Settlement  Disposition Agreement in the Matter of Christopher Vincent

Date:	12/03/2024
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	24-0027
Referenced Sources:	G.L. c. 268A, the Conflict of Interest Law, as Amended by c. 248, Acts of 2024

Disposition Agreement

The State Ethics Commission (“Commission”) and Christopher Vincent (“Vincent”) enter into this Disposition Agreement pursuant to Section 3 of the Commission’s Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented-to final order enforceable in the Superior Court, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, § 4(j).

On July 20, 2023, the Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, § 4(a), into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by Vincent. On March 21, 2024, the Commission concluded its inquiry and found reasonable cause to believe that Vincent violated G.L. c. 268A, §§ 19 and 23(b)(2)(ii).

The Commission and Vincent now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

1. At all relevant times, Vincent was the Foreman of the Operations and Maintenance Department (“O&M”) of the Town of Carver (“Town”).
2. As O&M Foreman, Vincent supervises the O&M laborers, mechanics, truck drivers and heavy equipment operators and gives them their daily work assignments.
3. As Foreman, Vincent works independently but also recommends O&M projects to his direct supervisor, the O&M Deputy Director.
4. The Carver Town Administrator is Vincent’s appointing authority.
5. Prior to January 2023, there was a fence made of wooden telephone poles (“original fence”) on Vincent’s private property in Carver.
6. Initially, the original fence was located along Vincent’s driveway and along the front of Vincent’s private property adjacent to a public way. Approximately two thirds of the running length of the fence was on an area of Vincent’s property which is subject to an easement taken by the county for the adjacent public way.
7. Between 2014 and 2019, Vincent moved sections of the original fence from along his driveway, and installed them as a barrier along an access road leading to his cranberry bog in order to prevent motorists from turning onto his private property.
8. On May 31 and June 1, 2022, Vincent as Foreman managed an O&M project to replace a fence, similar to the original fence on Vincent’s private property, at the site of the Town’s recreational ball fields.
9. Thereafter, Vincent informed the O&M Deputy Director that the original fence on Vincent’s private property was deteriorating and recommended that the O&M also replace the fence on Vincent’s private property. The O&M Deputy Director agreed with Vincent’s recommendation.
10. Vincent’s appointing authority, the Town Administrator, was unaware of the decision to replace the original fence on Vincent’s property.
11. On or about January 3, 2023, Vincent directed two O&M employees to replace the original fence on Vincent’s private property.
12. On their Town work time, the two O&M employees loaded and transported Town-owned new pressure-treated wood and other materials, worth over $500, from the O&M shop to Vincent’s private property using a Town truck. They then unloaded the wood and other materials.
13. On their Town work time and using Town equipment, the two O&M employees prepped for installation of the new fence by removing the original fence, filling the old holes and digging new ones. They then transported the debris of the original fence in a Town truck to the O&M shop.  

14. On January 4, 2023, during their Town work time and using Town equipment, the two O&M employees installed the new fence on Vincent’s private property. The fence replacement occurred over approximately one and a half Town workdays for both employees. Based on their salaries, the combined value of the two O&M employee’s Town work time was approximately $573.

    Conclusions of Law

    Section 23(b)(2)(ii)

15. Section 23(b)(2)(ii) prohibits a public employee from knowingly, or with reason to know, using or attempting to use their official position to secure for themselves or others an unwarranted privilege or exemption of substantial value,[1] which is not properly available to similarly situated individuals.
16. The O&M is a municipal agency as defined by G.L. c. 268A, § 1(f). As O&M Foreman, Vincent was at all relevant times an employee of a municipal agency within the meaning of § 23(b)(2)(ii), and a municipal employee as defined by G.L. c. 268A, § 1(g).
17. The use of Town resources, including Town equipment and Town employee work time, to prepare for the installation of the new fence on Vincent’s private property, including removing the original fence, filling the old holes and digging new ones, was an unwarranted privilege because it served a private, not public, purpose.
18. The use of Town resources to load and transport Town-owned new pressure-treated wood and other materials from the O&M shop to Vincent’s private property, including Town employee work time and Town equipment, was an unwarranted privilege because it served a private, not public, purpose.
19. The use of Town resources, including Town employee work time, equipment and the Town-owned new pressure-treated wood and other materials, to install the new fence on Vincent’s private property, was an unwarranted privilege because it served a private, not public, purpose.
20. Vincent knowingly used his O&M Foreman position to request  the use of Town resources to replace the original fence on his private property.
21. Vincent’s request for the use of Town resources for this non-public purpose secured an unwarranted privilege for Vincent because the fence replacement was not approved by the Town Administrator, was not within the scope of O&M’s approved operations, and did not further the public interest, but was solely for Vincent’s private benefit.
22. The Town resources used replace the original fence on Vincent’s property, including the Town’s materials, equipment, and employees on their Town work time, were of substantial value, worth over $1,000, and not properly available to similarly situated individuals, that is, other Town residents wishing to have a fence replaced on their private property.

23. Thus, by, as O&M Foreman, using Town resources to replace the fence on his private property, Vincent knowingly used his official position to secure for himself unwarranted privileges of substantial value that were not properly available to similarly situated individuals. In so doing, Vincent violated § 23(b)(2)(ii).

    Section 19

24. Section 19, in relevant part, prohibits a municipal employee from participating as such an employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge he has a financial interest.
25. The decision to have the O&M replace the original fence on Vincent’s private property using public resources was a particular matter.
26. Vincent participated in that decision and particular matter as O&M Foreman by recommending replacement of the original fence to the O&M Director and by directing his O&M subordinates to replace the fence.
27. Vincent had a financial interest in his private property. Vincent thus had a financial interest in the decision to have the O&M replace the original fence on his private property using public resources, of which he had knowledge, because it was a free improvement to his private property.
28. Vincent also had to his knowledge a financial interest in the decision to have the O&M replace the original fence on his private property using public resources because having the O&M do the work saved him from having to pay for the labor and materials to replace the fence himself.

29. By, as O&M Foreman, participating in the decision to replace the original fence on his private property, Vincent participated as a municipal employee in a particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he had a financial interest. In so doing, Vincent violated § 19.

    Disposition

In view of the foregoing violations of G.L. c. 268A by Vincent, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be served by the disposition of this matter without further enforcement proceedings, on the following terms and conditions agreed to by Vincent:

1. that Vincent pay to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with such payment to be delivered to the Commission, the sum of $10,000 as a civil penalty for repeatedly violating G.L. c. 268A, §§ 19 and 23(b)(2)(ii); and
2. that Vincent waive all rights to contest, in this or any other administrative or judicial proceeding to which the Commission is or may be a party, the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.

By signing below, Vincent acknowledges that he has personally read this Disposition Agreement, that it is a public document, and that he agrees to its terms and conditions.

STATE ETHICS COMMISSION

[1] “Substantial value” is $50 or more. 930 CMR 5.05