PRESS RELEASES

The State Ethics Commission issued a Public Education Letter ("PEL") to Pittsfield Mayor James M. Ruberto for holding two political events in public buildings. The Commission found reasonable cause to believe that Ruberto violated Section 23 of the Conflict of Interest Law, and issued a PEL in lieu of initiating public adjudicatory proceedings.

According to the PEL, on October 31, 2006, Ruberto held a press conference at Pittsfield City Hall to endorse a state senate candidate. Ruberto directed his aide, a municipal employee working on municipal time, to make the arrangements for the press conference, which lasted approximately 15-25 minutes. The second political event occurred on November 1, 2006, at Pittsfield High School. A representative of the Deval Patrick for Governor campaign contacted Ruberto and suggested a town hall style campaign event where high school students could ask the candidate questions. Ruberto sought and received permission from the school superintendent to hold the event at the high school. Ruberto then directed his aide to work with the superintendent and campaign representatives to arrange the event. Ruberto invited political "VIPs" and local public officials to the event. The event lasted about 30 minutes, and campaign or political speeches were made by Ruberto, Congressman John Olver, State Senate candidate Ben Downing and gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick. Some members of the audience, which included teachers, administrators and about 150 students, held campaign signs. No one was allowed to ask any questions.

The PEL identified public resources improperly used in connection with the second event as including public time spent by city employees to arrange the event, and public time spent by building department employees, who were directed to repair the front stairs of the high school, parks department employees, who were directed to clean the school grounds, and school custodians, who were directed to clean and buff floors, in preparation for the event. The PEL states that while public buildings may be used by private groups for private events, usually a fee is paid for the use of the facilities. In this case, the Patrick campaign was not billed for the event, nor was the public building made available to the campaign pursuant to an existing policy.

Section 23(b)(2) prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know using or attempting to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges of substantial value, which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals. The Commission found reasonable cause to believe that Ruberto violated the conflict law by, in his capacity as Mayor, directing his aide to set up the press conference at which he endorsed Senate candidate Downing, and by using city resources to hold the press conference and to send out the press notice. In connection with the second political event, Ruberto violated Section 23(b)(2) by allowing public resources to be used in connection with what was essentially a partisan political rally, and in connection with the endorsement of various candidates running for public office.

As Executive Director Karen L.Nober states in the PEL, "The Commission has consistently held that the use of public resources of substantial value ($50 or more) for the purpose of supporting a political campaign amounts to the use of one’s official position to secure an unwarranted privilege."

The Enforcement Division of the State Ethics Commission filed two Orders to Show Cause on June 26, 2008 alleging that Berkshire Dukes baseball team owner Daniel Duquette violated the Conflict of Interest Law by offering to sell two tickets to Game 2 of the 2004 World Series at face value to Pittsfield Mayor James M. Ruberto, and that Ruberto, a municipal employee, violated the Conflict of Interest Law by accepting that offer, during the time that Duquette and Ruberto were negotiating to allow the Berkshire Dukes to play at Pittsfield’s Wahconah Park. The filing of the Orders to Show Cause initiates the public adjudicatory hearing process for the State Ethics Commission. Public hearings on the allegations will be scheduled within 90 days.

According to the Orders to Show Cause, between November 2004 and April 2005, Duquette and Ruberto negotiated licensing and concession agreements for the Berkshire Dukes to play at Wahconah Park. Duquette first contacted Ruberto in September 2004 to inquire about the Dukes playing in Pittsfield. On or about October 22, 2004, Duquette called Ruberto and asked if he wanted to buy two tickets to the second game of the World Series at the face value of $190 per ticket. Ruberto accepted the offer, and gave Duquette a check for $380 for the two tickets. Game 2 of the World Series was played on October 24, 2004, at Fenway Park between the Boston Red Sox and St. Louis Cardinals.

The Enforcement Division alleges that there was enormous demand for 2004 World Series tickets. They were not available to the general public at face value, and were selling on "craigslist", "eBay" and "aceticket.com" websites for several times their face value at between $600 to $2,000 per ticket. According to the Orders to Show Cause, Duquette admitted that he sold the tickets to Ruberto because he wanted Ruberto to support the Berkshire Dukes playing at Wahconah Park.

Section 3(a) of the Conflict of Interest Law prohibits anyone, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty from, directly or indirectly, giving or offering anything of substantial value to any municipal employee for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such employee. "Substantial value" has been interpreted by the courts and the Commission to mean anything with a value of $50 or more. In addition, the Commission has addressed the issue of special access to tickets in Commission Advisory 04-01, when it stated that conflict of interest concerns are raised where public officials are . . . "provided special access to purchase tickets even if at face value to events for which the same access is not available to the general public." In offering World Series tickets to Ruberto, Duquette intended to influence Ruberto as to their future negotiations regarding the licensing and concession agreements. By selling the World Series tickets to Ruberto at face value, where the general public could only obtain such tickets at prices more than $50 over face value, Duquette provided something of substantial value to Ruberto for or because of official acts to be performed by Ruberto as mayor. Therefore, according to the Order to Show Cause, Duquette violated G.L. c. 268A, § 3(a).

Section 3(b) of the Conflict of Interest Law prohibits a municipal employee, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty from, directly or indirectly, accepting anything of substantial value for himself for or because of any official act or act within his official responsibility performed, or to be performed, by such municipal employee. In accepting World Series tickets from Duquette, which were offered by Duquette to influence Ruberto as to their future negotiations regarding the licensing and concession agreements, Ruberto accepted an item of substantial value from Duquette for or because of official acts to be performed by Ruberto as mayor. This opportunity was not otherwise provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties. Therefore, according to the Order to Show Cause, Ruberto violated G.L. c. 268A, § 3(b) by purchasing the tickets at face value.

The Ethics Commission approved a Disposition Agreement on June 19, 2008, in which P.A. Landers, Inc. admitted to violating the conflict of interest law through the actions of its employee, who made illegal reimbursement payments for gasoline expenses to a Massachusetts Highway Department ("MassHighway") construction inspector. P.A. Landers, Inc. paid a $10,000 civil penalty. In two related matters, on April 8, 2008, the Commission’s Enforcement Division initiated public adjudicatory proceedings against Terry Edwards, the P.A. Landers, Inc. employee, and Thomas Kennedy, the MassHighway inspector.

According to the Disposition Agreement, P.A. Landers, Inc. ("P.A. Landers") had a construction contract with MassHighway to supply asphalt for work on Route 44 near Plymouth. MassHighway Construction Inspector Thomas Kennedy was responsible for inspecting P.A. Landers’ work and for submitting the paperwork necessary to approve payments to P.A. Landers under the contract. Terry Edwards was the P.A. Landers project manager for the contract. In March 2002, Kennedy approached Edwards and asked for reimbursement for his vehicle gasoline expenses. Edwards agreed to provide the reimbursement so that Kennedy’s inspections would "go a little smoother" on the project. From May 2002 until November 2002, Edwards made payments to Kennedy which averaged about $200 every other week, and ultimately totaled between $2,000 and $3,000. Edwards made these payments to Kennedy with P.A. Landers funds, which he obtained by submitting Kennedy’s receipts, along with his own, to the company for reimbursement from the company’s petty cash fund. Edwards’ reimbursement requests to P.A. Landers did not identify Kennedy as the recipient of the funds and were made contrary to company policies regarding the distribution of funds.

Section 3(a) of G. L. c. 268A, the conflict of interest law, prohibits anyone, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, from directly or indirectly giving anything of substantial value to any state employee for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by the state employee. "Substantial value" has been determined to mean anything with a value of $50 or more. Through its employee, P.A. Landers gave Kennedy between $2,000 and $3,000 in cash payments. Each payment was greater than $50, and so was of substantial value. These payments were not as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty. P.A. Landers gave these payments to Kennedy to induce him to not delay, and/or to reward him for not delaying, the processing of paperwork necessary for P.A. Landers to receive payment for its work on the project. Kennedy’s timely processing of paperwork involved official acts performed or to be performed by Kennedy. Therefore, P.A. Landers violated section 3(a) by giving cash payments of substantial value to a state employee for or because of official acts performed or to be performed by the state employee. While P.A. Landers maintains that Edwards’ payments to Kennedy were contrary to company policy and were accomplished only by Edwards circumventing established safeguards regarding the distribution of funds, the company acknowledges that as a business organization, it acts through, and is responsible for, the conduct of its employees, even if the conduct is unauthorized.

The State Ethics Commission approved a Disposition Agreement on June 19, 2008, in which former Randolph Housing Authority Executive Director Joseph W. Daly ("Daly") admitted to violating the conflict of interest law by approving applications for housing where Daly and/or his father had financial interests, and for using his official position to secure unwarranted benefits for himself and others. Daly paid a $5,000 fine.

According to the Disposition Agreement, Daly was the Randolph Housing Authority ("RHA") Executive Director from December 2002 to September 2004. The RHA owns approximately 256 housing units, and rents these units for less than fair market value to individuals who qualify on the basis of income.

Beginning in September 2003, Daly participated in selecting Arthur and Mary Hilliard as RHA tenants, and then negotiated with the Hilliards to purchase their home on Oak Street in Randolph prior to the Hilliards’ execution of their housing unit lease with the RHA. The Hilliards applied for a handicapped accessible housing unit, for which there was a wait list. Daly processed their application, and advised the Hilliards that if the trust that owned their home were to evict them, they could qualify for an immediate emergency placement into an RHA unit on the basis of imminent homelessness. The Hilliards were the sole trustees and beneficiaries of the trust that owned their home. In January 2004, the Quincy District Court issued an Execution Writ, evicting the Hilliards. Daly, in his capacity as RHA Executive Director, filed a copy of the Execution Writ with the Hilliards’ application and selected the Hilliards for immediate placement, based on emergency circumstances.

Daly decided against purchasing the home due to conflict of interest concerns, and his father, Edward Daly, a real estate developer and rental property owner, agreed to purchase the home for $200,000. Edward Daly purchased the home on March 19, 2004, the same date that the Hilliards took possession of their RHA unit. Edward Daly rehabilitated the Hilliards’ home and sold it on December 13, 2004, for $395,000.

Also according to the Disposition Agreement, in November 2003, Joseph Daly processed a tenant application for Judith Shultz, who, at the time, was a tenant of Edward Daly who was having difficulty paying her rent. Shultz was afforded an immediate placement into an RHA unit because she qualified for veteran’s preference. She moved into an RHA unit in January, 2004, and Edward Daly was then able to rent his property to new tenants who could afford the rent.

Section 19 prohibits a municipal employee from participating as such in any particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he or a member of his immediate family has a financial interest. Daly had a financial interest in processing the Hilliards’ tenant application and lease agreement because the Hilliards needed to obtain RHA housing in order to be able to sell their home to Daly. Daly’s father also had a financial interest in these matters because the Hilliards’ occupancy of an RHA unit allowed the Hilliards to sell their property to him. Daly violated § 19 of the conflict of interest law by participating in his capacity as RHA Executive Director in matters in which, to his knowledge, he and/or his father, an immediate family member, had financial interests. Daly also violated § 19 by participating in his capacity as RHA Executive Director in Judith Shultz’ tenant application. Daly knew that his father had a financial interest in this matter because he knew that Shultz was his father’s tenant and was having difficulty making her rent payments.

Section 23(b)(2) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from, knowingly or with reason to know, using or attempting to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. According to the Disposition Agreement, Daly’s opportunity to purchase the Hilliards’ property was a privilege. By negotiating with the Hilliards to buy their property and later offering to substitute his father in the transaction while the Hilliards’ application was pending, Daly used or attempted to use his official position to secure an unwarranted privilege for himself and/or his father. This privilege was of substantial value, as evidenced by the profit realized by Edward Daly on the subsequent sale of the property. This privilege was unwarranted because, while the purchase and sale negotiations were taking place, the Hilliards were subject to Daly’s official authority or regulatory jurisdiction. The Hilliards’ emergency placement in an RHA unit was also a privilege. This privilege was unwarranted because the Hilliards did not meet the criteria for emergency placement, and Daly knew this. Daly used his RHA position to secure this privilege for the Hilliards. Daly did not publicly disclose to his appointing authority, the RHA board, his private dealings with the Hilliards.

"Public employees are not allowed to participate officially in matters where they or their immediate family members have financial interests, unless they disclose those interests in advance and receive authorization to participate in those matters from their appointing authority. In addition, in the absence of certain procedural and substantive safeguards, a public employee’s private business relationship with a person under his regulatory authority is considered inherently coercive and a violation of the conflict of interest law," said Executive Director Karen L. Nober.

In a Decision and Order, the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission approved a Disposition Agreement in which Sandwich Planning Board ("Planning Board") member Julie C. Molloy agreed to forfeit attorney’s fees of $1,700 and pay a penalty of $1,300 for violating the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A. In the Disposition Agreement, Molloy admitted that she had violated the conflict of interest law by appearing before the Sandwich Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") on behalf of her private law clients to oppose a special permit application after she had participated in her capacity as a Planning Board member in formulating comments on the same special permit application. Those comments were submitted by the Planning Board to the ZBA for its consideration in connection with its review of the special permit application.

This Decision and Order concludes the public hearing in this matter. On December 5, 2007, the Commission’s Enforcement Division initiated the public hearing process by issuing an Order to Show Cause alleging that Molloy had violated sections 17(a) and 17(c) of the conflict of interest law.

According to the Disposition Agreement and Decision and Order, at a June 2006 Planning Board meeting, Molloy spoke in her capacity as a Planning Board member in opposition to a special permit application for the installation of two wind turbines. A week later, William and Angela LeBeau, who owned property abutting the site of the proposed wind turbine project, retained Molloy to act as their attorney in opposing the turbine project and paid her a $2,500 retainer. On the same day that she was retained by the LeBeaus, Molloy appeared on their behalf before the ZBA and opposed the wind turbine permit. After the ZBA approved the special permit application, Molloy filed an appeal with the Barnstable Superior Court on behalf of the LeBeaus. Soon thereafter, Molloy refunded to the LeBeaus the $800 balance of their retainer and concluded her representation.

Section 17(a) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from receiving compensation from anyone other than the town in relation to a particular matter in which the town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. Section 17(c) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from acting as an agent or attorney for anyone other than the town in connection with a particular matter in which the town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. These sections apply less restrictively to municipal employees whose positions have been designated as "special municipal employee" positions for purposes of the conflict of interest law. Special municipal employees may represent clients before municipal boards other than their own unless they have officially participated in the matter, or unless the matter is or has been within the past year within their official responsibility. As a Planning Board member, a special municipal employee position, Molloy violated both of these sections of the conflict of interest law by representing the LeBeaus for compensation in opposition to the wind turbine special permit application, a matter in which Molloy had participated, and which was under her official responsibility, as a Planning Board member.

"One of the purposes of the conflict of interest law is to prevent a town official from having divided loyalties between the town she works for and a private interest, such as a law client," said Executive Director Karen L. Nober. "Although the rules are less restrictive for special municipal employees, a special municipal employee is prohibited from representing clients for compensation in connection with the same matter in which she participated in her official capacity, or which was under her official responsibility."

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission issued a Decision and Order dismissing its case alleging violations of the conflict of interest law by former Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Operations Richard Bonavita. The Commission’s Decision and Order was based on the Enforcement Division’s failure to file its Order to Show Cause within the three year statute of limitations period set forth in the Commission’s regulations. In dismissing the case, the Commission did not make any determination as to whether Bonavita violated the conflict of interest law, but, rather, based its Decision and Order solely on procedural requirements.

The Commission’s regulation at 930 CMR 1.02(10) establishes a time limit in which the Commission’s Enforcement Division may initiate an action based on the conflict law. It provides, "An order to show cause must be issued within three (3) years after a disinterested person learned of the violation."

On January 31, 2008, the Commission’s Enforcement Division filed an Order to Show Cause alleging that Bonavita repeatedly violated sections 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by directing a Sheriff’s Office mechanic to perform free automobile services for Bonavita and one of Bonavita’s immediate family members. In an Answer filed on February 11, 2008, Bonavita denied the allegations and asserted that the Order to Show Cause had not been filed within the required three year period. Since the Commission learned of the matter involving Bonavita and the alleged automobile repairs on or before January 18, 2005, the deadline for the filing of the Order to Show Cause was January 18, 2008. The Enforcement Division’s filing on January 31, 2008 was, therefore, time-barred. On March 28, 2008, a Joint Motion to Dismiss was filed by both parties on the grounds that the Order to Show Cause was filed beyond the applicable three year statute of limitations.

"The Enforcement Division brought the case based on the Commission’s finding of reasonable cause to believe Mr. Bonavita violated the conflict law," said Executive Director Karen Nober. "The Order to Show Cause, however, was filed late, resulting in the Commission’s dismissal of the case against Mr. Bonavita on procedural grounds. We have reviewed our internal procedures and are taking steps to ensure that this will not happen again."

Former Middlesex Retirement Board ("MRB") member Lawrence P. Driscoll admitted violating the state’s conflict of interest law by (1) improperly awarding to his friend a $557,000 building renovation contract for the MRB’s headquarters and failing to disclose the friendship; (2) subsequently voting to hire this friend as the headquarters facilities manager and failing to disclose the friendship; and (3) submitting improper expense reimbursement requests. Driscoll paid a $10,000 civil penalty and a civil forfeiture of $2,683.

According to the Disposition Agreement, the MRB sought to renovate its headquarters in Billerica in 2002. The MRB created a three-person building subcommittee, which included Driscoll, and delegated to the subcommittee the handling of the headquarters renovation contract. Driscoll used his official position to award the contract to his friend John C. MacDonald. MacDonald was a builder who, at an October 5, 2002, MRB building subcommittee meeting, verbally submitted a bid of $557,000 to do the renovation. At that meeting, MacDonald also verbally submitted a bid of $595,000 on behalf of another builder. Driscoll knew that MacDonald had solicited and received the bid from the second builder prior to calculating his own bid. The subcommittee awarded the renovation contract to MacDonald at this same meeting. After the contract was awarded, the subcommittee instructed MacDonald to prepare and submit two written bids - his own bid and a second bid on behalf of the other builder. When the building project was completed, Driscoll and the other members of the subcommittee voted unanimously to hire MacDonald as the full-time manager of the facility. At no time did Driscoll file any disclosures regarding his friendship with MacDonald. In addition, during the period between 2002 and 2004, Driscoll requested expense reimbursements from the Middlesex Retirement System ("MRS") for conferences he did not attend, non-MRS-related airfare and other personal expenses, totaling $5,120. Driscoll has repaid the MRS $2,437.

Section 23(b)(2) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a state 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 not properly available to similarly situated individuals. Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a state employee from acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, knowing all of the facts, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy that person’s favor in the performance of his official duties. This subsection further provides that the appearance of impropriety can be avoided if the state employee publicly discloses all of the relevant circumstances which would otherwise create the appearance of a conflict of interest. By voting to award MacDonald the contract through a process that gave the false impression of being a competitive bid process, Driscoll used his official position to secure for McDonald an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals, and, therefore, violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(2). By submitting for reimbursement expenses that were not incurred in connection with legitimate MRB business, Driscoll used his official position to secure for himself unwarranted privileges of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By doing so, Driscoll violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(2). By failing to disclose his friendship with MacDonald in connection with the award of the building contract and the decision to hire MacDonald as the facility manager, Driscoll knowingly acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, knowing all of the relevant facts, to conclude that MacDonald could improperly influence or unduly enjoy Driscoll’s favor in the performance of Driscoll’s official duties as an MRB member. Thus, Driscoll violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(3).

"Public employees violate the public trust when they use their positions to benefit themselves or their friends. Public employees who have private friendships that overlap with their public duties need to perform their public duties fairly and objectively and disclose those personal relationships to avoid creating an actual or apparent conflict of interest," said Executive Director Karen L. Nober. "It also goes without saying that public monies may not be used to reimburse personal expenses."

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, in an Order to Show Cause issued on April 8, 2008, alleges that former Massachusetts Highway Department ("Mass Highway") Construction Inspector Thomas Kennedy repeatedly violated sections 2, 3, and 23(b)(2) of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by soliciting and receiving cash payments from a Mass Highway contractor under his supervision. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.

According to the Order to Show Cause, Kennedy was assigned to inspect the work of contractor P.A. Landers, Inc., on Route 44 near Plymouth in 2002. Kennedy’s duties included inspecting P.A. Landers’ deliveries of asphalt used on the project and certifying asphalt weight slips submitted by the company for payment. While assigned to the project, Kennedy received reimbursement for his gasoline expenses from Mass Highway and was not authorized to receive payments from contractors under his supervision. Despite this, Kennedy asked P.A. Landers project manager, Terry Edwards, for a gas credit card. Edwards refused, but told Kennedy to instead submit his gas receipts for payment.

Thereafter, Kennedy provided Edwards with gas receipts, and received cash payments from Edwards on a bi-weekly basis. Edwards’ payments to Kennedy began in May 2002 and continued until November 2002. During this time, Kennedy corruptly received a total of between $2,000 and $3,000 in cash payments. In return for the cash payments, Kennedy relaxed his inspections of P.A. Landers’ asphalt deliveries on the Route 44 project. In particular, Kennedy signed weight slips without properly inspecting the asphalt delivered to the project site.

Section 2(b) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a public employee from corruptly soliciting and receiving anything of value in return for being influenced in his performance of any official act or act within his official responsibility. The Enforcement Division alleges that Kennedy repeatedly violated section 2(b) by corruptly soliciting and receiving cash payments in return for being influenced in his performance of duties as a Mass Highway construction inspector, including asphalt inspections and certifications.

Section 3(b) prohibits a public employee from directly or indirectly soliciting or receiving anything of substantial value for himself for or because of any official act or act within his official responsibility. The Enforcement Division alleges that Kennedy violated section 3(b) by soliciting and receiving cash payments worth $50 or more for or because of his performance of duties as a Mass Highway construction inspector, including asphalt inspections and certifications.

Section 23(b)(2) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his official position to secure for himself unwarranted privileges which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals. The Enforcement Division alleges that Kennedy violated section 23(b)(2) by securing for himself unwarranted cash payments worth $50 or more.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, in an Order to Show Cause issued on April 8, 2008, alleges that a former project manager for a Massachusetts Highway Department ("Mass Highway") contractor repeatedly violated sections 2 and 3 of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by corruptly giving cash payments to a Mass Highway construction inspector responsible for performing inspections of the contractor’s work. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.

According to the Order to Show Cause, Thomas Kennedy was assigned to inspect the work of contractor P.A. Landers, Inc., on Route 44 near Plymouth in 2002. Kennedy’s duties included inspecting P.A. Landers’ deliveries of asphalt used on the project and certifying asphalt weight slips submitted by the company for payment. While assigned to the project, Kennedy received reimbursement for his gasoline expenses from Mass Highway and was not authorized to receive payments from contractors under his supervision. Despite this, Kennedy asked Edwards for a gas credit card. Edwards refused, but told Kennedy to instead submit his gas receipts for payment.

Thereafter, Kennedy provided Edwards with gas receipts, and Edwards gave Kennedy cash payments on a bi-weekly basis. Edwards’ payments to Kennedy began in May 2002 and continued until November 2002. During this time, Edwards corruptly gave Kennedy a total of between $2,000 and $3,000 in cash payments, with the intent to influence Kennedy’s performance of duties as a Mass Highway construction inspector. In return for the cash payments, Kennedy relaxed his inspections of P.A. Landers’ asphalt deliveries on the Route 44 project. In particular, Kennedy signed weight slips without properly inspecting the asphalt delivered to the project site.

Section 2(a) of the conflict of interest law prohibits anyone from corruptly giving anything of value to a public employee with intent to influence any official act or act within his official responsibility. The Enforcement Division alleges that Edwards repeatedly violated section 2(a) by corruptly giving cash payments in return for Kennedy relaxing his performance of duties as a Mass Highway construction inspector, including asphalt inspections and certifications.

Section 3(a) prohibits anyone from corruptly giving anything of substantial value to a public employee for or because of any official act or act within his official responsibility. The Enforcement Division alleges that Edwards violated section 3(a) by giving cash payments worth $50 or more to influence Kennedy’s performance of duties as a Mass Highway construction inspector, including asphalt inspections and certifications.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, in an Order to Show Cause issued on March 27, 2008, alleges that Lona DeFeo, Maintenance Manager of the Everett Public Schools ("EPS"), violated sections 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by using EPS resources and employees to perform private work for Superintendent Frederick Foresteire. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.

According to the Order to Show Cause, from April to November 2002, DeFeo ordered an EPS maintenance worker to perform plumbing work in a kitchen and two bathrooms at Foresteire’s home. In October 2002, DeFeo ordered two EPS employees to obtain, cut and deliver EPS-purchased plywood to Foresteire’s home. Foresteire did not pay for the plywood or the services, and the EPS employees provided some of these services during EPS work hours.

Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a public employee from, knowingly or with reason to know, using or attempting to use her official position to secure for herself or others an unwarranted privilege or exemption of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. The Enforcement Division alleges that DeFeo knowingly violated 23(b)(2) by using her position as Maintenance Manager to obtain EPS-purchased materials for Foresteire and to arrange to have EPS employees provide private home improvements and other services on Foresteire’s behalf, worth $50.00 or more, and during EPS work hours.

Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from knowingly or with reason to know, acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy her favor in the performance of her official duties, or that she is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. The Enforcement Division alleges that DeFeo knowingly violated 23(b)(3) by obtaining EPS-purchased materials for Foresteire and arranging to have EPS employees provide private home improvements and other services on Foresteire’s behalf, thus acting in a manner that would have caused a reasonable person, knowing all of the facts, to conclude that Foresteire could improperly influence or unduly enjoy DeFeo’s favor in the performance of her official duties, or that she was likely to act or fail to act as a result of rank, position or undue influence of Foresteire.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, in an Order to Show Cause issued on March 14, 2008, alleges that Frederick Foresteire, Superintendent of the Everett Public Schools ("EPS"), violated section 23(b)(2) of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by using EPS employees during work hours to perform private home improvements and by using public resources for private purposes.

According to the Order to Show Cause, from April to November 2002, Foresteire used an EPS maintenance worker to perform, at a discounted rate, plumbing work in a kitchen and two bathrooms at Foresteire’s home. In October 2002, Foresteire used two EPS employees to obtain, cut and deliver EPS-purchased plywood to Foresteire’s home. Foresteire did not pay for the plywood or the services, and the EPS employees provided some of these services during EPS work hours.

Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a public employee from, knowingly or with reason to know, using or attempting to use his official position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege or exemption of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. The Enforcement Division alleges that Foresteire knowingly violated 23(b)(2) by using his position as Superintendent to obtain EPS-purchased materials and to arrange for private home improvements and other services by EPS employees, worth $50.00 or more, during EPS work hours.

Former Georgetown Fire Chief Harold Roeder admitted violating the state’s conflict of interest law by leading the Georgetown Board of Fire Engineers to believe his private company would perform fire alarm wiring work pursuant to a Massachusetts Highway Department project involving the Fire Department in 2004. Roeder paid a civil penalty of $1,500.

According to the Disposition Agreement released today, Roeder was the part-time Georgetown Fire Chief from 2002 to 2004. Roeder is also the president and owner of L.W. Bills Company, a private alarm sales and service company located in Georgetown. In 2003, the Massachusetts Highway Department planned to reconstruct portions of Main Street in Georgetown. This work required the Fire Department to relocate municipal alarm wiring impacted by the project. The Board of Fire Engineers, consisting of Roeder and four deputy chiefs, discussed the project at one of its meetings in early 2004. When a Board member suggested that the Fire Department request bids from local contractors to perform the work, Roeder said that L.W. Bills is on a state bid list and, therefore, the Fire Department did not have to put the work out to bid, or words to that effect. When Roeder made his statement, members of the Board of Fire Engineers believed that Roeder was indicating that there was no need to put the contract out to bid because Roeder’s company would be selected as a state pre-approved vendor to perform the alarm wiring project.

Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from knowingly or with reason to know, acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. By his statement to the Board of Fire Engineers, Roeder acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that Roeder could be influenced as Fire Chief by L.W. Bills’ possible interest in the Mass Highway contract. That is, a reasonable person would conclude that Roeder’s comments were intended to facilitate the award of the contract to L.W. Bills. According to Roeder, his comments were not intended to indicate that L.W. Bills would be selected to perform the alarm project work. Roeder acknowledges, however, that such a comment could have given the appearance that L.W. Bills could unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his Fire Department duties. Accordingly, Roeder violated G.L.c. 268A, section 23(b)(3).

"The conflict law is concerned with the appearance of impropriety as much as it is with actual conflicts of interest," said Executive Director Karen Nober. "If a public official’s private business relationship appears to unduly influence his official actions, the public official must properly disclose the relevant facts to dispel any appearance of impropriety."

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, issued an Order to Show Cause, alleging that former Marlborough Department of Community Development (MDCD) Finance Assistant Maureen Brennan repeatedly violated sections 19 and 23(b)(3) of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by participating in her fiancé’s (and then husband’s) loan and the loan application for a cousin. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.

According to the Order to Show Cause, in September 2002, Keith Wheeler, who was then Brennan’s fiancé, was approved by the MDCD for housing rehabilitation assistance for property he owned in Marlborough. Brennan subsequently participated in progress payments of $8,495 and $9,909 to contractors working on the property by processing the payments and certifying that that the work had been performed. After Brennan and Wheeler married in October 2002, Brennan participated in another progress payment of $2,750 for work on the property and requested that the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development approve an increase in the amount of rehabilitation assistance available to Wheeler. In 2005, Brennan also participated in a $30,000 rehabilitation loan for her cousin and his wife.

Section 19 of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from officially participating in matters in which to her knowledge an immediate family member has a financial interest. The Enforcement Division alleges that Brennan violated § 19 by participating in the approval of progress payments for work at property owned by her husband and by requesting an increase in the amount of rehabilitation assistance available to him.

Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of her official duties. The Enforcement Division alleges that Brennan violated § 23(b)(3) by processing rehabilitation payments and certifying that the work had been performed at property owned by her then fiancé and later husband and by requesting an increase in the amount of rehabilitation assistance available to him. The Enforcement Division also alleges that Brennan violated § 23(b)(3) by participating in the processing of her cousin’s loan.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, in an Order to Show Cause issued on January 31, 2008, alleges that former Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Operations Richard Bonavita repeatedly violated sections 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by directing a Sheriff’s Office mechanic to perform free automobile repairs for Bonavita and one of Bonavita’s immediate family members. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.

According to the Order to Show Cause, on several occasions beginning in February 2002, Bonavita directed an auto mechanic under his supervision to repair one of Bonavita’s immediate family member’s personal vehicles. The repairs included work on the vehicle’s windshield motor, timing belt, and CV shaft. Bonavita directed the mechanic to perform some of the repairs at the Sheriff’s Office, both during and after the mechanic’s regular work hours, using Sheriff’s Office facilities and equipment. Bonavita also directed the mechanic to perform repairs on a second vehicle owned by the family member after the mechanic’s work hours at Bonavita’s residence. On another occasion, Bonavita directed the mechanic to work on a third vehicle during his work hours at an automobile dealership prior to Bonavita’s purchase of the vehicle.

Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. The Enforcement Division alleges that Bonavita violated section 23(b)(2) by securing free automobile repairs worth $50 or more for himself and his family member from a subordinate employee.

Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties. The Enforcement Division alleges that Bonavita violated section 23(b)(3) by supervising the mechanic during and after the time that the mechanic performed free automobile repairs for Bonavita and his family member.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission, in a Ruling and Order issued on January 16th, ordered former Rockland Conservation Commissioner Kenneth Karlson to pay a $2,000 civil penalty for violating the conflict of interest law by receiving $10,000 from a developer as compensation for excavation work Karlson performed on a project subject to an Order of Conditions issued by the Rockland Conservation Commission.

According to the Ruling and Order, the Commission entered a decision against Karlson because of his failure to defend or otherwise respond to the allegations of an Order to Show Cause filed on October 17, 2007, by the Commission’s Enforcement Division. The Order to Show Cause alleged that Karlson, while serving as a Conservation Commissioner, violated §17(a) of M.G.L. c. 268A, the conflict of interest law, by receiving $10,000 from the developer of a skating rink and parking lot project as compensation for Karlson’s performance in the spring of 2005 of excavation work on the project to satisfy the grading requirements of an Order of Conditions issued by the Conservation Commission in August 2004. Section 17(a) prohibits a municipal employee from receiving compensation from anyone other than the municipality in relation to any particular matter in which the municipality is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.

The Commission has the authority to impose civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation. According to the Ruling and Order, the maximum statutory fine of $2,000 was warranted because Karlson’s receipt of compensation in connection with a matter under the jurisdiction of his own board was a serious violation. The Commission ordered Karlson to pay the $2,000 civil penalty within thirty days of his receipt of the Ruling and Order.

In June 2007, the developer of the project, Paul Cokinos, signed a Disposition Agreement with the Commission in which he admitted violating M.G.L. c. 268A, §17(b) of the state’s conflict of interest law by paying Karlson to perform the excavation work. Cokinos paid a civil penalty of $2,000.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission found reasonable cause to believe that University of Massachusetts-Lowell (UMass-Lowell) Executive Director of Public Affairs and Director of the Center for Economic and Civic Opinion (CECO) Louis DiNatale violated the code of conduct section of M.G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by consulting for private clients on matters related to and/or overlapping with UMass-Lowell polls. The Commission concluded its review of this matter with the issuance of a Public Education Letter.

According to the letter released today, DiNatale conducted polls for UMass-Lowell, some of which involved political issues and campaigns. In his private capacity, DiNatale also conducted polls as a paid political consultant. In 2005, DiNatale, as a private political pollster, conducted a political poll for Christy Mihos, who was contemplating running for governor, on September 25-29, 2005. Around the same time, DiNatale conducted a poll for the University on September 19-27, 2005 that included four questions concerning Mihos. DiNatale did not disclose to his appointing authority regarding the private polling work he performed for Mihos, although his appointing authority was generally aware that DiNatale engaged in private polling work.

Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties.

Section 23 addresses situations "where an appearance arises that the integrity of a public official’s action might be undermined by a private relationship or interest," according to the letter issued by Acting Executive Director David A. Wilson. "It is essential that public employees’ objectivity, both in fact and in appearance, be maintained so that public confidence in their official actions can be assured."

The Commission issues a Public Education Letter to provide public notice and education about conduct that the Commission has not previously addressed and has concluded violates the conflict law.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission fined former Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS) employee Diana Brensilber Chidsey, $5,000 for violating the state’s conflict of interest law, M.G.L. c. 268A, by repeatedly participating as an EOPS employee in EOPS grants that directly or indirectly impacted clients of Crest Associates (Crest), and thus Crest, while she and her husband were working as consultants for Crest. Crest was a Boston based firm that provided grant application and program management services to Massachusetts municipal law enforcement agencies that were seeking these grants.

According to the Disposition Agreement, Chidsey served as Director of Research and Evaluation at EOPS from 1997 until August 2003. In 2002, she also held the title of Chief of Staff and, for two months in 2003, she served as Programs Division Acting Executive Director. Chidsey and her husband provided consultant services to Crest beginning in 2002. Chidsey disclosed in writing to the then EOPS secretary that she was providing consulting services to police departments outside of Massachusetts; she did not disclose in writing that she was working as a consultant for Crest. She also did not respond to a formal request in 2003, when a new EOPS administration took over, to disclose any outside employment.

As an EOPS employee, Chidsey contributed to the planning of a federally funded state homeland security grant program. Crest subsequently applied for grants on behalf of its police department clients. Chidsey served on one of seven EOPS teams which rated applications. While none of the applications rated by Chidsey’s team were on behalf of Crest’s clients, the applications were in competition with those submitted by Crest on behalf of its clients. In August 2003, Chidsey left EOPS and accepted a full-time consulting position with Crest.

Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties. By repeatedly participating as an EOPS employee in EOPS grants that impacted Crest clients while she was consulting for Crest and its clients, Chidsey violated this section of the law.

"Public employees who have private interests or relationships that overlap with their public duties need to disclose those relationships to avoid creating appearances of conflicts of interest," said Acting Executive Director David A. Wilson.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division issued an Order to Show Cause alleging that Revere Department of Public Works Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund general foreman Joseph Maglione violated the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by soliciting and accepting bribes for private water and/or sewer projects in Revere from Sewer Foreman Randy Adamson and Drain Department Foreman Anthony Giannino. A public hearing regarding the allegations regarding Maglione will be scheduled within 90 days.

Between 2002 and March 2006, Adamson and Giannino were privately compensated for approximately 25 water and/or sewer projects in Revere. Most of these projects required permits: on a few occasions the permit was obtained through a licensed drain layer; on other occasions no permit was sought. Adamson and Giannino testified that Maglione approached them in 2002 and asked for $200-250 for every new water and/or sewer service installation they performed. Between 2002 and summer 2005, they gave Maglione a total of $3,000-$4,000 regarding these installations.

The Order to Show Cause alleges that Maglione’s solicitation and acceptance of these payments violated M.G.L. c. 268A, §§2(b), 3(b), 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), the Order alleges.

Section 2(b) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a public employee from corruptly seeking or accepting anything of value in return for being influenced in his performance of any official act or act within his official responsibility. Section 3(b) prohibits a public employee from directly or indirectly soliciting or accepting anything of substantial value for himself for or because of any official act or act within his official responsibility. Section 23(b)(2) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his official position to secure for himself unwarranted privileges which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals. Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission fined Revere Department of Public Works (DPW) Sewer Foreman Randy Adamson and Drain Department Foreman Anthony Giannino $8,000 each for violating the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by paying bribes to DPW Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund General Foreman Joseph Maglione for private water and/or sewer projects in Revere and for receiving compensation for the private work.

According to two Disposition Agreements released today, as DPW employees, Adamson and Giannino were responsible for installing and repairing the city’s sewer and storm main lines. The DPW does not install or maintain private connections between the city’s main lines and residential or business properties; work on such service lines is handled by private drain layers who are licensed and bonded to do such work. Neither Adamson nor Giannino was a licensed drain layer. Such work generally requires a street opening permit costing $200 and must be inspected by the DPW. Maglione was responsible for such inspections.

Between 2002 and March 2006, Adamson and Giannino were privately compensated for approximately 25 water and/or sewer projects in Revere. Most of these projects required permits: on a few occasions the permit was obtained through a licensed drain layer; on other occasions no permit was sought. Adamson and Giannino testified that Maglione approached them in 2002 and asked for $200-250 for every new water and/or sewer service installation they performed. Between 2002 and summer 2005, they gave Maglione a total of $3,000-$4,000 regarding these installations.

Section 2(a) of the conflict of interest law prohibits anyone from corruptly giving anything of value to a municipal employee with intent to influence any official act or act within his official responsibility. By repeatedly giving Maglione payments of $200-250 for each new water and/or sewer installation, Adamson and Giannino violated this section. Section 17(a) prohibits a public employee from receiving compensation from anyone other than the town in relation to a particular matter in which the town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. By receiving private compensation for performing drain-laying projects, Adamson and Giannino violated § 17(a).

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division issued an Order to Show Cause alleging that Sandwich Planning Board member Julie C. Molloy violated the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by acting as an attorney for a private client before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) regarding a special permit application in which she had participated as a Planning Board member. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.

According to the Order to Show Cause, Molloy spoke in opposition to a special permit for the installation of two wind-turbines at a June 2006 Planning Board meeting. A week later, William and Angela LeBeau, who owned property abutting the site of the proposed wind turbine project, retained Molloy to act as their attorney in opposing the turbine project and paid her a $2,500 retainer. On the same day she was retained by the LeBeaus, Molloy appeared on their behalf before the ZBA and opposed the wind turbine permit. The ZBA approved the special permit application. Molloy then filed an appeal with the Barnstable Superior Court on behalf of the LeBeaus. Soon thereafter, the LeBeaus told Molloy that they no longer wished to pursue the matter. Molloy refunded $800 of their retainer and concluded her representation of them.

Section 17(a) prohibits a public employee from receiving compensation from anyone other than the town in relation to a particular matter in which the town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. Section 17(c) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a public employee from acting as an agent or attorney for anyone other than the town in connection with a particular matter in which the town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. By representing the LeBeaus for compensation in the wind turbine matter, Molloy violated G.L. c. 268A, § 17(a) and (c), the Order to Show Cause alleges.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission announced the appointment of Karen Nober as its new Executive Director. As Executive Director, Ms. Nober will oversee the administration and enforcement of the conflict of interest and financial disclosure laws and will manage a staff of 23.

Ms. Nober is presently the Deputy Chief Legal Counsel of the Massachusetts Port Authority. She has been at Massport for 14 years and, during that time, has managed ethics and corporate governance matters for the Authority, and has advised the Board, CEO and senior staff on a range of issues related to Massport’s mission. Before joining Massport, Ms. Nober served as Assistant General Counsel for the Executive Office of Economic Affairs and, prior to that, worked for the City of Boston for several years. Ms. Nober will join the Commission in January, 2008.

"After a careful search, we are pleased to announce that Ms. Nober will be leading the Commission," said Judge E. George Daher, who serves as Commission Chairman. "She brings to the job a breadth of experience and a depth of knowledge about the application of the conflict of interest law that will serve the Commission and the Commonwealth well."

"I look forward to joining the Commission," said Ms. Nober. "Over the years, I have worked closely with the Commission on a number of issues, and I am excited to have the opportunity to continue to work with such a committed and talented staff."

Ms. Nober, 46, a resident of Hull, is a graduate of Boston College Law School and Brandeis University. She replaces Peter Sturges who left the Commission last summer.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission approved a settlement in which North Attleborough Planning Board Chairman Raymond Payson paid a penalty of $5,000 for violating the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by participating in several decisions involving property abutting property owned by Payson and his brother.

According to a Disposition Agreement, Payson and his brother own a 7.6 acre vacant lot on Landry Avenue that abuts an 11.1 acre lot on John Dietsch Boulevard owned by Corliss Development Group, L.L.C. (Corliss). In early spring 2006, when Corliss submitted plans for the development of its property, Payson stated he was not going to participate in the Corliss property development matters because of his abutter status. Notwithstanding this statement, Payson participated by:

• approving a site plan application
• attending and participating in discussions during a site walk
• approving site plan modifications
• inspecting the property with the Planning Board engineer
• writing a letter to Corliss on Planning Board letterhead stating that utility work was "at risk of not receiving planning board approval"

Section 19 of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge he or an immediate family member has a financial interest. By participating in approvals, decisions and inspections regarding the Corliss property which would have a reasonably foreseeable financial impact on his abutting property’s value, Payson violated § 19.

"The conflict of interest law is intended to ensure that public employees act in the best interests of the citizens they represent rather than their own self-interests," said spokesperson Carol Carson. "They should not take any action on matters affecting property that abuts their own property."

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission fined former North Reading Highway Department employee James Murray $750 for violating the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by receiving compensation for private work installing and testing water lines and former Water Department employee Diego Nicolo $1,000 for violating the law by also receiving compensation for the same private work as well as using his official position to obtain private work.

According to two Disposition Agreements, Murray and Nicolo started a business called "D. Nicolo J. Murray Water Pipe Testing." On three occasions, Nicolo and Murray were paid by North Reading residents or businesses to perform water pressure tests that either one or both of them performed. In addition, on one occasion, Nicolo and Murray installed a water line and a hydrant. Nicolo’s supervisor inspected all of the work performed by Nicolo and Murray.

Section 17(a) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a public employee from receiving compensation from anyone other than the town in relation to a particular matter in which the town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. By receiving private compensation for testing and installing water lines in North Reading, work in which the town through its inspections had an interest, Murray and Nicolo violated § 17(a).

In addition, Nicolo also violated § 23(b)(2) by, on town time and in his official uniform, telling a contractor that he could perform a water pressure test, but not on town time. Section 23(b)(2) prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his official position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals.

The Disposition Agreements state that Nicolo sought and received permission to perform private water tests in North Reading from his supervisor, but that neither Nicolo nor Murray sought advice about how performing and being paid to perform this work might violate the conflict of interest law.

"Town employees owe undivided loyalty to their town," said spokesperson Carol Carson. "Town employees may not do private work for private compensation in relation to matters in which the town has an interest."

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division issued an Order to Show Cause alleging that former Massachusetts Turnpike Authority (MTA) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Matthew Amorello violated §§ 6, 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by approving a change to the MTA sick leave buyback policy on July 26, 2006, the day the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Governor Mitt Romney could proceed with a hearing scheduled for the next day to remove Amorello as the MTA chairman. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.

According to the Order to Show Cause, from 1996 until Amorello allegedly approved the change, the sick leave buyback policy provided that non-union employees would receive 20% of the cash value of their accrued sick time upon retirement (not resignation or termination). Sometime in early 2006, Amorello directed Human Resources Director Norman Chalupka to investigate increasing the policy for non-union employees. In early July 2006, the MTA policy was changed from 20% upon retirement to 100% upon leaving the MTA for any reason. On July 26, Chalupka informed Amorello of the increase to 100%. Amorello instructed Chalupka to make the policy similar to that of other authorities like the MassPort Authority. Later that same day, Chalupka informed Amorello that he had changed the policy from 100% to 50%. Amorello allegedly approved the change. The new policy further provided that the remaining 50% of accrued sick time cash value could be used to pay medical insurance premiums once the MTA employee retired. Three of the MTA employees affected by the policy change, in addition to Amorello, were Amorello’s close senior staff who took advantage of the new policy.

The next day, July 27, Amorello signed a termination agreement with the MTA that provided him with all of the benefits that were in effect as of July 26. Amorello’s buyback benefit value is approximately $75,000. Under the 50%/50% policy, he was eligible to take 50% of the $75,000 on February 15, 2007, the last day of his MTA service according to the termination agreement and, when he retires, he can use the other 50% towards paying his health insurance premiums.

Section 6 prohibits a state employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge he has a financial interest. The Enforcement Division alleges that Amorello violated § 6 by participating in decisions involving the sick leave buyback policy that affected his financial interest. Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. The Enforcement Division alleges that Amorello violated § 23(b)(2) by securing for himself and his senior staff the increased sick leave buyback. Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties. The Enforcement Division alleges that Amorello violated § 23(b)(3) by approving the change in the buyback policy.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission issued a Disposition Agreement in which part-time Medfield Building Inspector Walter Tortorici admitted violating the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by applying for building permits and doing work in connection with those permits for private customers. Tortorici paid a civil penalty of $2,000.

According to the Disposition Agreement, on 13 occasions between February 2005 and December 2006, Tortorici ’pulled’ building permits on behalf of private customers of Design Builders of Medfield and G.T. Builders, Tortorici’s residential remodeling and addition companies. The private customers compensated him for the work performed in connection with the permits. Tortorici did not participate as building inspector in matters involving permits he pulled.

Section 17(a) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits municipal employees from otherwise than as provided by law for proper discharge of official duties directly or indirectly receiving or requesting compensation from anyone other than their city, town or municipal agency in relation to a particular matter in which the same city or town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. By receiving compensation from private customers in connection with the permits, which are matters in which the town has a direct and substantial interest, Tortorici violated § 17(a). Section 17(c) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a public employee from acting as an agent or attorney for anyone other than the town in connection with a particular matter in which the town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. By applying on behalf of his private customers for permits, Tortorici violated § 17(c).

A local option law enabling part-time building inspectors to do private construction work in their jurisdiction under certain conditions was not in effect in Medfield in 2005 and 2006. The town adopted this law in April 2007.

"Town employees owe undivided loyalty to the town that employs them,"said Commission spokesperson Carol Carson. "The conflict of interest law seeks to prevent divided loyalties which might result if a employee attempts to serve two masters - the town and a private customer - with different or conflicting interests."

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission approved a Disposition Agreement in which Rutland Department of Public Works (DPW) supervisor Carl G. Christianson, Jr. paid a penalty of $5,000 for violating the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by participating in the hiring of his son without following standard hiring procedures and then attempting to cover up his actions.

According to a Disposition Agreement , in September 2006, an opening for a full-time operator/laborer occurred in the DPW sewer department. The standard hiring process, which includes publicly advertising the open position and interviewing candidates, was not followed. Instead, Christianson recommended to selectmen that his son be appointed to the position. Selectmen were aware that Christianson was recommending his son but were not aware that the standard hiring process had not occurred. They voted to approve Christianson’s recommendation to hire his son on October 10, 2006.

In January 2007, after the Commission’s Enforcement Division staff made inquiries to Christianson about the hiring and requested relevant documents, Christianson used a DPW computer to create a posting for the position. The Disposition Agreement states, "In an attempt to thwart the Commission’s investigation, Christianson had a copy of the fraudulent posting forwarded to the Commission." He later admitted that he created the posting after the hiring in order to cover up the fact that proper procedures had not been followed.

Section 19 of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge an immediate family member has a financial interest. By recommending that his son be hired for the operator/laborer position, Christianson violated § 19. Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or another an unwarranted privilege of substantial value that is not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By failing to follow standard hiring procedures and by attempting to cover up his failure to follow such procedures, Christianson violated § 23.

"Public employees are required to make personnel decisions on an objective basis after a fair and open process," said Commission spokesperson Carol Carson.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission issued two Disposition Agreements in which Wellfleet Department of Public Works (DPW) Director Mark Vincent and Assistant Director Kevin Cahoon were each fined $500 for Cahoon’s personal use of town equipment.

According to the Disposition Agreement, Vincent allowed Cahoon to take a DPW wood chipper to his home and use it for tree-clearing work. Cahoon had the chipper at his home from October 2006 until he returned it following questions by the Wellfleet police in April 2007. Cahoon has since resigned his position with the Wellfleet DPW.

Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By allowing Cahoon to take possession of and use the chipper without following the required disposal procedures, Vincent violated this section of the law. By taking possession of the chipper and using it for personal purposes, Cahoon also violated this section of the law.

"Public tools and equipment are for public use," said Commission spokesperson Carol Carson. "Public employees, like all citizens, must purchase their own equipment for personal use."

The Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission issued an Order to Show Cause alleging that former Rockland Conservation Commissioner Kenneth Karlson violated M.G.L. c. 268A, the conflict of interest law, by receiving $10,000 as compensation for excavation work Karlson had previously approved as a Conservation Commissioner. A public hearing will be held within 90 days.

According to the Order to Show Cause, Karlson, who served as a Conservation Commissioner from 2003 until May 2005, was hired in spring 2005 by developer Paul Cokinos to perform excavation work on a construction project at the Massachusetts Sports Club. In summer 2004, Karlson participated as a Conservation Commission member in the issuance of an order of conditions for the project that included the grading work that he later performed, the Order to Show Cause alleges.

Section 17(a) of the conflict law prohibits a municipal employee receiving compensation in relation to particular matters in which the town has an interest. The Order to Show Cause alleges that the Conservation Commission’s decision concerning the grading requirements on the project was a particular matter in which the town of Rockland had a direct and substantial interest.

The Commission has the authority to impose civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation.

In June 2007, Cokinos signed a Disposition Agreement with the State Ethics Commission in which he admitted violating M.G.L. c. 268A, §17(b) of the state’s conflict of interest law by paying Karlson to perform the excavation work. Cokinos paid a civil penalty of $2,000.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission fined Westborough State Hospital Director of Facilities Maintenance and Engineering Francis Marchand $1,000 for violating the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by participating in hiring his brother-in-law as a carpenter earning $33,000 per year.

According to the Disposition Agreement, in October 2006, the hospital posted an opening for a carpenter. Marchand’s brother-in-law (his wife’s sister’s husband) was an applicant. Marchand reviewed applicants’ resumes and, serving on a five member panel, participated in interviewing and grading each candidate. Based on this process, Marchand’s supervisor, who also sat on the panel, recommended that the brother-in-law be hired.

Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties. By participating in the hiring process where his brother-in-law was a candidate, Marchand violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(3). Marchand could have avoided violating §23(b)(3) by making an advance written disclosure that one of the candidates was his brother-in-law. He did not make such a disclosure.

"Public employees must disclose the personal and private connections they have with candidates for jobs so that all of the decision makers are aware of the relationships before any action is taken," said spokesperson Carol Carson.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission issued a Disposition Agreement in which North Attleborough Electrical Inspector Paul LaFratta admitted violating the state’s conflict of interest law and agreed to pay a fine of $3,000 for approving six permit applications sought by LaFratta Electric, Inc., a company owned by LaFratta and his son Michael.

According to the Disposition Agreement, LaFratta and Michael applied for electrical permits to do private electrical work on six occasions in 2005 and 2006. LaFratta approved the applications. The Disposition Agreement states that the Commission is not aware of any evidence that Michael or LaFratta Electric would not have otherwise been entitled to have the applications approved, that LaFratta inspected or approved any of the electrical work performed by Michael or LaFratta Electric or that the electrical work performed by Michael or LaFratta Electric did not comply with applicable codes.

Section 19 of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge he, his immediate family or a business in which he is serving as an owner or employee has a financial interest. By participating as an electrical inspector in approving the applications of his company, LaFratta Electric, Inc., and/or his son Michael, LaFratta participated in matters affecting their financial interests.

"The conflict of interest law requires inspectors to steer clear of matters in which they have private interests," said spokesperson Carol Carson. "This marks the eleventh time since 2000 that the Commission has fined municipal inspectors for their involvement in permits involving family members or private businesses with which they are associated."

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission fined Lawrence police patrolman Albert Inostroza $2,000 for violating the state’s conflict of interest law by failing to promptly report that a friend’s daughter had a gun.

According to the Disposition Agreement on July 29, 2006, a friend asked Inostroza, who was off duty, to come to his home because the friend and his wife discovered a .22-caliber revolver in the bedroom of their 17-year-old daughter. Inostroza took possession of the gun. The friend asked him to delay reporting the gun until the friend and his wife had a chance to talk further with their daughter. Possession of a firearm without an identification card has penalties of up to two years in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. Police officers are required to promptly report all important happenings which come to their attention, whether on or off-duty. On August 7, 2006, hours after the police department’s internal affairs division learned about the gun through a confidential informant and began an investigation, Inostroza filed a police report concerning the gun and submitted the gun to the evidence officer.

Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law, G.L. c. 268A, prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By failing to promptly report the gun, Inostroza violated § 23(b)(2).

Inostroza was suspended for 10 days by the police department.

"Law enforcement officials may not pick and choose when to file reports, particularly when friends are involved," said spokesperson Carol Carson. "Standard procedures must be followed to ensure fairness and protect public safety."

Hingham Recreation Commissioner Thomas Campbell admitted violating the state’s conflict of interest law by repeatedly requesting that his daughter, a part-time seasonal employee of the Recreation Commission, be given additional hours. Campbell paid a civil penalty of $2,000.

According to the Disposition Agreement, between April 2004 and early 2005, Campbell asked Hingham Recreation Program Coordinator Ted Carroll on a number of occasions if he had any additional hours to give Campbell’s daughter. Carroll gave Campbell’s daughter an additional weekly shift as a result of Campbell’s requests. Carroll would not have given her additional work had Campbell not used his official position to ask him to do so. Campbell’s daughter was paid $7.85 per hour and earned a total of approximately $1,715 while employed by the Recreation Commission.

Section 19 prohibits a municipal employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge his immediate family has a financial interest. Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By asking Carroll if he had additional hours to give to his daughter, Campbell violated G.L. c. 268A, §§ 19 and 23(b)(2).

"An elected official is prohibited from asking an employee to take actions that will financially benefit a family member," said spokesperson Carol Carson. "Such a request by a superior to a subordinate is inherently coercive."

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission approved a settlement in which former Lowell Regional Water Utility Executive Director Edmund F. Tarmey paid a penalty of $2,500 for violating the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by acting on two contracts to purchase furniture from Allied Office Products (Allied), a company that employed his brother Leonard as a commissioned sales person. This resolution concludes the public hearing in this matter.

According to a Disposition Agreement, in 2001 and 2002 Allied sold office furniture to the Water Utility on two occasions. The total value of the furniture was approximately $26,000. Tarmey participated in the purchases by certifying Allied’s performance of each contract. The certification was necessary for Allied to receive payment. Leonard earned commissions on both contracts.

Section 19 of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge an immediate family member has a financial interest. By certifying Allied’s performance when he knew that his brother was Allied’s commissioned sales representative for the contracts, Tarmey violated §19.

"The purpose of the conflict of interest law is to prevent conflicts or the appearance of impropriety that can arise whenever a public official’s personal loyalty to a family member competes with the public interest that objective decisions be made," said Executive Director Peter Sturges.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission approved a joint motion to dismiss charges that Abington Treasurer/Collector Paul Donlan violated the state’s conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by completing forms that allowed Thomas Connolly, a former friend and Donlan’s predecessor as Treasurer/Collector, to collect unemployment benefits.

The Commission had charged that Donlan had violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties.

The parties recently discovered evidence indicating that the Division of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) mistakenly permitted Connolly to file a claim despite the fact that, under state law, elected employees are ineligible to receive unemployment compensation. In view of this newly discovered evidence, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the charges that Donlan violated G.L. c. 268A §23(b)(2).

The motion to dismiss concluded that the facts support the conclusion that Donlan created the appearance of a conflict of interest in violation of G.L. c. 268A §23(b)(3) by participating in approving Connolly’s unemployment claim, given their previous relationship, but that this appearance of a conflict of interest alone was not sufficient to warrant a fine. The Commission allowed the joint motion, dismissing the charges against Donlan.

"The Enforcement Division is responsible for prosecuting violations of the law vigorously and fairly," said Executive Director Peter Sturges. "When new evidence was discovered, the Enforcement Division took the right step by filing a motion to have the case dismissed in order to ensure that Mr. Donlan was treated justly."

According to the Disposition Agreement, during the 2005 and 2006 tax seasons, Lynch prepared the majority of his approximately 200 clients’ tax returns using his Massport office computer and office facilities. Between February and April each year, he spent approximately 12 hours each week after his state work hours on this private tax work.

Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By extensively using state resources for his private tax preparation business, Lynch violated § 23(b)(2).

After an investigation, Massport suspended Lynch one week for his inappropriate computer usage.

"Like any other business owner, a public employee should conduct private business using private, not state, resources," said Executive Director Peter Sturges.

According to the Disposition Agreement, Cokinos, a resident of Dedham, violated G.L. c. 268A, § 17(b) by, in spring 2005, paying Rockland Conservation Commissioner Kenneth Karlson $10,000 to perform excavation work on a construction project at the Massachusetts Sports Club. In summer 2004, Karlson participated as a Conservation Commission member in the issuance of an order of conditions for the project that included the grading that he later performed. Karlson served as a Conservation Commissioner until May 2005.

Section 17(b) of the conflict law prohibits anyone from compensating a municipal employee in relation to particular matters in which the town has an interest. The Conservation Commission’s decision concerning the grading requirements on the project was a particular matter in which the town of Rockland had a direct and substantial interest.

"In prohibiting anyone from paying a municipal employee in connection with matters of interest to the town, the conflict of interest law seeks to prevent situations where town officials are or appear to be making decisions that will benefit them personally in the future," said Executive Director Peter Sturges.

The proposed regulations will include exemptions related to public employees receiving gifts, benefits and payments of travel and admissions; state employees receiving payments from the Department of Social Services; and public employees participating in and disclosing interests in school fees.

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission issued a Disposition Agreement in which Leominster Building Department Director of Inspections Edward Cataldo admitted violating the state’s conflict of interest law and agreed to pay a fine of $3,300, made up of a $3,000 civil penalty and a $300 civil forfeiture.

According to the Disposition Agreement, Cataldo has a private business, Energy Plus. In 2001 and 2002, he advertised his private business through a flier taped to the Building Department front counter. The flier was also distributed to permit applicants. On six occasions, Cataldo produced energy code audit reports for private clients of his business. Cataldo’s clients submitted the reports produced by Cataldo to the building department along with building permit applications. Such reports are required as part of the local building permit process and were reviewed by a building inspector prior to issuing a building permit. Cataldo earned $50 for each report. In one instance, Cataldo, as Director of Inspections, reviewed an energy code audit report that he had been paid privately to produce.

Section 17(a) of the conflict law prohibits a municipal employee from receiving compensation from anyone other than the town in relation to particular matters in which the city has an interest. By receiving compensation from his clients for energy code audit reports that were then submitted with building permits, Cataldo violated this section of the law.

Section 19 of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge, he or a business organization in which he is serving as an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee has a financial interest. By reviewing the energy code audit report that he had been paid privately to produce, Cataldo violated § 19.

Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By using his position to advertise his private business, Cataldo violated§ 23(b)(2).

"The conflict of interest law was enacted to prohibit public officials from mixing their public duties with their private interests," said Executive Director Peter Sturges. "This includes using a public position to drum up business for a private company, reviewing matters in which the public official has an interest and attempting to serve ’two masters,’ one private and the other one public."

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission fined Braintree Building Inspector Robert Galewski $4,000 and required him to pay a civil forfeiture of $1,500, representing the unjust enrichment he received, for violating the state’s conflict of interest law, M.G.L. c. 268A, by using his subordinates and a vendor to perform private work for him without pay.

According to the Disposition Agreement, in March 2001, Galewski asked local general contractor Brian McGourty to replace the mailbox at Galewski’s personal residence. The total cost for labor and materials was approximately $285. Galewski did not compensate McGourty for the labor or materials. In addition, on numerous occasions between 2001 and 2006, McGourty or one of his employees plowed snow from Galewski’s driveway. The usual rate for driveway snowplowing is $35-50 per job. Galewski did not compensate McGourty for the snowplowing. Between 2002 and 2006, Galewski issued building permits and conducted inspections on projects of McGourty, including a 2004 plan for a $1 million building project in which Galewski requested deferral of Planning Board approval until certain outstanding Building Department concerns were resolved.

The Disposition Agreement also discusses Galewski’s solicitation of subordinate inspector Michael McGourty (the brother of Brian McGourty) to help transport a dishwasher from a department store to Galewski’s personal residence in 2005 and subordinate inspector Eric Erskine to plow Galewski’s driveway on numerous occasions between 2001 and 2006. Galewski did not compensate Michael McGourty; he gave Erskine a bottle of liquor and two $50 gift certificates in appreciation of his services. According to the Disposition Agreement, Galewski "was in a position to exercise discretion over supervisory matters involving Michael McGourty and Erskine as his Building Department employees."

Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By using his Building Inspector position to get free services from subordinates and a vendor, Galewski violated § 23.

"Public officials in positions of power may not use their position for personal gain," said Executive Director Peter Sturges. "Like any other citizen, public officials should pay for the services they receive."

According to the Order to Show Cause, Speranza sought advice from the Ethics Commission on October 5, 2006 as to whether he could act as a private attorney on behalf of a group of town residents who wanted to file a suit against the town regarding the Community Preservation Committee’s purchase of a certain parcel of open space. An Ethics Commission attorney advised Speranza that § 17 of the conflict of interest law prohibited him from so acting.

Section 17(c) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a public employee from acting as an agent or attorney for anyone other than the town in connection with a particular matter in which the town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.

On October 12, 2006, Speranza sent a letter to the Commission stating he planned to file the suit notwithstanding the advice he received. Between October 12 and November 28, 2006, Speranza, on behalf of the group of town residents:

• filed a "Petition Under M.G.L. c. 40, § 53 to Restrain Illegal Appropriations" against the town and obtained a temporary restraining order;
• signed a stipulation agreement in regard to the temporary restraining order;
• filed a memorandum in support of continuing the injunction; and
• after the Court denied the preliminary injunction, signed and filed a stipulation of dismissal of the law suit.

According to the Order to Show Cause, in November 2005, Smith used a valet service operated by VPNE Parking Solutions, LLC (VPNE) to park his car, a 2003 Nissan Maxima, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. When the valet returned the car, Smith pointed out that there was a long scratch from the front side door to the back door. The valet denied that the damage happened at the garage and Smith asked to see a supervisor. Two VPNE managers were called to the scene. They examined Smith’s car and told Smith there appeared to be rust in one part of the scratch indicating the scratch was preexisting. They advised Smith to contact his insurance company and have its adjusters look at the damage and contact VPNE. Smith became agitated and repeatedly told the managers that he was "on the city council" and was "cognizant" of the parking issues in the area. Based on Smith’s statements, the managers believed that Smith was a city councilor and that he could take actions that could impact VPNE and/or Brigham & Women’s Hospital.

Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By invoking his city council position and the powers associated with the city council during the negotiations concerning a damage claim involving his car, Smith violated this section of the law.

According to a Disposition Agreement, in February 2006, a Civil Engineer II position was posted. Hoey’s son was one of 14 applicants that met the minimum requirements of the position. Hoey did not disclose to his appointing authority that his son, who was currently working as a Civil Engineer I, was a candidate for the position. Hoey chaired the job search committee, selected two subordinates to serve on the committee with him, determined which questions to include in a written civil service test and proctored the exam. He and the other two committee members individually scored the tests; scores were combined to arrive at an overall score for each candidate. Hoey’s son scored second highest on the test. Hoey forwarded the scores of the top 12 candidates to the appointing authority. The candidate who scored first accepted the position.

MassHighway had been prepared to promote three people from the posting but after learning of Hoey’s participation in the matter decided not to use the results for subsequent hirings. In addition, MassHighway removed Hoey from the acting DME position and returned him to the civil engineer position he had previously held.

Section 6 of the conflict law prohibits a state employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge an immediate family member has a financial interest. By participating in the promotion process where his son was an applicant, Hoey violated § 6.

"The purpose of the nepotism section of the conflict of interest law is to prevent both the actuality and the appearance that a state employee is making decisions because of family ties rather than the interests of the state," said Executive Director Peter Sturges. "It requires state employees to notify their appointing authority in writing when matters involving a family member are assigned to them. Unless and until the appointing authority determines the state employee should participate, the state employee must abstain."

According to the Disposition Agreement, in spring 2004 the Lancaster BOH was unsuccessful in finding a vendor to mow the town’s landfill. Failure to mow it could result in fines by the Department of Environmental Protection. Baylis and Winsor decided to mow the landfill themselves. On June 3, Winsor and another BOH member signed a blank voucher authorizing payment for mowing the landfill. Neither the vendor’s name nor the amount of the payment was included in the voucher. On June 25, Winsor submitted an invoice from Bowen Landscaping, a company he owned, in the amount of $4,890. A vendor would usually submit an invoice for work that had already been performed; the landfill was not yet mowed on June 25. The BOH assistant entered ’Bowen Landscaping’ and the amount on the blank voucher.

The town issued a check on July 15. Winsor had the BOH hold the check until August 14, when Baylis, using his own tractor, and Winsor, using a tractor rented by Baylis, mowed the landfill. Winsor then cashed the check from the town for $4,890, paid the $388 cost of the rental tractor, gave approximately $1,800 to Baylis and kept approximately $2,700.

Section 19 of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge he has a financial interest. By awarding a contract from which they were to be paid, Winsor and Baylis violated § 19. Winsor also violated § 19 by approving a blank voucher authorizing payment to his company. Section 20 prohibits a municipal employee from having a financial interest in a contract made by the municipality. By receiving pay for mowing the landfill, Winsor and Baylis had a financial interest in a contract with the town and violated § 20. Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. By using his position to improperly secure a $4,890 contract, Winsor violated § 23(b)(2).

"Citizens expect their town officials to act without bias and in the best interest of the town," said Executive Director Peter Sturges. "When those officials give themselves contracts, even if they perform the work, citizens cannot be certain that the best interest of the town was considered or met."

Under the law, employees designated to be in major policy-making positions were required to file their statements of financial interests (SFI’s) by May 1, 2007. Those who did not were sent a formal notice of lateness requiring them to file within ten days or face civil penalties. These penalties for late submission are imposed according to the following schedule:

• 1-10 days delinquent:     $50 
• 11-21 days delinquent:   $100 
• 21-30 days delinquent:   $200 
• 31 days or more:            $500 

For the repeated late submission of an SFI, fines are doubled. Fourteen of the individuals sent formal notices of lateness this year also missed the filing deadline last year. The non-filing of an SFI may result in a $2,000 penalty. In addition, a public employee who has not filed an SFI as required may not continue in his duties or receive compensation.

"What began in 1978 as one of the Commission’s major activities has become a routine matter and an accepted requirement of public life for those employees who must file," said Peter Sturges, Executive Director of the Commission. "The high rate of compliance can be credited to two factors. First, the Commission receives the cooperation and support of heads and liaisons of state and county agencies across the state. Second, almost all public employees understand and take seriously their duty to file."

Statements are available upon the written request of any individual for public inspection and copying at the Commission’s office, Room 619, One Ashburton Place, Boston. By regulation, requests will be honored only if accompanied by proof of a requesting individual’s identity. The statute requires the Commission to forward a copy of such request to the individual whose Statement has been examined.

Elected officials are required to file their Statements by Tuesday, May 29, 2007.

According to the Order to Show Cause, in 2001 Allied sold office furniture to the Water Utility on two occasions. Tarmey participated in the bid process by developing the Requests for Quotes and selecting the winning bids. The first contract was for $15,660 and the second was for $10,410; both were for an office upgrade project. Allied was the lowest bidder both times. Allegedly, Tarmey allowed Allied to resubmit bids after the initial bids were reviewed.

Section 19 of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from officially participating in matters in which to his knowledge an immediate family member has a financial interest. By participating in the bids, Tarmey allegedly violated § 19. Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. Section 23(b)(3) prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of her official duties. By deviating from the standard procedure and allowing Allied to resubmit lower bids after the initial bids were received, Tarmey violated these sections of the law.

According to the Order to Show Cause, the Board of Governors is the appointing authority for the College president. In spring 2003 Piatelli asked the College president to hire her brother for an entry level staff specialist position in the Enrollment Services Department at a salary of $32,000. The hiring manager and search committee did not choose Piatelli’s brother for an interview because they determined he was not qualified. When the president intervened, the brother was interviewed. The committee did not select the brother to be hired; however, the president hired the brother on May 2, 2003. Two months after his hiring, Piatelli’s brother was transferred from the College’s main Quincy campus to the Plymouth campus. He wanted to return to the Quincy campus. Piatelli repeatedly asked the president and vice president to transfer him back. She also advocated that her brother be considered for a new position the president created at a pay increase of approximately $1,500. In April 2005, the president transferred the brother back to Quincy and into the new position.

Section