Settlement  Disposition Agreement in the Matter of Leo Sacco

Date:	06/02/2022
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	22-0004
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 Respondent Leo Sacco 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 17, 2020, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B § 4(a), the Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by Sacco. On December 22, 2021, the Commission concluded its inquiry and found reasonable cause to believe that Sacco violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b) subsections (2)(ii) and (3).

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

Findings of Fact

1. Sacco was the chief of the Medford Police Department (MPD) from 1990 until his retirement at age 65 in November 2018.
2. The mayor of Medford is the appointing authority for all MPD officers and the MPD chief.

3. According to Medford City Ordinance Sections 54-34, the MPD chief is responsible to, and under the direction and control of, the mayor.

4. From February to April 2018, MPD police officers were assigned, in six-hour shifts, as detail officers at a construction site in Medford (“Construction Site”). There were approximately 151 Construction Site detail assignments during this three-month detail.
5. In the spring of 2018, after the Construction Site detail concluded, Sacco learned that some officers assigned to detail shifts at the Construction Site had submitted payment requests for hours not worked and, in some cases, the officers failed to show up for the Construction Site detail at all.
6. From May to mid-June 2018, Sacco personally investigated allegations of false claims for payment at the Construction Site. No other member of the MPD was substantially involved in the investigation.
7. Sacco conducted the investigation into the Construction Site detail false claims for detail pay allegations by reviewing detail slips and detail assignments, and by interviewing approximately thirty MPD patrol officers. Sacco did not interview any of the MPD superior police officers who were scheduled to perform details at the Construction Site.
8. The MPD has a written procedure for conducting investigations of employees which requires that interviews be recorded mechanically or by a stenographer “whenever possible.”
9. Sacco did not mechanically record the patrol officers’ interviews, nor did he have a stenographer record them.
10. Of the thirty patrol officers interviewed by Sacco, at least eleven admitted that they accepted detail pay for hours they had not worked.
11. Sacco did not prepare a written report summarizing the findings of his investigation.
12. On November 28, 2018, Sacco asked the president of the patrol officers’ union to gather the thirty patrol officers that he previously interviewed for an off-site meeting at a hotel near MPD headquarters. All thirty officers were gathered in one function-type room. Sacco addressed the room generally and told the officers that he was disappointed in them.  Sacco gave a verbal reprimand to all of the officers in attendance.
13. No written record of the verbal reprimand was recorded in any of the patrol officers’ personnel files.
14. Unrecorded verbal reprimands may not be used as grounds for progressive discipline.
15. Sacco did not direct the patrol officers to pay back the unearned detail pay.
16. Sacco did not require any patrol officers be removed from the MPD detail list.
17. Sacco did not issue any verbal or written discipline to any superior officers in connection with the Construction Site detail allegations.
18. Sacco did not direct any superior officers involved in the Construction Site details to pay back any unearned detail pay.
19. Sacco did not inform the mayor of the Construction Site detail allegations, investigation, admissions of patrol officers or his decision to issue a general verbal reprimand that was not reflected in the officers’ personnel files.
20. According to Sacco, he did not inform the mayor because he gave his word to the patrol officers’ union president that he [Sacco] would deal with the matter “in house.”
21. On November 30, 2018, Sacco retired from the MPD.
22. On December 19, 2018, the mayor appointed Jack Buckley as the new MPD chief.
23. In the spring of 2019, the mayor became aware of the Construction Site detail allegations.
24. An independent investigation of the Construction Site detail allegations performed by Paul L’Italien resulted in a report (“L’Italien Report”).
25. The L’Italien Report determined that twenty patrol and five superior MPD officers had submitted requests for pay for detail hours and/or shifts they had not worked at the Construction Site. The falsely claimed detail pay totaled over $17,000.
26. Of the twenty-five officers who submitted requests for detail hours not worked, four received more than $1,200.00
27. Based on the findings of the L’Italien Report, Chief Buckley made a recommendation to the mayor regarding the discipline of each officer. The mayor accepted the chief’s recommendations.
28.  The discipline ranged from Letters of Reprimand to suspensions depending on the egregiousness of each officer’s conduct.
29. Each officer was removed from the detail list for a period ranging from seven days to one year.
30. Each officer was required to return the falsely claimed detail pay.
31. Seventeen officers received suspensions ranging from one to thirty tours of duty.
32. Each superior officer was required to complete a four-hour Leadership Accountability Class on their own time.
33. Two patrol officers were required to sign Last Chance Agreements that provided for termination in the event of further misconduct.
34. On September 6, 2019, Chief Buckley and the Medford city solicitor met individually with twenty-five officers. At the meetings, Chief Buckley provided written notice of the discipline being issued to each officer. The discipline was recorded in each officer’s personnel file.

Conclusions of Law

35. As chief of the MPD, Sacco was a municipal employee as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, § 1(g).

Sacco violated 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 their official position to secure for such officer, employee or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value, and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals.

37. Avoiding warranted official discipline and retaining unearned detail pay are unwarranted privileges and exemptions.

38. The unwarranted privileges and exemptions were of substantial value because the MPD police officers avoided repayment of unearned detail pay and other official discipline involving loss of pay, both of $50 or more^[1].
39. The unwarranted privileges and exemptions of avoiding official discipline and retaining unearned detail pay were not properly available to similarly situated individuals as no public employee who falsely claims and obtains compensation from their public employer for work they have not performed is entitled to avoid official discipline and retain the falsely claimed and obtained compensation.
40. By, as MPD chief, concealing allegations and admissions of  obtaining detail pay through false claims for payment by members of the MPD and failing to appropriately discipline the culpable police officers and require repayment of unearned wages, Sacco knowingly used his official position to secure for the MPD police officers involved in the Construction Site detail false claims for payment substantially valuable unwarranted privileges and exemptions that were not properly available to similarly situated individuals. In so doing, Sacco violated G. L. c. 268A, §23(b)(2)(ii).

Sacco Violated Section 23(b)(3)

41. Section 23(b)(3) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from, knowingly, or with reason to know, acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person.
42. Had Sacco followed established MPD protocol when disciplining the officers involved in the Construction Site detail false claims for payment and/or reported the allegations and admissions of police officer misconduct to the mayor in accordance with Medford City Ordinance 54-34, the officers would have been appropriately officially and substantially disciplined as they were after his retirement. Sacco’s failure as MPD chief to appropriately discipline the officers and require them to return the unearned compensation was not justified and his resolution of the Construction Site detail false claims for payment matter with a general verbal reprimand was unduly lenient and against the public interest. By concealing allegations and admissions of Construction Site detail false claims for payment by MPD police officers from their appointing authority, the mayor, and by failing to discipline those police officers and to require them to repay the unearned detail pay they received, Sacco knowingly acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant circumstances to conclude that the MPD police officers involved in the Construction Site detail false claims for payment could unduly enjoy Sacco’s favor in the performance of his official duties as MPD chief.  By so acting, Sacco violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(3).

Disposition

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

(1)        that Sacco pay to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with such payment to be delivered to the Commission, the sum of $9,000 as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, §§ 23(b)(2)(ii) and 23(b)(3); and

(2)        that Sacco 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 Disposition Agreement.

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

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