Settlement  Disposition Agreement in the Matter of Edward Correira

Date:	10/29/2024
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	24-0025
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 Edward Correira (“Correira”) 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 November 17, 2023, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B,          § 4(a), a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by Correira. On May 23, 2024, the Commission concluded its inquiry and found reasonable cause to believe that Correira violated G.L. c. 268A, §§ 18(a) and (b).

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

1. Correira was Chief of Staff for the City of Taunton (“City”) from January 2020 through August 2022. He became Chairman of the City’s Redevelopment Authority in June 2021 and remains a member of its Board.

2. As Chief of Staff, Correira worked under the general supervision of the City’s Mayor. He oversaw the day-to-day operations of all City departments, and acted as liaison between the Mayor's office and municipal councils, boards and commissions.

   Subdivision Connection to City Water Main

   Findings of Fact

3. In April 2020, the City Planning Board (“Planning Board”) approved the development of a nine-lot residential subdivision (“Subdivision”) with conditions. One of the conditions required that the Subdivision connect to the public water supply through a nearby City water main located on a public way. The condition further required the Subdivision developer (“Developer”) to replace the City water main if the City water main was undersized.
4. The City water main is undersized where the Subdivision would connect to it.
5. The Developer requested that the Planning Board modify its decision to allow the Developer to install private wells rather than connect to the City water main.
6. The Planning Board denied the Developer’s request for the modification on December 7, 2021. 
7. In Spring 2022, as Chief of Staff, Correira questioned the Planning Board Chair, who is also the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) Assistant Commissioner, about the Planning Board’s refusal to allow the Developer to install private wells. The Planning Board Chair declined to reconsider the matter.
8. As Chief of Staff, Correira then asked the DPW Commissioner to issue a permit allowing the Developer to connect the Subdivision to the undersized City water main. The DPW Commissioner agreed to issue the permit.

9. On May 2, 2022, the Developer sent an email to the City Water Superintendent that read, in part, as follows:

   As you know we have received permission from Ed Correira to run our new 8″ [Subdivision water main] . . . as designed and approved and tap into the existing 6″ [City] water main …  . We are looking forward to starting this project ASAP.

10. The DPW Commissioner issued a permit on May 5, 2022, authorizing the Developer to connect the Subdivision to the undersized City water main.
11. On May 12, 2022, the Developer connected the Subdivision to the undersized City water main.
12. When the Planning Board Chair learned that the Developer had connected the Subdivision to the undersized City water main, he complained to Correira. Correira’s response was to the effect that the City should be working together with developers.
13. Correira resigned as Chief of Staff on August 22, 2022.
14. In September 2022 and again in January 2023, the City hired vendors to test the water hydrants at the Subdivision for fire protection purposes. The Subdivision failed both tests.
15. The City Solicitor’s Office scheduled a meeting regarding the Subdivision with City departments and the Developer for March 15, 2023 (“City Meeting”). The meeting was not publicly posted. 
16. On the morning of March 15, 2023, prior to the City Meeting, Correira attended a strategy meeting with the Developer and his lawyers, one of which was Correira’s daughter (whose law office was in a building owned by Correira).
17. The attendees at the City Meeting included Correira, the Developer and his attorneys including Correira’s daughter, the Water Superintendent, the Planning Board Chair, the DPW Commissioner, the City’s Chief Financial Officer, the City Solicitor and the Assistant City Solicitor. 
18. At the March 15, 2023 City Meeting, Correira advocated for the City to replace the undersized City water main so that the Subdivision could be completed.   

19. To date, the undersized City water main has not been replaced and the Subdivision development is stalled due to concerns about inadequate water pressure and its impact on fire suppression.

    Conclusions of Law

    § 18(a)

20. Section 18(a) of G.L. c. 268A, in relevant part, prohibits a former municipal employee from knowingly acting as agent or attorney for … anyone other than the same municipality in connection with any particular matter in which the municipality is a party, or has a direct and substantial interest, and in which he participated as a municipal employee while so employed.
21. As Chief of Staff for the City, Correira was a municipal employee. When Correira resigned as Chief of Staff on August 22, 2022, he became a former municipal employee.
22. The decision whether the undersized City water main would be replaced and by whom was a particular matter.
23. The City had a direct and substantial interest in that particular matter because inadequate water pressure for fire suppression at the Subdivision was a public safety issue and because there would be financial consequences for the City if it, rather than the Developer, bore the cost of replacing the water main. 
24. Correira participated as Chief of Staff in this particular matter by (1) questioning the Planning Board Chair about the Planning Board’s refusal to allow the Developer to install private wells instead of replacing the undersized City water main, (2) asking the DPW Commissioner to issue a permit allowing the Developer to connect the Subdivision to the undersized City water main, and (3) granting permission to the Developer to connect the Subdivision to the City water main without replacing the undersized water main.
25. After Correira resigned from his Chief of Staff position, Correira acted as agent for the Developer at the City Meeting and advocated that the City replace the undersized City water main.

26. Thus Correira, after leaving the position of Chief of Staff, knowingly acted as agent for the Developer in connection with the decision as to whether and by whom the undersized City water main would be replaced, which was a particular matter in which the City had a direct and substantial interest, and in which Correira had participated as a municipal employee while Chief of Staff. In so doing, Correira violated § 18(a).

    § 18(b)

27. Section 18(b) of G.L. c. 268A, in relevant part, prohibits a former municipal employee from, within one year after his last employment has ceased, appearing personally before any agency of the municipality as agent for anyone other than the municipality in connection with any particular matter in which the same municipality is a party or has a direct and substantial interest and which was under his official responsibility as a municipal employee at any time within two years prior to the termination of his municipal employment. 
28. The decision as to who would replace the undersized City water main was a particular matter under Correira’s official responsibility as the City’s Chief of Staff given that, in that position, Correira oversaw the day-to-day operations of all of the City’s departments.
29. The particular matter of the replacement of the undersized City water main was under Correira’s official responsibility as Chief of Staff within two years prior to the end of his City employment upon his resignation in August 2022.  
30. After leaving the position as Chief of Staff and becoming a former municipal employee, Correira appeared in person as agent for the Developer at the March 15, 2023 City Meeting, which was within one year of his August 22, 2022 resignation and advocated that the City, and not the Developer, replace the undersized City water main.

31. Thus, by appearing before the City as agent for the Developer in connection with the decision as to who would replace the undersized City water main, Correira, a former municipal employee, personally appeared within one year after his resignation as Chief of Staff as agent for someone other than the City in connection with a particular matter in which the City had a direct and substantial interest and which was under his official responsibility as Chief of Staff within two years prior to the termination of that municipal employment. In so doing, Correira violated § 18(b).

    Airport Restaurant

    Findings of Fact

32. In May 2021, the City began construction of an Airport Administration Building (“Airport Building”) at the City’s airport, which would house a restaurant.
33. As Chief of Staff, Correira was responsible for recruiting tenants to lease space in the Airport Building to operate the restaurant.
34. In Spring 2022, Correira identified and contacted a business owner (“Business Owner”), whom Correira had known prior to becoming Chief of Staff and with whom Correira was friendly, to lease the restaurant space.
35. The American Rescue Plan Act (“ARPA”) of 2021 was the federal government’s economic stimulus bill to aid in the nation’s recovery from the economic and health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Federal Government awarded ARPA funds to the City to distribute. The City’s Mayor oversaw the distribution of ARPA funds.
36. As Chief of Staff, Correira advocated for the City to give ARPA funds to the Business Owner as an incentive to open and operate a restaurant in the Airport Building.
37. After Correira resigned as Chief of Staff in August 2022, he telephoned the City’s Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) in December 2022 about securing ARPA funds for the Business Owner.
38. In January 2023, the City’s CFO met with the Business Owner to review the Business Owner’s proposal for a restaurant in the Airport Building.
39. In Spring 2023, Correira again telephoned the City’s CFO requesting  ARPA funds for the Business Owner.

40. The City did not award ARPA funds to the Business Owner and rejected the Business Owner’s restaurant proposal. 

    Conclusions of Law

    § 18(a)

41. The decision whether to award ARPA funds to the Business Owner was a particular matter.
42. The decision regarding to whom to lease space in the Airport Building was also a particular matter.
43. The City had a direct and substantial interest in these particular matters in that they involved the distribution of ARPA funds controlled by the City and leasing space in the Airport Building owned by the City.
44. As Chief of Staff, Correira participated in these decisions by identifying and reaching out to the Business Owner about leasing space in the Airport Building and advocating for the award of ARPA funds to the Business Owner as an incentive to lease space.
45. After leaving the Chief of Staff position and becoming a former municipal employee, Correira knowingly acted as agent for the Business Owner in connection with whether the Business Owner should receive ARPA funds as an incentive to lease space in the Airport Building by making repeated calls to the City’s CFO on the Business Owner’s behalf.

46. Thus by, as a former municipal employee, knowingly acting as agent for the Business Owner in connection with the award of ARPA funds as an incentive to lease space in the Airport Building, Correira acted as agent for someone other than the City in particular matters in which the City had a direct and substantial interest and in which he had participated as a municipal employee. In so doing, Correira violated § 18(a).

    § 18(b)

47. As Chief of Staff, recruiting tenants to lease space in the Airport Building to operate a restaurant was under Correira’s official responsibility.

48. Thus, by, as described above, appearing in person before the City as agent for the Business Owner in connection with the decision whether the Business Owner would lease space in the Airport Building, Correira personally appeared, within one year after his resignation as Chief of Staff and the end of his City employment, as agent for someone other than the City in a particular matter in which the City had a direct and substantial interest and which was under his official responsibility as Chief of Staff within two years prior to the termination of his municipal employment. In so doing, Correira violated § 18(b).

    Disposition

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

    (1)       that Correira pay to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with such payment to be delivered to the Commission, the sum of $6,000 as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, § 18(a) and § 18(b); and

    (2)        that Correira 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, Correira acknowledges that he has personally read this Disposition Agreement, that it is a public document, and that he agrees to all of the terms and conditions therein.

STATE ETHICS COMMISSION