| Date: | 03/12/1984 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
A county employee may work for his wife's cleaning company under a contract with a district court. The contract would not violate §14 because it is a particular matter to which a state, rather than a county agency, is a party. Likewise, the contract would not violate §11 because it is not a matter of direct and substantial interest to the county.
You are a full-time employee of ABC county (ABC), and as such, participate in building maintenance and security for ABC owned facilities. You are also an employee from time to time for the DEF Company (DEF), a cleaning service in which your spouse1/ is a partner, and which has contracts in the private sector. In 1983, the Trial Court of the Commonwealth entered into a long-term lease with a developer for occupancy by a District Court, scheduled for occupancy in 1984. Although you were not involved in the lease arrangements, you were asked by the then Presiding Judge to give the court volunteer technical assistance in preparing them to move into new quarters.
Does G. L. c. 268A permit you or your spouse's company to make a proposal to the developer to manage and/or provide cleaning services to their tenants, including District Court?
Yes.
As a full-time employee of ABC county, you are a county employee as that term is defined in G. L. c. 268A, §1(d). Section 11 of chapter 268A prohibits a county employee, otherwise than as provided for the proper discharge of official duties, from receiving compensation from, or acting as agent or attorney for any non-county party in relation to a particular matter in which the county or a county agency is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. While the contract for cleaning services with the developer would be a particular matter under G. L. c. 268A, §1(k), that contract would not be a matter in which the county is either a party or has a direct and substantial interest.
Likewise, your cleaning services proposal would be allowed under G. L. c. 268A, §14, which prohibits county employees from having a direct or indirect financial interest in a contract made by the county in which the county is an interested party. By virtue of St. 1978, c. 478, the District Court is now considered a state agency; thus the courthouse property is leased by a state agency rather than a county agency. Moreover, you state that the cleaning services contract would be entered into with the developer, pursuant to the lease. Inasmuch as the county would be neither a party to the contract nor have any involvement with the District Court in general, the contracting agency would be the Commonwealth and not the county. You would therefore not be prohibited by §14 from contracting with the developer to provide cleaning services for its tenants, including the District Court.
End of Decision
DATE AUTHORIZED: March 12, 1984
