Settlement  Disposition Agreement in the Matter of David Blanchette

Date:	01/11/2024
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	24-0002
Location:	Boston, MA
Referenced Sources:	G.L. c. 268A, the Conflict of Interest Law, as Amended by c. 194, Acts of 2011

Disposition Agreement

The State Ethics Commission (“Commission”) and David Blanchette (“Blanchette”) 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 September 12, 2022, 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 Blanchette. On March 23, 2023, the Commission concluded its inquiry and found reasonable cause to believe that Blanchette violated G.L. c. 268A, §§ 17(a), 19, and 23(b)(2)(ii).

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

Findings of Fact

1. Blanchette joined the City of Lawrence Fire Department (“Fire Department”) as a firefighter in 1988. He became an inspector in the Fire Department’s Fire Prevention division in September 2015.
2. Pursuant to G.L. c. 148, §§ 26F and 26F½, local fire departments must inspect all residential buildings upon sale or transfer. In Lawrence, these inspections are conducted by the Fire Prevention division and are commonly referred to as “26F inspections.” 
3. The purpose of the 26F inspection is to ensure that all smoke and carbon monoxide detectors are in the correct locations and are working properly.
4. If a property passes inspection, the Fire Department issues a certificate of compliance to the property owner. If a property does not pass inspection, the property owner must remedy the problems identified and schedule another inspection prior to their real estate closing date. A certificate of compliance is required for the closing.
5. Sellers of residential property are responsible for scheduling the 26F inspection through the Fire Department prior to their closing date. Often, the seller’s real estate agent schedules and attends the 26F inspection on the seller’s behalf.
6. During the relevant period, Blanchette was the primary fire inspector in the Fire Prevention division and conducted most 26F inspections on behalf of the Fire Department.
7.  During the relevant period, Blanchette, in his private capacity, provided paid services relating to the installation and maintenance of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors to private customers.
8.  Prior to July 2021, Blanchette conducted his private business under the name “Smoke Detector Inspector.” In July 2021, Blanchette organized J&N Fire Protection, LLC, which he solely owns and operates, and continued his private business under that name.  
9. Blanchette began doing business as Smoke Detector Inspector shortly after becoming the Fire Department’s primary Fire Prevention inspector. As he conducted 26F inspections and met local real estate agents, he saw a financial opportunity in assisting property sellers pass the required 26F inspection in the first instance to avoid the problems and costs associated with delayed closings.
10. Blanchette secured private business through local real estate agents he met during 26F inspections he conducted on behalf of the Fire Department and through word-of-mouth referrals. Real estate agents often contacted Blanchette at the Fire Department to discuss his private business services.
11. Blanchette, first through Smoke Detector Inspector and later through J&N Fire Protection, LLC, offered a private “pre-inspection” service, prior to the scheduled 26F inspection by the Fire Department.  
12. Property sellers, or more often, their real estate agents, would contact Blanchette to schedule a pre-inspection appointment with his private business after they had scheduled their 26F inspection with the Fire Department.
13. Blanchette, acting on behalf of his private business, would then “pre-inspect” the property to identify any issues that would arise during the Fire Department’s 26F inspection and prevent the owner from receiving a certificate of compliance, such as having misplaced or outdated smoke and/or carbon monoxide detectors.
14. If, during the pre-inspection, Blanchette identified any problems that would prevent a property from passing the Fire Department’s 26F inspection, and its owner from receiving a certificate of compliance, he would either install the required detectors on behalf of his private business or tell the property owner how to fix the problem themselves. In most cases, property owners hired Blanchette to install the required detectors.
15. Blanchette guaranteed that the properties would pass the Fire Department’s 26F inspection; otherwise, he would return to the property on behalf of his private company and fix any problems free of charge.
16. Blanchette privately conducted pre-inspections and/or installed smoke and carbon monoxide detectors at approximately 255 unique properties in Lawrence between 2018 and December 2021.
17. For the vast majority of the properties where he had performed services on behalf of his private business, Blanchette subsequently conducted the 26F inspection and issued a certificate of compliance in his official capacity as fire inspector for the Fire Department.
18. In at least 18 instances, Blanchette issued a certificate of compliance to a property owner for whom he had worked privately without returning to the property to conduct the 26F inspection on behalf of the Fire Department. In some cases, Blanchette provided the certificate of compliance to a real estate agent who needed it to complete a closing on time. In other cases, Blanchette simply informed his clients they need not appear for the 26F inspection.
19. Blanchette charged a fee of $50 to $75 dollars for each private pre-inspection, which he waived if he was hired to install the required detectors. Blanchette charged based on the number and type of detectors he installed—typically $50 per smoke detector and $80 per combination smoke and carbon monoxide detector. Blanchette’s prices exceeded his materials costs—typically, between $27 to $35 per smoke detector and between $38 and $50 per combination smoke and carbon monoxide detector—and included his profit. Blanchette charged an additional $50 installation fee if he installed three or fewer detectors.
20. Blanchette, through his private business, took in approximately $285,000 from the smoke and carbon monoxide detector pre-inspection and installation services he performed in Lawrence between 2018 and December 2021.
21. Blanchette was instructed twice by the Lawrence Fire Chief not to work on behalf of his private business in Lawrence. Blanchette was suspended for one week without pay in December 2021 for doing so, and retired thereafter.

Conclusions of Law

Section 17(a)

22. General Laws chapter 268A, § 17(a) prohibits a municipal employee from, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly receiving or requesting compensation from anyone other than their employing municipality in relation to any particular matter in which the municipality is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.[1]
23. As a Fire Department fire inspector, Blanchette was a Lawrence municipal employee as defined by G.L. c. 268A, § 1(g).
24. The Fire Department’s determination whether to issue a certificate of compliance following a 26F inspection, and the request by a property seller or their real estate agent for such a determination by seeking an inspection appointment through the Fire Department, were particular matters.
25. The matters were of direct and substantial interest to the City of Lawrence, as the City is required by statute to conduct the 26F inspections prior to the sale or transfer of residential property, and the City was a party in the matters.
26. As the sole owner and operator of J&N Fire Protection, LLC, and Smoke Detector Inspector, Blanchette directly or indirectly received compensation for his private services conducting pre-inspections and installing detectors.
27. Blanchette’s receipt of nonmunicipal compensation, through his private business, was in relation to the particular matters because he was privately paid to identify and remedy potential violations, prior to his clients’ scheduled 26F inspections, that would prevent his clients’ properties from passing the 26F inspection and their receiving the certificates of compliance needed for their closing dates. 
28. Blanchette’s receipt of such compensation was otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of Blanchette’s official duties as a Fire Department fire inspector.
29. Therefore, by receiving, through his private business, multiple payments totaling approximately $285,000 to identify and resolve potential violations prior to scheduled 26F Fire Department inspections, Blanchette, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, repeatedly directly or indirectly received compensation from someone other than the City of Lawrence in relation to a particular matter in which the City was a party or had a direct and substantial interest. In so doing, Blanchette repeatedly violated G.L. c. 268A, § 17(a).

Section 19

30. General Laws chapter 268A, § 19 prohibits a municipal employee from participating as such an employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge he has a financial interest.
31. As described above, the Fire Department’s determination whether to issue a certificate of compliance following a 26F inspection was a particular matter.
32. Blanchette participated as a Fire Department fire inspector in the particular matter by conducting the 26F inspections and issuing certificates of compliance.
33. Blanchette had a financial interest in the particular matters of the 26F inspections of the 255 properties where he had performed pre-inspections and/or installed detectors on behalf of his private business. First, because Blanchette guaranteed his private work would pass inspection and would have to return to the property and correct any problem at his own expense. Second, because his private business reputation would have been harmed if his work failed inspection.
34. Blanchette knew at the time he conducted the 26F inspections that he had a financial interest in them.
35. Therefore, when Blanchette as Lawrence Fire Department fire inspector conducted the 26F inspections and issued certificates of compliance for properties where he had performed pre-inspections and/or installed detectors on behalf of his private business, Blanchette participated as a municipal employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge he had a financial interest. Each time he did so, Blanchette violated G.L. c. 268A, § 19.

Section 23(b)(2)(ii)

36. Section 23(b)(2)(ii) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from knowingly, or with reason to know, using or attempting to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions of substantial value that are not properly available to similarly situated individuals.

Using Position to Secure Private Business

37. Blanchette used his position as Fire Department fire inspector, including his title and his inherent authority as the Fire Department’s primary 26F inspector, to secure private business. 
38. Blanchette’s use of his public position to secure private business was an unwarranted privilege. 
39. The unwarranted privilege was of substantial value because Blanchette’s private business was paid over $50 for each job and approximately $285,000 between 2018 and 2021.  
40. Similarly situated private business owners may not properly use public resources to obtain business. Nor may public employees with their own private businesses use public resources, including their public positions, to secure private business opportunities.
41. Therefore, by using his Fire Department fire inspector position to secure private business worth approximately $285,000, Blanchette knowingly or with reason to know 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, Blanchette repeatedly violated § 23(b)(2)(ii). 

Issuing Certificates of Compliance without Conducting Inspection

42. Blanchette, as Fire Department fire inspector, knowingly or with reason to know, issued at least 18 certificates of compliance to property owners for whom he had performed pre-inspections and/or installed detectors on behalf of his private business without conducting a 26F inspection on behalf of the Fire Department.
43. Receiving a certificate of compliance without having the property inspected by the Fire Department was an unwarranted privilege that was not properly available to property owners.
44. The unwarranted privilege was of substantial value to property owners who required a certificate of compliance to complete their real estate closings on time. A delayed closing, due to a failed or incomplete 26F inspection, would have resulted in costs of substantial value to the property owner.
45. In addition, securing the unwarranted privilege for his private customers gave Blanchette and his business a substantially valuable competitive advantage over other businesses offering similar services. Blanchette, by virtue of his Fire Department position, was uniquely able to allow his clients to bypass the 26F inspection and save time and costs associated with appearing for the inspection, which no other private business could offer its clients.
46. Therefore, by using his public position to issue certificates of compliance to his clients without inspecting the property on behalf of the Fire Department, Blanchette knowingly or with reason to know used his official position as Lawrence Fire Department fire inspector to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges of substantial value that were not properly available to similarly situated individuals. Each time he did so, Blanchette violated § 23(b)(2)(ii). 

Disposition

In view of the foregoing violations of G.L. c. 268A by Blanchette, 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 Blanchette:

(1)        that Blanchette pay to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with such payment to be delivered to the Commission, the sum of $65,000 as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, §§ 17(a), 19, and 23(b)(2)(ii); and

(2)        that Blanchette 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, Blanchette 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] Compensation is any money, thing or value or economic benefit conferred on or received by any person in return for services rendered or to be rendered by himself or another. G.L. c. 268A, § 1(a).