Docket No.: 255


Date: May 8, 1984


This disposition agreement ("Agreement") is entered into between
the State Ethics Commission ("Commission") and Robert Farley ("Mr.
Farley") pursuant to section 11 of the Commission's Enforcement
Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final
Commission order enforceable in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L.
c. 268B, s.4(d).

On August 16, 1983, the Commission initiated a preliminary
inquiry, pursuant to G. L. c. 268B, s.4(a), into possible
violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, involving
Mr. Farley, acting supervisor of the Division of Elevator
Inspections in the Department

Page 187

of Public Safety. The Commission has concluded that preliminary
inquiry and, on March 12, 1984, found reasonable cause to believe
that Mr. Farley violated G.L. c. 268A, s.6.

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

1. Except for a nine-month period in August, 1981, Mr. Farley
has been an elevator inspector for the Division of Elevator
Inspections under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public
Safety since 1979. For the past year and a half he has been the
acting supervisor of that division. As an inspector, he is a state
employee as defined in s.1(q) of G.L. c. 268A.

2. While employed as a state elevator inspector, Mr. Farley was
hired by two elevator companies, Otis Elevator (Otis) and
Montgomery Elevator (Montgomery), to do what is referred to in the
industry as "stand-by" work. This work required the presence of a
union mechanic at a job site when non-union personnel drilled
hydraulic wells. Although the union bargaining agreement mandates
the presence of a union member, it has traditionally been a "no-
show" position. Mr. Farley was paid $12,000 in total by Otis and
Montgomery for approximately 750 hours of this no-show work.

3. As an elevator inspector, Mr. Farley conducted safety
inspections on several hundred elevators either built by or under
a service contract with Otis or Montgomery. Consequently,
Montgomery and Otis each had a financial interest in the outcome
of numerous safety inspections conducted by Mr. Farley.

4. Section 6 of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a state employee from
participating in a particular matter in which his employer has a
financial interest.

5. Therefore, Mr. Farley violated G.L. c. 268A, s.6 on each
occasion he conducted an inspection as a state inspector of an
elevator either built by Otis or Montgomery or on which Otis or
Montgomery had a service contract, while at the same time he was
employed by Otis and Montgomery.

In view of the foregoing multiple violations of G. L. c. 268A,
s.6, 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. Farley:

1. that he pay to the Commission the sum of $6500 as a
civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, s.6;

2. that in the future he refrain from participating as
a state elevator inspector in any particular matter, including
safety inspections, in which a business organization by which
he is employed has a financial interest, and;

3. that he waive all rights to contest the findings of
fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained
in this Agreement or any related administrative or judicial
proceeding to which the Commission is a party.

End Of Decision