Docket No. 359
In the Matter of Kenneth Cimeno
June 21, 1988
This Disposition Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between
the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and Kenneth Cimeno (Mr.
Cimeno) pursuant to section 11 of the Commssion's Enforcement
Procedure. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final
Commission order enforceable in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L.
c. 268B, s.4(d).
On June 8,1987, the Commission initiated a Preliminary Inquiry
into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c.
268A, involving Mr. Cimeno, a Dedham building inspector. The
Commission concluded its inquiry, and on October 26,1987 found
reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Cimeno violated G.L. c. 268A,
The parties now agree to the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law:
1. Kenneth Cimeno has been an assistant building inspector for
the Town of Dedham since September 22, 1986. As such he was a
municipal employee subject to the conflict of interest law, G.L.
2. Kichard Cimeno is the father of Kenneth Cimeno and a former
building inspector for the Town of Dedham. He and his wife founded
CKC Realty Trust (Trust) in 1971 with their children, including Mr.
Cimeno, as beneficiaries. On July 12,1984, Mr. Cimeno joined his
parents as a trustee of the Trust, and remained a beneficiary as
3. On August 15, 1986, the Trust purchased a vacant lot at 78
Bingham Avenue. On December 3,1986, an application for a permit to
build on the property was filed on behalf of the Trust by Rita G.
Cimeno, Mr. Cimeno's mother. Mr. Cimeno submitted the application
documents to the building inspector for approval.
4. On December 10,1986, prior to the building permit application
being reviewed by the building inspector, Mr. Cimeno signed his
(Mr. Cimeno's) name approving the plans and application and granted
5. In 1970, the Trust purchased a property at 502 Sprague Street
in Dedham. In 1972, the Trust constructed an 80'x 80' cement block
building on the property. The Trust has rented the building since
that time to Video Com.
6. Sometime during 1986, Video Com contacted Richard Cimeno (Mr.
Cimeno's father) regarding the possibility of constructing a
Structure on the property designed to receive microwave
7. Video Corn submitted a building permit application for the
structure in February, 1987. Mr. Cimeno issued a building permit
for the structure on February 19, 1987.
8. Except as otherwise permitted in that section, s.19 of G.L.
c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from participating as such
an employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge he,
his immediate family, or a business organization in which he is
serving as trustee has a financial interest.
9. Decisions to issue building permits are particular matters
as that term is defined in G.L. c.268A, s.1(k).
10. Mr. Cimeno's and his immediate family's ownership interest
in the Trust and the Trust's ownership of 78 Bingham Avenue and 502
Sprague Street gave Mr. Cimeno and his family a financial interest
in the issuance of the building permits for 78 Bingham Avenue and
502 Sprague Street,
11. By signing and issuing the building permits for construction
of a single family residence at 78 Bingham Avenue and the microwave
reception tower at 502 Sprague Street, Mr. Cimeno participated in
particular matters in which both he and his immediate family had
a financial interest and thereby violated s.19.
12. The Commission has no evidence to suggest that Mr. Cimeno
was aware that his actions violated G.L. c. 268A when he signed and
issued the building permits for 78 Bingham Avenue and 502 Sprague
13. In view of the foregoing violations of G.L. c. 268A, s.19,
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 Mr. Cimeno:
1. that he pay to the Commission the amount of five hundred
dollars ($500.00) as a civil penalty for his violations of
2.that he waive all rights to contest the findings of fact,
conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this
agreement in any related administrative or judicial proceeding
to which the Commission is or may be a party.
 None of the exceptions in s.19 is relevant here.
 Ignorance of the law is no defense to a violation of G.L. c.
268A In the Matter of C. Joseph Doyle, 1980 SEC 11,13 See, also,
Scola v. Scola, 318 Mass. 1,7(1945).