquiry and on April 2, 1985 found
reasonable cause to believe that Mr. DeLeire violated G.L. c. 268A.
The parties now agree to the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
1. Mr. DeLeire, was chief of the Revere Police Department
until approximately March 1, 1985 when he submitted his resignation
and applied for a disability pension. He became chief in March
1980, receiving an annual salary of approximately $42,000. As such,
he was a municipal employee within the meaning of G.L. c. 268A, s.
Suffolk Downs Racetrack
2. Suffolk Downs Racetrack straddles the Revere/Boston
border. The stables, dormitories and kitchen are in Revere; the
track, grandstands and patron parking are in Boston. Suffolk
Downs has its own full-time, private plainclothes security force
supplemented on the Boston side with Boston Police Department
detail officers and on the Revere side with Revere Police
Department detail officers.
3. For a number of years prior to becoming police chief, Mr.
DeLeire was on the Suffolk Downs payroll in one private capacity
or another. In the late 1970's he was a private security consultant
who, beginning in September
1979, was placed on salary at $125 per week. He was kept on that
salary when he became police chief in March 1980. The salary was
increased to $150 per week in March of 1981.
4. In exchange for this salary, Mr. DeLeire periodically
appeared on Saturday and Sunday afternoons at the track clubhouse
area on the "Boston-side." His function was to be the "eyes and
ears" of the vice-president of operations, to monitor the
effectiveness of the private security force and to identify any
potential security problems.
5. On two separate occasions while Mr. DeLeire was chief, in
March of 1980 and June of 1981, respectively, at Suffolk Downs'
request, he arranged for and supervised special details which were
placed at the track's Revere entrances which were being picketed
in a union action.
6. On or about January 1981 Mr. DeLeire as chief also took
police preventative actions in response to a tip that an armored
truck that would be entering and leaving the track from a Revere
entrance would be robbed,
7. Section 19 of G.L. c. 268A, in pertinent part, prohibits
any municipal employee from participating as such in a particular
matter In which any business organization by which he is employed
has a financial interest.
8. By arranging and supervising the police details and by
responding to the hold-up tip, described in paragraphs 5 and 6,
above, Mr. DeLeire participated in particular matters in which his
employer, Suffolk Downs, had a financial interest, In each of these
instances he therefore violated s. 19.
9. Section 23(par. 2)(1) of G.L. c. 268A provides that no
municipal employee shall "accept other employment which will impair
his independence of judgment in the exercise of his official
10. By accepting a private consulting arrangement with a
private entity which has substantial needs for his department's
services, especially where that private consulting arrangement
involves the same area of expertise for which he is responsible in
his public position as chief, Mr. DeLeire violated s. 23
Wonderland Dog Track
11. Wonderland Dog Track is located in Revere. It is
owned and operated by the Westwood Group, Inc. The track contracts with
a private security firm, Ajay Investigations and Security Services,
Inc. (Ajay), which handles plainclothes security. This security
is supplemented by 18-20 Revere police officers on detail who are
paid in accordance with the established union rates. On any typical
racing night, this detail includes a regular police captain as the
supervisor of the detail. The work is performed by the officers,
including the captain, on other than their normal duty shift, These
officers are, however, still serving as police officers when they
provide these services and are answerable to the police chief for
their conduct, The city bills Wonderland, which in turn pays the
city for the detail hours. The city, after subtracting an
administrative fee, pays the officers. All of this is done in
accordance with G.L. c. 44, 153C.
12. In or about June 1980, Ajay hired Mr. DeLeire to supervise
the uniformed detail officers. Ajay initially paid DeI-eire $600
a month for his services, increasing that amount to $750 and $800
in 1983 and 1984, respectively. Ajay was in turn reimbursed by
Wonderland for these payments. There was no written contract
between Mr. DeLeire and Ajay or Wonderland, No set hours were
required, No reports were submitted, Before becoming chief, Mr.
DeLeire had no private relationship with Wonderland or Ajay.
13. In exchange for these monthly payments, Mr. DeLeire
periodically visited the track to ensure that the detail officers
were present and performing properly. On occasion, he discussed
with Wonderland's vice-president for operations concerns Wonderland
had as to the detail officers' performance.
14. The above-described services provided at Wonderland were
within Mr. DeLeire's duties and responsibilities as police
department chief and covered by his annual city salary. The chief
is on duty 24 hours a day. He is responsible for all of the
activities of his department, including the providing of detail
services to private entities. He is also responsible for enforcing
the departments regulations regarding the performing of details and
for disciple detail officers for any misconduct.
15. Section 3(b) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits any municipal
employee, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper
discharge of official duties, from directly or indirectly seeking
or accepting anything of substantial value for himself for or
because of any official act or acts within his official
responsibility performed or to be performed by him.
16. By receiving at first $600, then $750 and finally $800
per month from Ajay for the services described in paragraph 13
above, services which were within his official responsibilities and
duties as police chief and for which he was already being paid by
the city of Revere. Mr. DeLeire received substantial value for or
because of his official acts as police chief. Therefore, he
violated s. 3(b).
Northeast Theatre Corporation, d/b/a Showcase Cinemas
17. In or about July 1982, Northeast Theatre Corporation,
d/b/a Showcase Cinemas opened a 10-theater complex in Revere. In
preparing to begin operations, Showcase personnel approached Mr.
DeLeire to discuss potential security issues in which the Revere
Police Department might play a role: traffic and crowd control,
cash escort service and responding to stolen vehicles and other
crimes. Showcase was particularly concerned that a minimum number
of uniform police officers would be present at the facility on a
regular basis to meet their security needs. This was especially
true of Friday and Saturday nights.
18. Mr. DeLeire and Showcase also discussed matters regarding
the internal security within the theatre property including crowd
control, parking lot security needs, handling of cash inside the
theatre complex and related security matters not on public
19. Mr. DeLeire indicated to Showcase that he could consult
on internal security matters with Showcase on his off-duty time and
that this type of work had been approved by a Revere City Solicitor
provided the services did not interfere with his official duties
and were on his off-duty time. Mr. DeLeire indicated he was being
paid privately for security services for other companies in Revere,
20. Mr. DeLeire and Showcase agreed that when the theatre
complex opened payment of approximately $20 per hour would be
appropriate for his services which were anticipated to involve an
average of 5 hours a week, i.e. pay of $100 per week. A portion of
Mr. DeLeire's pay was to be attributed to Mr. DeLeire arranging for
and supervising uniform police officers on detail to meet security
21. Mr. DeLeire began receiving $100 a week payments on July
23, 1982. The payments were made by check, recorded on the books
of Showcase, and taxes were appropriately withheld. These
payments stopped in January 1985 when the employment arrangement
22. In July of 1982 Mr. DeLeire began periodically
appearing at the theatre complex to perform the services for
Showcase described in paragraphs one and two above.
23. Mr. DeLeire was not able to arrange for sufficient
uniform detail police officers for Showcase, so that Showcase in
early-August employed special police officers who were not regular
uniform police officers of the department but were allowed to wear
a uniform and badge, carry a gun and have the power of arrest.
Thereafter, until his employment with Showcase ended, Chief DeLeire
included supervising the special police as part of the services he
provided to Showcase.
24. Mr. DeLeire had as one of his general responsibilities
supervision of special police officers.
25. The agreement by Mr. DeLeire to arrange and supervise
uniform detail police, his supervising such police for a few weeks
in July through August 1982, and his subsequent supervision of
special police officers until January 1985, were within Mr.
DeLeire's duties and responsibilities as police department chief.
These were duties and responsibilities covered by his annual city
salary. By receiving a portion of the $100 weekly payments from
Showcase for these services, Mr. DeLeire received substantial value
for or because of his official acts as police chief. Therefore, he
26. The Commission has found no evidence of corrupt intent
by Mr. DeLeire. or Showcase. Nor did it find any evidence that
Showcase ever asked for or that Mr. DeLeire provided any special
or favorable treatment as police chief to benefit Showcase during
the period of his employment by Showcase. In fact, Mr. DeLeire
on one occasion publicly opposed the issuance of a valuable license
to Showcase for the operation of a "flea market" and cited traffic
and public safety reasons for his opposition.
27. In his defense to all of the above-described violations
involving Suffolk Downs, Wonderland, and Showcase, Mr. DeLeire has
relied on city solicitors' opinions. First, he points to the prior
city solicitors' opinion in July of 1972 to the then fire chief as
that fire chief could be paid privately by Suffolk Downs for
performing certain services: fire chief in Suffolk Downs' stable
area. The Commission gives no deference to this opinion: it is not
to Mr. DeLeire, it involves a different department chief, and it
is more than 9 years old.
Secondly, Mr. DeLeire states that the city solicitor orally
informed --- when he accepted his employment with Suffolk Downs and
Wonderland that no conflict of interest would be created, The
Commission gives no deference to this oral opinion. It does not
appear to have involved the detailed submission of facts
contemplated by G.L. c. 268A, s. 22. Nor will the Commission
give deference to oral advice.
Third, Mr. DeLeire points to a written solicitor's opinion
received on November 7, 1984 confirming earlier advice that the
chief may "moonlight" the same as many other police officer so
long as the services to be provided did not interfere with his
powers and duties a chief during his regular working hours. The
Commission gives no deference to this opinion in that it does not
appear to be based on a detailed submission of facts; moreover, it
is substantially after the fact (the majority of Mr. DeLeire's
compensation was received prior to that date); and finally, for the
reasons discussed above, Mr. DeLeire's "moonlighting" did interfere
with (Suffolk Downs) or already involve (Wonderland and Showcase
his duties as chief.
Based on the foregoing facts, the Commission has
determined that the public interest would be served by the
disposition of this matter without further enforcement proceedings
on the basis of the following terms agreed to by Mr. DeLeire:
1. that he pay to the Commission the sum of two thousand
dollars ($2,000) as a civil penalty for his violations of ss. 19
and 23(par. 2)(1) in participating in particular matters in which
Suffolk Downs had a financial interest, and in accepting employment
which will impair his independence of judgment in the performance
of his official duties, respectively;
2. that he pay the Commission the sum of two thousand dollars
($2,000) as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, (3(b) by
receiving compensation from Wonderland Dog Track for or
official acts he performed.
3. that he pay the Commission the sum of two thousand dollars
($2,000) as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, (3(b) by
receiving compensation from Showcase Cinemas for or because of
official acts he performed; and
4. that he waive all rights to contest findings of fact,
conclusions of law and conditions contained in this Agreement in
this or any related administrative or judicial proceeding in which
the Commission is a party.
 Revere City Ordinance 2.60.100
 To the extent Chief DeLeire had a private security
consulting arrangement with Showcase not involving his duties and
responsibilities as chief, that employment arrangement was
prohibited under G.L. c 265A, s. 23(par. 2)(1). Section 23(par.
2)(1), which would apply only to Mr. Deleire and not to Showcase,
bars a public official from accepting other employment which will
impair his independence of judgment in the exercise of his official
duties. Section 23(par. 2)(1) would prohibit a police chief from
accepting private employment with an entity with substantial needs
for his department's services, especially where the private
consulting involves security matters. See EC-COI 81-133. See also
In the Matter of Henry A. Brawley (1982 Disposition Agreement,
Docket No. 152.
 Other than the 13 violation which is the subject of this
 Section 22 provides in pertinent part:
any municipal employee shall be entitled to the opinion of the
corporate counsel, city solicitor or town counsel upon any question
arising under this chapter relating to the duties, responsibilities
and interests or such employee... The town counsel or city
solicitor shall file such, opinion in writing with the city or town
clerk and such opinion shall be a matter of public record; however,
no opinion will be rendered by the town counsel or city Solicitor
except upon the submission of detailed existing facts which raise
a question of actual or prospective violation of any provision of
 The 1984 opinion is, remarkable in making no reference
to G.L c. 268A and in not discussing the specifics of the private
End Of Decision