Letter Ruling  Public Education Letter in the Matter of Shawn Crevier

Date:	09/25/2024
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Referenced Sources:	G.L. c. 268A, the Conflict of Interest Law, as Amended by c. 194, Acts of 2011

Public Education Letter

Dear Mr. Crevier:

As you know, the State Ethics Commission (“Commission”) conducted a preliminary inquiry into whether you violated the state conflict of interest law by using your position as the Ware Chief of Police to engage in political activity. You cooperated fully with the Commission’s investigation.

On June 20, 2024, the Commission voted to find reasonable cause to believe that you violated section 23(b)(2)(ii) of the conflict of interest law, General Laws chapter 268A, and authorized adjudicatory proceedings. Rather than initiating adjudicatory proceedings against you, however, the Commission decided to resolve this matter through this Public Education Letter because this area of the law is complex, easily misunderstood, and in need of further public clarification. The Commission expects that by resolving this matter through this Public Education Letter, you, and other public employees in similar circumstances, will have a better understanding of the conflict of interest law and how to comply with it.

The Commission and you have agreed that this matter will be resolved publicly with this educational letter and that there will be no formal proceedings against you. You have chosen not to exercise your right to a hearing before the Commission.  

The Facts

You are the Town of Ware Chief of Police. You joined the Ware Police Department (“WPD”) in 1996 and were appointed as Police Chief by the Ware Selectboard in July 2017.

In the summer of 2023, House Bill No. 4420 (H. 4420) An Act Modernizing Firearms Laws, a 140-page omnibus bill aimed at reforming the Commonwealth’s gun laws, was filed. H. 4420 came to your attention after a private organization of law enforcement officials of which you are a member sent an email to its membership on July 12, 2023, containing a summary of H. 4420 and stating the private organization’s concerns about the bill.

After you received the private organization’s email, you told a WPD administrative officer you wanted to write something public about the proposed law. The administrative officer drafted a statement, which you reviewed. You asked the officer to post the statement on the WPD’s official Facebook page, which he did on July 14, 2023.

The statement said the WPD wished to bring H. 4420, which it referred to as “the proposed anti-gun Bill,” to the public’s attention because it “has raised concerns among law-abiding citizens who value their Second Amendment rights.” The statement asserted that “the right to bear arms is a fundamental aspect of our nation’s history and an essential component of personal and collective security” and declared that as “members of the police force, [the WPD is] committed to upholding the law and defending the rights of community members.” The statement challenged the House bill’s constitutionality, declaring “A plethora of blatantly unconstitutional proposals litter this travesty of a Bill,” and decried the creation of “prohibited locations” to carry firearms, even for those who are licensed, as particularly egregious. The statement asserted, “Gun free zones have been proven to have no effect on stopping crime, in fact they embolden criminals to seek out these areas as soft targets of opportunity…This Bill does not address criminals. Rather it focuses on making criminals out of law-abiding citizens and further hampers police agencies from combating true crime.” The statement included a list of actions for its readers to take “to safeguard [their] rights” against “the proposed anti-gun Bill,” including “[s]tay connected with local gun rights organizations and be prepared to mobilize if necessary.”  The statement concluded, “We are committed to maintaining the safety and security of our community while upholding the rights enshrined in our Constitution,” and was signed “Ware PD”.

The statement as posted on July 14, 2023 included an image of the WPD letterhead and your name and title as Ware Chief of Police. The post was “shared” on Facebook about 7,600 times and was discussed on local news channels.

Later in July 2023, after learning the state Senate was working on its own bill “about gun control,” you directed the WPD administrative officer to draft another statement. At your direction, the officer posted this second statement on July 28, 2023 to the WPD Facebook page. The second posting, like the first, included an image of the WPD letterhead and referred to the Senate bill as “a SECOND potentially nefarious and unjust Bill.” It urged readers to “Remain vigilant!” and declared “We cannot allow the partisan politics and corrupt bureaucracies to curb stomp the liberties that generations before us fought so hard to preserve.” It further urged readers to “show our representatives…that we will not rest until this nauseating Bill is annihilated before it is enacted into law.” The statement further declared, “While we recognize the importance of addressing gun violence and ensuring public safety, it is essential to do so without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens.” The phrase “law-abiding citizens” apparently was a reference to gun owners who legally own guns under current laws. The posting also stated that the private organization of law enforcement officials “proudly, vigorously, and unanimously” opposed the bill.

Like the first statement, the second statement encouraged its readers to advocate against the bill including on social media, noting “Social media can be a powerful tool to raise awareness and generate support.” The statement further asserted “By continuing to oppose the anti-gun Bill and advocating for proper solutions, we can make a lasting impact on public safety without infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens.” The statement exhorted, “Let us join together to defend our Second Amendment rights and protect the Freedom that defines our Nation!” The statement concluded with the disclaimer “The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the [WPD] and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Town of Ware or any entities they represent.” This second posting was shared on Facebook about 1,400 times.

On October 11, 2023, at your request, the WPD administrative officer drafted and posted to the WPD Facebook page a third statement regarding the House bill (now H. 4090) to reform gun laws. The third statement further challenged the gun law reform proposal’s constitutionality, asserting that the proposal would erode the protections afforded by the Second Amendment and be “another step in the slow march towards complete authoritarianism.” The statement called the legislative proposal a “treasonous blow” and “seditious malarky” and claimed it would “only hinder responsible, forthright Americans from protecting their families and preserving their cherished values.” The statement declared “The line must be drawn here” and encouraged readers to advocate against the bill, including through use of social media. The statement also promoted the private organization of law enforcement officials’ opposition to the gun reform bill. This third posting, which also included an image of the WPD letterhead and the same disclaimer as the second posting, was shared on Facebook about 1,900 times.

On October 18, 2023, the House passed a version of the gun law reform bill. The next day at your request, the WPD administrative officer drafted and posted to the WPD Facebook page a fourth statement opposing the legislation. The post declared that the House “voted to ignore the United States Constitution and pass their treasonous Bill” and referred to the private law enforcement officials’ organization’s opposition to the proposed law. The post further stated that the membership of the private organization voted unanimously in opposition to the bill and believed the bill, as written, would not “protect law-abiding citizens from the criminal element.” The statement implored readers who opposed the gun reform bill to “vigorously alert your respective Senate members and voice your concerns.” This fourth post, which contained the same disclaimer as the second and third, was shared on Facebook about 1,700 times.[1]

Legal Discussion 

A. The Conflict of Interest Law

As Ware Chief of Police, you are a municipal employee. As such, you are subject to the restrictions of the state conflict of interest law, General Laws chapter 268A.

The conflict of interest law does not prohibit a municipal or other public employee from engaging in political activity in their private citizen capacity, on their own time (“off the job”), and using their own or other private resources. The law does, however, generally prohibit public employees from using public resources, such as the employee’s official job title, their employing agency’s letterhead, or the agency’s social media account, to conduct political activities. This is because these valuable public resources exist to serve the public interest and their use by anyone for a private or political purpose is generally not warranted or authorized by law.[2]

While § 23(b)(2)(ii) generally prohibits public employees from using public resources to engage in political activity, there are a few very limited exceptions to this prohibition, one of which is relevant here. Under the relevant exception, an appointed public employee in a policy-making position[3] may use public resources to engage in political activity relating to matters within the purview of their public agency that are not related to an election or ballot vote, such as, for example, activity directed at influencing governmental decision-makers regarding changes to state and local laws and regulations affecting matters for which the public employee is officially responsible. This very limited use of public resources for political activity is permitted so that public employees in policy-making positions may use their specialized knowledge and experience to help inform governmental decision-makers regarding matters within the purview of their agencies, that is matters for which they and their agencies have authority and responsibility.

Pursuant to this exception to § 23(b)(2)(ii)’s broad prohibition, you were permitted as Ware Chief of Police to make limited use of WPD public resources for certain non-election related political activity, as explained below.

B. What the conflict of interest law did not prohibit you from doing

Your position as Ware Chief of Police is an appointed policy-making municipal position. Given that municipal police departments administer and enforce certain state gun laws, changes to state gun laws may directly impact matters within the WPD’s purview. In addition, as Chief you are positioned to provide information based on facts and your professional experience and expertise to inform public discussion and legislative debate concerning proposed gun law changes.

Accordingly, the conflict of interest law did not prohibit you from using your title as Chief, the WPD Facebook page, the WPD letterhead, and WPD staff time to prepare and provide factual information[4] that could help legislators make informed, fact-based decisions about the proposed gun law reform bill to the degree that it would potentially affect matters within the purview of the WPD.[5] For example, the law did not bar you from providing legislators with facts relating to the effectiveness of gun exclusion zones or other gun control proposals. Nor did the conflict of interest law bar you from stating as WPD Chief your opposition to the bill, provided that your opposition was based on the bill’s actual potential impact on matters within the purview of the WPD, such as public safety in Ware or the WPD’s budget, and objectively verifiable facts, and not on your personal opposition to increased gun control.[6]

C. What you did that the conflict of interest law prohibited

By contrast, when as Chief you had the four statements discussed above posted on the WPD website, you used public resources to engage in political activity in a way prohibited by the conflict of interest law, for the following reasons.

First, the opinions you expressed in each of the four posted statements concerning the legality and constitutionality of the proposed gun law reform bill concerned matters clearly outside of the purview of the WPD and your responsibilities as Chief. Specifically, the constitutionality of proposed state legislation is plainly not a matter within the WPD’s purview, nor is the determination of a proposed law to be “treasonous” or “seditious.” No law, regulation or local ordinance charges the WPD, or you as Chief, with making such determinations.

Second, instead of appropriately contributing to the public discussion concerning the proposed legislation by, for example, explaining the practical impacts the gun law reforms would have on the WPD and public safety in Ware, you in effect turned the WPD Facebook page into a virtual soapbox for your personal opposition to increased gun control and a platform for other gun control opponents. For example, you called on those who “value their 2^nd Amendment rights” to oppose the bill and declared that the WPD was defending the rights of community members by opposing the bill. In short, you used the WPD Facebook page to rally political opposition to the bill based on your personal view that it would improperly limit your and other gun owners’ Second Amendment rights. In doing so, you made private political use of public resources and lent the authority and influence of your voice as Police Chief and the prestige of the WPD to the gun law reform bill’s opponents. 

Third, using public resources to promote the opinions on a matter of public policy of a private group, in this case the private organization of law enforcement officials, is similarly not a lawful use of public resources. While some of the interests of a private group may overlap with the public interest, a public official, when acting in that capacity, must act only to support the public interest. Your promotion of the private group’s opinions in opposition to the gun law reform bill in your posted statements gave the private organization of law enforcement officials the substantially valuable unwarranted privilege of using the public resources of the WPD to publicize and advance their private political agenda, which was, at the time, to defeat the bill.

D. Reasonable cause to believe that you violated the conflict of interest law

The position of municipal police chief generally commands respect and wields authority in the community as an armed enforcer of the law, and the opinion of the chief, especially on public safety issues, can have a strong impact on public opinion. This is equally, if not more the case, when the chief’s opinion is presented to the public as that of the police department itself. Accordingly, a municipal police chief’s publicly stated opinion on a contested public safety issue such as gun control is of substantial value within the meaning of the conflict of interest law. Here, your use as Chief of the WPD Facebook page to publish your opinions on the proposed gun law reform bill likely magnified their impact, given that your postings were shared on Facebook thousands of times, and increased the value of your opposition to the bill as Chief and purportedly on behalf of the WPD.           

Thus, by, as Police Chief, causing the four statements discussed above to be publicly posted on the WPD’s Facebook page, you knowingly, or with reason to know, used your official position to secure for yourself, the private organization of law enforcement officials, and/or gun control opponents generally the substantially valuable privilege of public advocacy by you as Police Chief and by the WPD in the public debate regarding the proposed gun law reform bill. This is true even though a version of the gun law reform bill ultimately became law. This valuable privilege was unwarranted and not properly available to you or to any individual or group seeking a platform to advocate for or against the proposed legislation because no law or regulation authorized your use of public resources to engage in advocacy exceeding the purview of the WPD and your responsibilities as Chief. Accordingly, the Commission voted to find reasonable cause to believe that you violated § 23(b)(2)(ii) of G.L. c. 268A.

Summary

Going forward, while you serve as Police Chief, you may, consistent with the conflict of interest law, engage in political activity in your private citizen capacity on your own private time using your own private resources. You may not, however, use public resources, including your Police Chief title and badge, the WPD Facebook page, WPD letterhead or other WPD resources, to advance your personal opinions, or the opinions of any other person or entity, on matters that are not within the purview of your public agency, the WPD. 

Disposition

The Commission is authorized to resolve violations of G.L. c. 268A with civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation, except that a civil penalty of up to $25,000 may be imposed for G.L. c. 268A, § 2 violations (bribes). Based upon its review of this matter, however, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be best served by the issuance of this educational letter in lieu of adjudicatory proceedings, and that your receipt of this Public Education Letter should be sufficient to ensure your understanding of and future compliance with the conflict of interest law.

This matter is now closed.                 

Sincerely,

David A. Wilson
Executive Director

[1] A version of the gun law reform proposal became law in 2024.

[2] Section 23(b)(2)(ii) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits public employees from knowingly, or with reason to know, using or attempting to use their official public positions to secure for themselves or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals.

[3] A “policy-making position” is one in the top management level of a governmental agency in which the holder actively participates in determining the agency’s policies or plans of action. Chief executives, town and city managers, department heads and board members are presumed to hold policy-making positions. Commission Advisory 11-1 Public Employee Political Activity.

[4] “Factual information” is information that can be objectively verified.

[5] The conflict of interest law does not define the purview of municipal police departments or the responsibilities of municipal police chiefs. The purview of municipal police departments is defined by state law and local ordinances. The official responsibility of a police chief may be defined by state statute, local ordinance or by law, or employment contract. Commission Advisory 11-1.

[6] This is not true for political activity relating to an election or other ballot vote. If a matter is a ballot question, or is slated to become a ballot question, you may not use public resources to encourage a vote in a particular way. You may, however, provide factual information in a neutral way to inform the debate. And, as indicated above, neither § 23(b)(2)(ii) nor G.L. c. 268A generally, barred you from engaging in political activity, whether election-related or non-election-related, in your capacity as a private citizen on your own private time using your own or other private resources.