Ruling  Public Education Letter in the Matter of Laureen Pizzi

Date:	11/30/2023
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 Ms. Pizzi:

As you know, the State Ethics Commission (“Commission”) conducted a preliminary inquiry into whether you, while Weymouth Housing Authority (“Housing Authority”) Director of Management/Resident Services Coordinator (“Resident Services Coordinator”), violated the state conflict of interest law by securing for two of your relatives and your friend Housing Authority housing for which they were not eligible, and then managing their tenancies.

On September 21, 2023, the Commission voted to find reasonable cause to believe that your actions, as described below, violated sections 19, 23(b)(2)(ii) and 23(b)(3) of the conflict of interest law, General Laws chapter 268A, and authorized adjudicatory proceedings. The Commission further determined, however, that, rather than commencing adjudicatory proceedings against you, the public interest would be best served by issuing you this Public Education Letter publicly discussing the facts revealed by the preliminary inquiry and explaining the application of the conflict of interest law to those facts. By resolving this matter through this Public Education Letter, the Commission seeks to ensure that you and public employees in circumstances similar to those described below will have a clearer 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 Public Education Letter and that there will be no formal proceedings against you. You have chosen not to exercise your right to a public hearing before the Commission. 

Facts

As Resident Services Coordinator, you were responsible for leasing housing units ("apartments”) to tenants at Lakeview Manor, a Housing Authority complex. Your duties included screening applicants, conducting landlord verifications, and offering and leasing apartments. The eligibility and selection criteria of applicants for Housing Authority housing are governed by Department of Housing and Community Development (“DHCD”) regulations. [1]  Pursuant to DHCD regulations, a previous eviction generally renders an applicant ineligible for Housing Authority housing except as provided in the regulations.[2] One of the purposes of Housing Authority landlord verifications is to find out whether the housing applicants were evicted from their prior housing.   

On three separate occasions between 2015 and 2017, you leased apartments at Lakeview Manor to individuals with whom you had personal connections despite the fact that under DHCD regulations they were not eligible for Housing Authority housing due to their prior evictions.  You subsequently participated in the management of the Housing Authority tenancies of each of these three persons.

On May 18, 2015, you leased a Lakeview Manor apartment to an individual to whom you are related by marriage although your relative had been evicted from their prior housing and was not eligible for Housing Authority housing. During your relative’s Housing Authority tenancy, you conducted a re-examination of your relative’s annual rent, which resulted in a rent reduction. 

On June 8, 2016, you leased a Lakeview Manor apartment to a personal friend although your friend had been evicted from their prior housing and was not eligible for Housing Authority housing. In addition, you deleted Housing Authority records to which you had access as Resident Services Coordinator regarding the previous tenancy likely indicating your friend’s eviction from that tenancy for failure to pay rent. During the course of your friend’s Housing Authority tenancy, you conducted an interim rent examination, which resulted in a rent reduction. As Resident Services Coordinator, you also entered into repayment agreements with your friend for back rent due to the Housing Authority.

On October 13, 2017, you leased a Lakeview Manor apartment to your half-sibling although they had been evicted from their prior housing and were not eligible for Housing Authority housing. In addition, you did not require your half-sibling to pay any rent for the first month of their tenancy, which began mid-month, although prorated rent for the month should have been paid. Subsequently, you attempted to evict your half-sibling for failure to pay rent for their Housing Authority apartment. Although you and your half-sibling have the same father, you were not raised together and you do not have a social relationship.

Your appointing authority as Resident Services Coordinator was the Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners (“Board of Commissioners”), however, you primarily reported to and were supervised by the Executive Director of the Housing Authority. You made no written disclosures to the Board of Commissioners or to the Housing Authority Executive Director regarding your actions related to the tenancies of your half-sibling, your relative by marriage, and your friend.[3]  

You are no longer employed by the Housing Authority. Your employment there ended in June 2022, in substantial part as a consequence of your above-described actions.  

During the years 2015 through 2017, as today, there was a serious shortage of affordable housing in Eastern Massachusetts and many residents struggled to find housing for themselves and their families. The Housing Authority then, as it does now, provided eligible Massachusetts residents with the valuable opportunity to obtain safe, stable and affordable housing at rents based on their income.

Legal Discussion

As Housing Authority Resident Services Coordinator, you were a municipal employee[4] as defined by the conflict of interest law. Housing authorities are municipal agencies for conflict of interest law purposes,[5] and housing authority employees are thus municipal employees for the same purposes.

Section 19

Section 19 of the conflict of interest law prohibits a municipal employee from participating as such an employee in a particular matter[6] in which a member of the employee’s immediate family[7] has to the employee’s knowledge a financial interest.

Your half-sibling, despite your lack of a social relationship with her, is a member of your immediate family within the meaning of the conflict of interest law. The decision to lease an apartment in Lakeview Manor to your half-sibling, as well as the contract to lease the apartment, were particular matters. You knew your half-sibling had a financial interest in the lease because: (1) it provided your half-sibling with affordable housing; and (2) the lease was a legally binding contract under which your half-sibling was required to pay rent. Therefore, the Commission found reasonable cause to believe you violated § 19 by leasing a Lakeview Manor apartment to your half-sibling.

The Commission also found reasonable cause to believe that you violated § 19 when you decided to allow your half-sibling to move into Lakeview Manor without payment of any rent for the first month of the tenancy. Code of Massachusetts Regulation 760 CMR 6.05(2) states:

(a) Tenant shall pay rent monthly in advance on or before the first day of each month. Rent for any fraction of a month of occupancy at the beginning or end of the term shall be charged on a pro rata basis. …

You knew your half-sibling had a financial interest in not paying any rent for the half month of the tenancy at Lakeview Manor instead of the prorated rent that should have been paid.  

While there is an exemption from the prohibition of § 19 available to a municipal employee who makes a written disclosure to her appointing authority,[8] and receives a written determination that she may participate,[9] you did not make such a disclosure to your appointing authority, the Board of Commissioners.[10] Had you made a written disclosure regarding the particular matters and the financial interests of your half-sibling described above and had the Board of Commissioners in response provided you with a written determination authorizing you to participate in those matters despite your half-sibling’s financial interest, you could have participated in those matters without violating § 19.[11] This, however, did not happen. Accordingly, the Commission found reasonable cause to believe you violated § 19.

Section 23(b)(2)(ii)

Section 23(b)(2)(ii) 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 anyone an unwarranted privilege of substantial value that is not properly available to similarly situated individuals.[12] The Commission found reasonable cause to believe that you violated

§ 23(b)(2)(ii) when you used your official Resident Services Coordinator position to secure the opportunity to lease Housing Authority apartments for your half-sibling, relative by marriage, and your friend when they were ineligible for such housing due to their prior evictions.

The opportunity to lease a Housing Authority housing unit is a privilege. For persons like your half-sibling, your relative by marriage, and your friend who are not eligible to lease such housing, the opportunity to enter into such a lease, particularly in preference to eligible Massachusetts residents desperately in need of affordable, safe housing, is an unwarranted privilege.

This unwarranted privilege was of substantial value in two ways. First, in the extremely tight housing market of Eastern Massachusetts, which offers very few opportunities to rent safe, affordable housing, immediate access to such housing is, in and of itself, of substantial value to those needing such housing. Second, as the rent charged for Housing Authority units is income-based, leasing Housing Authority units to your friend and relatives allowed them to take advantage of significantly lower cost housing then what was available on the open rental housing market. In short, as Housing Authority tenants paying income-based rent, your relatives and friend paid substantially less for their monthly rent than they would have paid had they been able to secure comparable private housing.[13]

The Commission also found reasonable cause to believe you violated § 23(b)(2)(ii) by deleting your friend’s tenant records apparently in furtherance of securing for your friend Housing Authority housing from which your friend was disqualified due to a prior eviction.

Section 23(b)(3)

Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict of interest law prohibits a public employee from, knowingly or with reason to know, acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person who knows the relevant facts to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of her official duties. This section prohibits conduct by public employees that creates the appearance of favoritism or bias in their official actions.

By, as described above, (1) conducting a reexamination of your relative-by-marriage’s income; (2) conducting an interim examination of your friend’s income; and (3) allowing your friend to enter into a repayment plan, all while having undisclosed personal relationships with these individuals, you acted in a manner that would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to conclude that your relative by marriage and your friend could improperly influence you or unduly enjoy your favor in your performance of your official duties as Resident Services Coordinator.

While a public employee may avoid a violation of this section by timely making a written disclosure to their appointing authority of the facts that would otherwise lead a reasonable person to conclude that they are biased or unduly influenced in their official actions, you did not make such a disclosure to the Board of Commissioners regarding your above-described actions. Therefore, the Commission found reasonable cause to believe that you violated § 23(b)(3).

Disposition

Based upon its review of this matter, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be best served by the issuance of this Public Education Letter to you and that your receipt of this 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] 760 CMR 5.00 applies to all persons residing in or applying for state-aided public housing, known as St. 1948, c. 200, St. 1966, c. 705, St. 1954, c. 667 housing, with the exceptions noted in 760 CMR 5.02(2), which do not apply here.

[2] See 760 CMR 5.08(1)(a)-(k).

[3] You claim to have verbally told the Housing Authority Executive Director of your relationship with your half-sibling.

[4] A “municipal employee” is “[A] person performing services for or holding an office, position, employment or membership in a municipal agency.” G.L. c. 268A, §1(g)

[5] G.L. c. 121B, § 7

[6] “Particular matter” includes a “contract…decision, determination.” G.L. c. 268A, §1(k)

[7] “Immediate family” is defined as “the employee and his spouse, and their parents, children, brothers and sisters.” The terms “brothers and sisters” include both full and half siblings. G.L. c. 268A, §1(e)

[8] A public employee’s appointing authority is the public official or body who appointed the public employee to their position.

[9] The exemption is available if the following conditions are met:

[T]he municipal employee first advises the official responsible for appointment to his position of the nature and circumstances of the particular matter and makes full disclosure of such financial interest, and receives in advance a written determination made by that official that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the municipality may expect from the employee.

[10] Even if you had, as you claim, told the Housing Authority Executive Director of your relationship with your half sibling, you would have not satisfied the written disclosure and determination requirements for a § 19 exemption as your purported “disclosure” was not in writing, the Executive Director was not your appointing authority, and the Executive Director could not and did not make a written determination authorizing your participation.

[11] You may, however, have been subject to additional requirements. For example, 760 CMR 4.03(g) requires approval of the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development for certain housing authority employees to house immediate family. The regulation provides, “[w]henever any LHA board member, any administrative or supervisory employee or any member of the immediate family of such a board member or employee seeks admission as a tenant or seeks admission as a participant in a program administered by the LHA or seeks a transfer to a different unit, all necessary information shall be forwarded to the Department, which shall make the decision on the requested admission or transfer in accordance with applicable procedures.”

[12] Anything worth $50 or more is of substantial value within the meaning of § 23(b)(2)(ii). 930 CMR 5.05.

[13] These savings in rent were of substantial value.