Disposition Agreement

This Disposition Agreement is entered into between the State
Ethics Commission and Eugene LeMoine pursuant to Section 5 of the
Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a
consented-to final order enforceable in Superior Court, pursuant to
G. L. c. 268B, s. 4(j).

On August 8, 2001, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G. L.
c. 268B, s. 4(a), a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of
the conflict of interest law, G. L. c. 268A, by LeMoine. The
Commission has concluded its inquiry and, on September 12, 2001,
found reasonable cause to believe that LeMoine violated G. L. c.
268A, s.2 3(b)(2).

The Commission and LeMoine now agree to the following findings
of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

1. LeMoine was appointed to the Southampton Police Department
in 1975. He served as a police officer until May 1996, when he was
promoted to chief of police. LeMoine remained the chief until be
retired from the force on September 30, 1999.

2. In spring 1997, LeMoine ordered 25 sweatshirts on behalf of
the Southampton police force from Inventory Trading Company, a
sportswear supplier.

3. LeMoine collected money, totaling $605, from several police
officers to pay for the sweatshirts.

4. On May 1, 1997, Inventory Trading Company invoiced LeMoine
for $605. LeMoine submitted the invoice to the town for payment on
May 20, 1997, and the town issued a check in the amount of $605
made payable to Inventory Trading Company on May 22, 1997.
Inventory Trading Company processed the check with Fleet Bank on
May 28, 1997.

5. Despite the fact that the town paid Inventory Trading
Company for the 25 sweatshirts he had ordered and distributed to
the officers who had ordered them, LeMoine did not return to his
subordinate police officers the funds that he had collected from

Conclusions of Law

6. Section 23(b)(2) of G. L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal
employee from using or attempting to use his official position to
secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions
which are of substantial value and which are not properly available
to similarly situated individuals.

7. As the Southampton police chief, LeMoine was, In May 1997,
a municipal employee as that term is defined in G. L. c. 268A, s. 1.

8. By submitting the $605 invoice to the town, in his position
as chief, LeMoine used his position to secure payment for the

9. Securing the town's payment for the sweatshirts was a
special benefit and as such a privilege.

10. Because the payment totaled $605, the privilege was of
substantial value.

11. The town's payment for the sweatshirts was unwarranted
because LeMoine had already collected $605 from his fellow officers
to purchase the sweatshirts.

12. The privilege of securing the town's payment for
sweatshirts for which LeMoine had collected money from his officers
was not otherwise properly available to similarly situated

13. Therefore, by submitting the $605 invoice to the town,
even though he had collected $605 from the police officers whom he
supervised to purchase the sweatshirts, LeMoine used his position
to secure for himself an unwarranted privilege of substantial value
that was not properly available to similarly situated individuals,
violating s. 23(b)(2).


In view of the foregoing violation of G. L. c. 268A by LeMoine,
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 and
conditions agreed to by Lemoine:

Page 1028

(1) that LeMoine pay to the Commission the sum of $2,000.00 as
a civil penalty for violating G. L. c. 268A, s. 23(b)(2);

(2) that he reimburse the town of Southampton the sum of
$605.00, forthwith; and

(3) that he waive all rights to contest the findings of fact,
conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement in this or any other related administrative or
judicial proceedings to which the Commission is or may be a

DATE ISSUED:  September 24, 2001