In the Matter of Edmund Tarmey
July 25, 2007
Disposition Agreement

The State Ethics Commission and Edmund Tarmey enter into this Disposition Agreement pursuant to Section 5 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented-to final order enforceable in the Superior Court, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s. 4(j).

On March 16, 2007, 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 Tarmey. The Commission concluded its inquiry and, on April 25, 2007, found reasonable cause to believe that Tarmey violated G.L. c. 268A.

The Commission and Tarmey now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact


1. At all times relevant, Tarmey was the Lowell Regional Water Utility ("the Water Department") executive director.

2. For several years ending in or about 2004, Tarmey's brother Leonard worked as a commissioned salesman for Allied Office Products, a furniture company in Chelmsford.

3. On two occasions in 2001, the City of Lowell contracted with Allied to provide and deliver office furniture to the Water Department office.

First Contract

4. The City of Lowell contracted with Allied to buy office furniture on May 2, 2001. Thereafter, Allied delivered office furniture to the Water Department and submitted an invoice for payment to the Lowell Purchasing Department.

5. On June 30, 2001, Tarmey completed a report certifying Allied's performance of the May 2, 2001 contract. At this time, Tarmey knew this document was necessary for Allied to receive payment for its performance of the contract. Also at this time, Tarmey knew his brother was Allied's commissioned sales representative for the contract.

6. Following Tarmey's June 30, 2001 certification, Allied received payment for its performance of the May 2, 2001 contract. Leonard Tarmey received sales commissions based on the May 2, 2001 contract between the city and Allied.

Second Contract

7. The City of Lowell contracted with Allied to buy office furniture on October 30, 2001. Thereafter, Allied delivered office furniture to the Water Department and submitted an invoice for payment to the Lowell Purchasing Department.

8. On July 2, 2002, Tarmey completed a report certifying Allied's performance of the October 30, 2001 contract. At this time, Tarmey knew this document was necessary for Allied to receive payment for its performance of the contract. Also at this time, Tarmey knew his brother was Allied's commissioned sales representative for the contract.

9. Following Tarmey's July 2, 2002 certification, Allied received payment for its performance of the October 30, 2001 contract. Leonard Tarmey received sales commissions based on the October 30, 2001 contract between the city and Allied.

Law

10. As the Lowell Regional Water Utility Executive Director, Tarmey was a municipal employee as defined by G.L. c. 268A, s. 1.

Section 19

11. Section 19 prohibits a municipal employee from participating as such in any particular matter in which, to his knowledge, an immediate family member has a financial interest.

12. Tarmey's brother Leonard is Tarmey's immediate family member as defined by G.L. c. 268A, s. 1.

13. Tarmey participated as the Water Utility executive director in the following particular matters:

a. the decision on or about June 30, 2001, to certify Allied's performance under the May 2, 2001 contract between Allied and the City of Lowell; and

b. the decision on or about July 2, 2002, to certify Allied's performance under the October 30, 2001 contract between Allied and the City of Lowell.

14. Tarmey's brother Leonard had a financial interest in each of these particular matters because he stood to receive a sales commission as a result of Allied's contracts with the City of Lowell.

15. When Tarmey so participated, he knew that his brother Leonard had this financial interest.

16. Accordingly, Tarmey violated s. 19 by participating as the Water Utility executive director in the above particular matters in which, to his knowledge, an immediate family member had financial interests.

Resolution

In view of the foregoing violations of G.L. c. 268A by Tarmey, 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 Tarmey:


1. that Tarmey pay to the Commission the sum of $2,500 as a civil penalty for repeatedly violating G.L. c. 268A s.19;

2. Tarmey 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 party.

STATE ETHICS COMMISSION

By:

//ss//
Peter Sturges

Date: July 25, 2007

//ss//
Edmund Tarmey

Date: July 10, 2007

I, Edmund Tarmey, have personally read the above Disposition Agreement. I understand that it is a public document and that by signing it, I will have agreed to all of the terms and conditions therein including payment of $2,500 to the State Ethics Commission.

//ss//
Edmund Tarmey

Date: July 10, 2007