Settlement  Disposition Agreement in the Matter of P.A. Landers, Inc.

Date:	06/25/2008
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	08-0013
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 and P.A. Landers, Inc. (“P.A. Landers”) enter into this Disposition Agreement pursuant to Section 5 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 June 8, 2006, 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 P.A. Landers. The Commission concluded its inquiry and, on October 17, 2007, found reasonable cause to believe that P.A. Landers violated G.L. c. 268A.

The Commission and P.A. Landers now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

1. From March 2002 to November 2002, Thomas Kennedy was a Massachusetts Highway Department (“Mass Highway”) construction inspector assigned to inspect P.A. Landers’ work on Route 44 near Plymouth.
2. Kennedy’s duties included processing in a timely fashion official project paperwork necessary for P.A. Landers to receive payment for its work on the project.
3. Terry Edwards was P.A. Landers’ project manager during a portion of the Route 44 project.
4. On or about March 2002, Kennedy approached Edwards on the Route 44 project and requested reimbursement for gas expenses the inspector incurred through use of his personal vehicle at work. Upon Kennedy’s request, Edwards acquiesced. Edwards was concerned that Kennedy would impede the timely processing of project paperwork if he refused Kennedy’s request, and believed that things would “go a little smoother” if he made the payments. Thereafter, Kennedy provided Edwards with gas receipts and received cash reimbursements from Edwards on a bi-weekly basis. Edwards’ payments to Kennedy began in May 2002 and continued until November 2002. Each of the payments was greater than $50 and averaged $200. During this time, Kennedy received a total of between $2,000 and $3,000 in cash payments.
5. Edwards made these payments to Kennedy with P.A. Landers funds. Edwards received these funds from the company by submitting Kennedy’s receipts, along with his own, to the company for reimbursement from the company’s petty cash fund. Edwards’ reimbursement requests to P.A. Landers did not identify Kennedy as the recipient of the funds and were made contrary to company policies regarding the distribution of funds.
6. Edwards acquiesced to Kennedy’s request for payment and gave Kennedy these payments with the intent to influence Kennedy’s timely processing of official project paperwork necessary for P.A. Landers to receive payment for its work on the project and to make things “go a little smoother.”

Conclusions of Law

Section 3(a)

7. Section 3(a) prohibits anyone, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, from directly or indirectly giving anything of substantial value to any state employee for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such an employee.
8. Through its employee Edwards, P.A. Landers gave Kennedy between $2,000 and $3,000 in cash payments between March 2002 and November 2002.
9. These payments were not as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty.
10. Each of the cash payments was of substantial value.
11. Through its employee Edwards, P.A. Landers gave these payments to Kennedy to induce him to not delay and to reward him for not delaying the processing of official project paperwork necessary for P.A. Landers to receive payment for its work on the project, and to induce Kennedy to make or to reward him for making things “go a little smoother.”
12. Kennedy’s timely processing of official project paperwork, or his making things “go a little smoother,” involved official acts performed or to be performed by Kennedy.
13. Therefore, P.A. Landers violated § 3(a), by, as described above, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, giving cash payments of substantial value to a state employee for or because of official acts performed or to be performed by such an employee.
14. According to P.A. Landers, Edwards’ payments to Kennedy were contrary to company policy and were accomplished only by Edwards circumventing established safeguards regarding the distribution of funds. P.A. Landers acknowledges, however, that as a business organization, P.A. Landers acts through and is responsible for the conduct of its employees. This is so even if the conduct is unauthorized.¹

Resolution

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

1. that P.A. Landers pay to the Commission the sum of $10,000 as a civil penalty for repeatedly violating G.L. c. 268A § 3;
2. that P.A. Landers waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this Agreement in this or any other related administrative or judicial proceedings to which the Commission is or may be a party.

STATE ETHICS COMMISSION

¹ See In re John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Cp., 1994 SEC 646.