Settlement  Disposition Agreement in the Matter of Floyd Teague

Date:	09/26/2024
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	24-0022
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 Floyd Teague (“Teague”) 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 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 Teague.  On July 18, 2024, the Commission concluded its inquiry and found reasonable cause to believe that Teague violated G.L. c. 268A, §§ 6 and 23(b)(2)(ii).

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

Findings of Fact

1. From 1999 until January 23, 2024, Teague was a deputy sheriff in the Civil Process Division of the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (“BCSO”).
2. In the course of his duties, Teague auctioned personal property including boats, cars, trucks, and mobile or modular homes when the BCSO was retained to conduct such an auction.
3. On March 10, 2023, at approximately 10 a.m., Teague arrived in his BCSO vehicle and in his BCSO uniform at a planned community in a county neighboring Bristol County for residents fifty-five years of age or older to auction a modular home unit in the community.  The then-owner of the unit had moved to an assisted living facility and the community’s Homeowners’ Association sought the seizure and sale of the unit to cover the past-due fees the owner owed to the association. The Homeowners’ Association had hired an attorney to handle the eviction and legal proceedings.  The attorney in turn engaged Teague through the BCSO to handle the seizure and auction of the unit in his BCSO capacity as deputy sheriff. The BCSO’s fee for Teague’s seizure and auctioneer services was $500.
4. Prior to the auction date, Teague, in his BCSO capacity as deputy sheriff, appeared on site at the modular home unit and posted notice that the unit was seized and would be auctioned.  He later returned and posted a Notice of Order of Sale.
5. The BCSO Civil Process Division served the Notice of Order of Sale on the unit’s resident’s last known address (which was the unit) by mail and posted it at the local town hall.
6. The Homeowners’ Association posted a copy of the same Notice of Order of Sale on its community bulletin board.
7. The Notice of Order of Sale set forth the date of the auction and, among other things, noted: “TERMS OF PUBLIC AUCTION SALE: $5,000 cash or certified check is required, payable immediately after completion of the sale.  Balance to be paid in guaranteed funds before the end of the business day. . . .  No Exceptions.”
8. Prior to 10 a.m. on March 10, 2023, Teague discussed the modular home unit and its auction with his spouse, providing her with details about the unit and the auction acquired and known by him as the deputy sheriff engaged to auction the property.  Teague agreed to place a $20,000 bid for his spouse on the unit knowing and intending he would use his official position as the deputy sheriff conducting the auction to place and accept her absentee bid.
9. Teague did not obtain $5,000 in cash or certified check from his spouse in connection with her bid. 
10. About a dozen persons attended the auction of the modular home unit on March 10, 2023.  The attendees were able to walk-through the unit before Teague began the auction outside.
11. After the walk-through, Teague began the auction.
12. First, Teague announced that one had to have a $5,000 certified check to bid.
13. Next, Teague declared the auction floor for the $18,542 in past-due fees owed to the Homeowners’ Association.
14. Then, Teague announced that he had a $20,000 bid.  This was the bid of his spouse which Teague had earlier agreed to place for her. 
15. Finally, Teague said “going once, going twice, sold for $20,000.”
16. With those words, Teague sold the unit to his spouse for $20,000 and concluded the auction.
17. Teague had not received a $5,000 cash or certified check deposit from his spouse when he declared her bid to be the winner. Teague’s spouse did not at any time pay a $5,000 deposit toward the purchase of the unit.     
18. None of the other dozen or so attendees at the auction uttered a bid before Teague closed out the auction by saying “going once, going twice, sold for $20,000.”
19. Sometime after the auction, Teague’s spouse gave him in hand a $20,000 bank check, dated March 10, 2023, as full payment for the purchase of the unit.  Teague subsequently turned the $20,000 check over to the BCSO Civil Process Division.  The Civil Process Division paid $18,542 to the attorney for the Homeowners’ Association and the remaining funds were unclaimed.
20. In the weeks and months following the auction, Teague assisted his spouse in renovating the unit and improving the grounds. In addition, Teague’s spouse spent approximately $44,000 on contractors and supplies to replace, repair, or improve the property’s appliances, wallboard, carpeting and flooring, masonry, fencing, and landscaping.
21. In October 2023, Teague’s spouse, acting as a real estate agent, listed and sold the unit for $309,900.
22. Teague’s spouse, individually or through a trust, held title to the unit prior to the sale and received the proceeds upon the sale of the unit.

23. The Teagues filed a joint federal tax return in 2023.  The Teagues did not report any gains from the sale of the unit on their 2023 federal tax return.

    Conclusions of Law

24. Pursuant to Chapter 61 of the Acts and Resolves of 2009, Teague, as an employee of the BCSO, was at all relevant times a state employee subject to the conflict of interest law under G.L. c. 268A, § 1(q). 

    Section 6

25. Section 6 of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a state employee from participating as such an employee in a particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, or a member of his immediate family, has a financial interest.
26. “Immediate family” includes the employee and his spouse. G.L. c. 268A, § 1(e).
27. An auction is a proceeding to award goods or property to the highest bidder in exchange for payment and is therefore a particular matter.
28. When Teague discussed the auction of the modular home unit with his spouse and agreed to place a $20,000 bid for her, he did so both as a spouse and as a BCSO deputy sheriff, and, in doing so, participated in his official position in a particular matter, the auction, in which a member of his immediate family had a financial interest.
29. Teague knew that his spouse had a financial interest in the auction as soon as she told him that she wanted to bid $20,000 and he agreed to place her bid for her.
30. When Teague, as BCSO deputy sheriff, decided to place and placed his spouse’s bid for her at the auction, he again participated in his official capacity in a particular matter, the auction of the unit, in which he knew she had a financial interest.
31. When Teague, as BCSO deputy sheriff, declared, and therefore decided, his spouse’s bid to be to winning bid at the auction and the modular home unit to be sold to her, he again participated in his official capacity in a particular matter in which he knew his spouse had a financial interest.

32. Accordingly, by agreeing to place, placing, and then declaring as the winning bid his spouse’s bid for the unit he was auctioning as a BCSO deputy sheriff, Teague repeatedly violated G.L. c. 268A, § 6 by participating multiple times as a state employee in a particular matter in which, to his knowledge, a member of his immediate family had a financial interest.

    Section 23(b)(2)(ii)

33. Section 23(b)(2)(ii) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a state 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, which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals.
34. Teague, in his capacity as BCSO deputy sheriff, declared his spouse’s bid to be the winning bid in the auction of the modular home unit without requiring and receiving from her a $5,000 cash or certified check deposit.
35. Declaring his spouse’s bid to be the winner of the auction without having or immediately thereafter collecting from her a $5,000 cash or certified check deposit was an unwarranted privilege or exemption because the Notice of Order of Sale stated that such a deposit was required, immediate after the completion of the sale, with no exceptions.  Teague did not immediately, or ever, collect the $5,000 deposit from his spouse.
36. This privilege or exemption was of substantial value because the requirement to produce $5,000 in cash or certified check to validate a bid is a significant barrier to bidding, requiring both planning and availability of funds.
37. This unwarranted privilege or exemption was not properly available to similarly situated individuals, as demonstrated by both the Notice of Order of Sale and Teague’s announcement of the requirement at the start of the auction.
38. Teague knew, or had reason to know, that he was using his official position to secure this unwarranted privilege or exemption for his spouse because he knew that he had not received $5,000 in cash or a certified check for $5,000 from her when he announced her bid as the winning bid and he did not secure payment of a $5,000 deposit from her immediately thereafter.  
39. Therefore, by, as a BCSO deputy sheriff, declaring his spouse’s bid to be the winning bid without having previously received or immediately thereafter receiving from her a $5,000 cash or certified check deposit toward the purchase of the unit, Teague knowingly, or with reason to know, used his official position to secure for himself or another an unwarranted privilege or exemption of substantial value that was not properly available to similarly situated individuals.  In so doing, Teague violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(2)(ii).

40. Teague’s violations of G.L. c. 268A, §§ 6 and 23(b)(2)(ii) were to his economic advantage. 

    Disposition

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

1. that Teague pay to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with such payment to be delivered to the Commission, the sum of $40,000 as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, §§ 6 and 23(b)(2)(ii);
2. that Teague pay to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with such payment to be delivered to the Commission, the sum of $25,000 as economic advantage damages pursuant to G.L. c. 268A, § 9(b); and

3. that Teague 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, Teague 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