Middlesex Sheriff’s Office—A Review of Healthcare and Inmate Deaths - Finding 2

The Middlesex Sheriff’s Office did not have documented policies or procedures regarding employee settlement agreements and supporting records, as would be best practice.

Overview

We found that MSO properly reported all instances of employee settlement agreements to the Office of the Comptroller of the Commonwealth (CTR). However, during the audit, MSO told us that it had an undocumented process to handle employee settlement agreements. We consider written policies to be best practice. We believe such policies and procedures should apply to the review, approval, processing, and reporting of employee settlement agreements, including the use of any non-disclosure, non-disparagement, or similarly restrictive clauses.

The table below summarizes the dates, amounts, and payment methods (through CTR’s Settlement and Judgment Reserve Fund or through MSO’s operational budget), where applicable, of the 32 employee settlement agreements that MSO entered into during the extended audit period, July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2023.

Were Allegations Specified in the Agreement?	Settlement Date	Amount	Method of Payment	Did the Agreement Include Non-disclosure, Non-disparagement, or Similarly Restrictive Clauses?
Yes*	July 27, 2018	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	August 6, 2018	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes**	September 11, 2018	$25,000	CTR	No
Yes*	September 26, 2018	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	November 23, 2018	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	December 19, 2018	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	April 9, 2019	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	April 12, 2019	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	August 27, 2019	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	September 3, 2019	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes**	September 12, 2019	$5,000	MSO	No
Yes*	October 10, 2019	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	November 14, 2019	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	November 27, 2019	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	December 10, 2019	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	February 25, 2020	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	February 27, 2020	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	June 26, 2020	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	July 2, 2020	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	July 6, 2020	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes**	February 22, 2021	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes*	March 25, 2021	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes**	May 14, 2021	$30,000	MSO	No
Yes*	July 19, 2021	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes**	September 24, 2021	$2,077,325	CTR	Yes
Yes**	November 30, 2021	$464	MSO	No
Yes*	February 9, 2022	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes**	March 31, 2022	$2,500	CTR	No
Yes**	July 19, 2022	$2,162	MSO	No
Yes*	August 16, 2022	Nonmonetary	N/A	No
Yes**	December 22, 2022	$40,000	CTR	No
Yes*	March 21, 2023	Nonmonetary	N/A	No

*    The settlement was related to a general human resources issue (e.g., written warnings issued to the employee because of alleged performance issues).

**  The settlement was related to an employment action (e.g., an employee grievance regarding labor-related matters).

A documented and written process to handle employee settlement agreements, especially for those containing non-disclosure, non-disparagement, or similarly restrictive clauses, can help ensure that employee settlements are handled in an ethical, legal, and appropriate manner.

Authoritative Guidance

According to 815 CMR 5.09,

1. Responsibility of assigned attorney or staff person: Preparation of Reports. When litigation involving a monetary claim against the Commonwealth covered by these [regulations] terminates in a final Settlement or judgment with regard to such a claim, the agency attorney or staff person assigned to handle or monitor the claim shall do the following:
   1. Prepare a report indicating:
      1. the principal amount of the settlement or judgment;
      2. the amount of any attorney’s fee award;
      3. the amount of any interest award or accrued, and whether the interest continues to accrue post-judgment;
      4. a request for payment of the amount;
      5. a description of the basis for the request, (e.g., Court order or settlement agreement); and
      6. whether the assigned attorney desires to award the payment check to the claimant;
   2. Forward the report with a copy of the settlement or judgment just described to the General Counsel of [CTR] within the time frames set forth in [Section 5.09(2) of Title 815 of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations]. . . .
2. Time for preparation of reports. The report . . . shall be sent by the agency attorney to the General Counsel of the Comptroller:
   1. if based on a settlement agreement, within 15 days of signing the final settlement papers; or
   2. if based on a judgment against the Commonwealth or any agency, within fifteen days of the Commonwealth’s decision not to appeal; or
   3. if based on a judgment against the Commonwealth or an agency, where the Commonwealth decides to take an appeal from the judgment, within fifteen days of any final order on appeal or in remand proceedings, if such remand proceedings are ordered.

The US Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, known as the Green Book, sets internal control standards for federal entities. The Green Book defines internal controls and recommends that government entities design and implement them in the following excerpt:

Internal control comprises the plans, methods, policies, and procedures used to fulfill the mission, strategic plan, goals, and objectives of the entity. Internal control serves as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets. In short, internal control helps managers achieve desired results through effective stewardship of public resources. . . . Management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. . . . Management should implement control activities through policies.

While MSO is not required to follow this policy, since it is not a federal entity, we consider it a best practice. 

Reasons for Issue

According to a hardcopy document MSO management gave to us on February 20, 2025,

[Case-by-case determinations are made] based upon a number of factors including, but not limited to applicable law, collective bargaining agreement provisions, relevant [MSO] policy and procedure, the factual basis of the claim, the nature of the claim, the type of claim, whether it is monetary or non-monetary, the amount of money settled upon, the impact to the individual and/or union as a whole.

However, we believe that adopting standardized written guidance can reduce the future risk of inconsistency, inefficiency, and noncompliance.

Recommendation

MSO should develop, document, and implement a written policy related to employee settlement agreements, including prohibiting the use of non-disclosure, non-disparagement, or similarly restrictive clauses in its agreements, as recommended in the Governor’s “Executive Department Settlement Policy,” issued January 27, 2025.

Auditee’s Response

The MSO also objects to Finding 2 being categorized as a finding, as the MSO meets the relevant criteria for employee settlement agreements. [In the “Employee Settlement Agreements” section in Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology and the introduction of Finding 2], the OSA clearly states in its finding that the MSO has met the relevant criteria for this audit objective. The OSA has acknowledged that MSO follows the relevant authoritative guidance established by the Office of the Comptroller of the Commonwealth Settlements and Judgments policy and 815 CMR 5.00. Further, the MSO’s long existing Internal Control Plan, which was submitted to the OSA at the start of the audit, already provides the additional guidance that the OSA recommends to “. . . ensure that employee settlements are handled in an ethical, legal, or appropriate manner.”

To highlight the MSO’s ethical, legal and appropriate approach to settlement agreements during the time of the audit period, five (5) unions represented approximately 533, or 86%, of the MSO’s total approximate 620 employees. Of the thirty-two (32) settlement agreements, twenty-nine (29) involved grievances covered by the collective bargaining agreements. The resolution of these agreements was negotiated directly with the employees’ Union representatives and Union counsel. These agreements were entered into with both the Union and the employees as parties. The remaining three (3) settlement agreements were negotiated with private counsel on behalf of union-represented employees. Of the thirty-two (32) settlement agreements, only one (1) included confidentiality language with the requisite legal caveats addressing necessary disclosure, which was the result of extensive negotiations with the employee’s counsel.

The MSO does not request, advocate for or demand the inclusion of non-disclosure, non-disparagement or similarly restrictive language in employee settlement agreements. Given that personnel claims involve information of a highly personal and confidential nature, it is employees and former employees, through their counsel, who sought non-disclosure/confidentiality provisions, not the MSO. When determining appropriate language for inclusion in a settlement agreement, the MSO’s policy and practice is guided by applicable law.

The OSA recommends that the MSO develop a written policy related to employee settlement agreements, including prohibiting the use of non-disclosure, non-disparagement, or similarly restrictive clauses in its agreements, as recommended by Governor Healey in her “Executive Department Settlement Policy.” It should be noted this policy was solely directed to Executive Office agencies. It should be further noted that this policy was issued by the Governor on January 27, 2025. The MSO’s audit period for employee settlements was from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2023. Therefore, it is impossible for the Governor’s policy to have served as guidance for this audit objective since it was released well over a year after the audit period.

For the aforementioned reasons, Finding 2 does not rise to the level of a finding and should be revised to a recommendation in the final audit report.

Auditor’s Reply

We acknowledge that MSO properly reported all instances of employee settlement agreements to CTR. However, MSO did not have documented policies or procedures regarding employee settlement agreements. We consider it a best practice to keep written policies, and that is the essence of this finding. MSO’s response states that “the MSO’s long existing Internal Control Plan, which was submitted to the OSA at the start of the audit, already provides the additional guidance that the OSA recommends to ‘. . . ensure that employee settlements are handled in an ethical, legal, or appropriate manner.’” MSO’s internal control plan does contain sections called “Code of Ethics” and “Legal Authority and Funding”; however, the internal control plan does not include guidance specifically related to employee settlement agreements, so MSO did not address the essence of this finding when it referenced the aforementioned sections of its internal control plan.

MSO stated in its response that it “does not request, advocate for or demand the inclusion of non-disclosure, non-disparagement or similarly restrictive language in employee settlement agreements.” We are encouraged by this and hope that MSO will consider formalizing this approach by drafting a documented policy or procedure specifically regarding employee settlement agreements.

In its response, MSO questioned the part of our recommendation regarding the Governor’s “Executive Department Settlement Policy.” MSO’s response further states that “it is impossible for the Governor’s policy to have served as guidance for this audit objective since it was released well over a year after the audit period.” We acknowledge that the Governor’s policy was issued after the audit period; however, we did not use this policy as criteria for this audit objective. Instead, this policy was included in the recommendation to be used as guidance for MSO to develop its own written policy or procedure regarding employee settlement agreements going forward.

We encourage MSO to adopt our recommendation to develop, document, and implement a written policy related to employee settlement agreements, including prohibiting the use of non-disclosure, non-disparagement, or similarly restrictive clauses in its agreements. As part of our post-audit review process, we will follow up on this matter in approximately six months.

Date published:	December 19, 2025