Settlement  Disposition Agreement in the Matter of Radhika Uppaluri

Date:	03/08/2023
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	23-0003
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 Radhika Uppaluri (“Uppaluri”) 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 June 25, 2020, 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 Uppaluri. On November 17, 2022, the Commission concluded its inquiry and found reasonable cause to believe that Uppaluri violated G.L. c. 268A, §§ 4(a), 6, 7, and 23(b)(2).

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

Findings of Fact

1. Uppaluri was at all relevant times a Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor for the Commonwealth’s Executive Office of Education (“EOE”).
2. At all relevant times, Uppaluri participated in hiring and supervising Information Technology (“IT”) consultants, referred to as “resources.”

IT Staff Augmentation

3. During the relevant time, EOE augmented its IT staff under the statewide ITS63 Contract.
4. The ITS63 Contract included three sub-categories of contract: Category One, Category Two, and Category Three.
5. During the relevant time, Commonwealth agencies only entered into Category Two, or “lower-overhead,” contracts when the agency independently located an individual it wished to retain. When the agency did not independently locate a resource, it posted open positions, using the Category One “full service” contract or the Category Three “niche” position contract, to CommBuys, the Commonwealth’s official procurement system.
6. Only “approved vendors” could respond to job postings on CommBuys. Approved vendors are IT consulting or IT staffing agencies that responded to the Commonwealth’s Request For Responses (“RFR”) and were selected to provide hiring services in exchange for a fee. The hiring services included the location and recruitment of resources, submission of resource resumes, arranging or facilitating the interview process, and providing other services to the resources.
7. Approved vendors typically were paid a fee for their job placement services by withholding a portion of the resource’s earnings paid by the Commonwealth.
8. Positions that fell under the Category Two contract were not and could not be posted to CommBuys. Category Two was only used when an agency had independently located a resource from past work or through word-of-mouth recruiting. Category Two was not used when a hiring agency was needed to fill the position.
9. Each resource that provides services to the Commonwealth must have their own employer for tax purposes.
10. Resources who were hired under Category Two contracts selected an approved “lower-overhead vendor” to operate as the resource’s employer (Category Two A), or, to subcontract with the resource’s employer to provide the resource’s services to the Commonwealth agency (Category Two B).
11. During the relevant time, the Commonwealth had contracts with three Category Two B “lower-overhead vendors.” Under the agreement, the Commonwealth issued payment for the resource’s work to the “lower-overhead” vendor. The lower-overhead vendor withheld its fee, then distributed payment to the resource’s employer.
12. After receipt of payment from the lower-overhead vendor, the resource’s employer withheld its fee, then distributed the remaining payment to the resource as their wages.

Shri Radhe Krishna Corporation

13. Uppaluri’s father founded Shri Radhe Krishna Corporation (“SRK”) in 2001.
14. Uppaluri was named as SRK’s Director in its articles of incorporation.
15. Uppaluri held various positions in SRK, including President, Director, and Registered Agent, in each year since its incorporation.
16. In 2017, Uppaluri served as SRK’s President, Treasurer, Secretary, Director, and Registered Agent.
17. In 2018 and 2019, Uppaluri served as SRK’s Registered Agent.
18. Uppaluri’s husband served as SRK’s President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Director in 2018 and 2019.
19. At all relevant times, Uppaluri was an account owner and signatory for SRK’s financial account.  
20. In 2017, Uppaluri’s father was out of the country.
21. When her father was out of the country, Uppaluri’s husband assisted her father with SRK business, and Uppaluri occasionally signed and submitted various business documents for SRK.
22. Between March 23, 2017, and June 28, 2019, Uppaluri as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor hired and supervised four IT resources on her team at EOE that were recruited to their positions by SRK.
23. SRK received a fee, ranging from approximately $8 to $18 per hour, from each of the four resource’s work on Uppaluri’s team at EOE.  
24. Uppaluri as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor hired each of the four resources under the Category Two B lower-overhead contract.
25. As such, none of the four resources was hired through a job posting on CommBuys.
26. SRK was not an approved vendor and was not authorized to respond to jobs that were posted to CommBuys or provide recruitment services to the Commonwealth in exchange for a fee.
27. Each of the four resources was recruited to their position at EOE by Uppaluri’s husband, who held himself out as a recruiter with access to the positions at EOE.
28. Each of the four resources provided their services to EOE under the Category Two B lower-overhead contract.
29. Under the Category Two B lower-overhead contract, the Commonwealth issued payment of the resource’s wages to the lower-overhead vendor. The lower-overhead vendor deducted its fee, then paid the remaining wages to SRK.
30. After receiving payment from the lower-overhead vendor, SRK withheld its own fee, then distributed payment either to the resources’ employers, or, in the case of Resource Four, directly to the resource.
31. Resources One, Two, and Three, had private companies serve as their employers. With respect to Resources One, Two, and Three, after deducting its hourly fee, SRK distributed payment of the remaining wages to the resources’ employers.
32. SRK served as the employer for Resource Four. With respect to Resource Four, after deducting its hourly fee, SRK paid Resource Four his wages.
33. Between March 23, 2017, and June 28, 2019, SRK received a total of $124,832.65 in fees for recruiting the four resources to positions on Uppaluri’s team at EOE.
34. Uppaluri as Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor supervised each of the four resources on her team at EOE. As Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor, she signed their timesheets, approved overtime on occasion, lead daily team meetings to check in on the resources’ work and progress, and evaluated their performance.
35. At the time that she hired and supervised each of the resources as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor, Uppaluri knew that each consultant had been recruited by SRK and that SRK would retain a portion of the resources’ wages as the fee for its services.  Uppaluri did not disclose her relationship to SRK or SRK’s relationship with any of the resources to EOE or to any of the resources.
36. Uppaluri resigned from EOE in July 2019 when EOE became aware of her private involvement with SRK.

Conclusions of Law

37. As EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor, Uppaluri was a state employee as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, § 1(q).

Section 6

38. Section 6 of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a state employee from participating in any particular matter in which to her knowledge she, her immediate family member, or a business organization in which she is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner or employee has a financial interest.
39. Uppaluri’s father and husband were members of her immediate family as defined by G.L. c. 268A, § 1(e).
40. Uppaluri served as an officer, director, trustee, partner or employee of SRK during all relevant times.

Hiring Resources

41. Each decision by Uppaluri as Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor to hire IT resources to perform compensated IT work for EOE for which SRK would receive a recruitment services fee was a particular matter in which Uppaluri, her immediate family members, and SRK each had a financial interest.
42. Each time Uppaluri participated as Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor in hiring a resource as described above, she knew that she, her immediate family members, and SRK had a financial interest in the hiring.
43. Therefore, each time Uppaluri participated as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor in hiring an IT resource through her family’s consulting business, she violated G.L. c. 268A, § 6.  

Supervising IT Resources

44. As EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor, Uppaluri made many decisions affecting the wages and continued employment of the IT resources hired through SRK, including decisions associated with approving timesheets, leading daily team meetings, assigning work, evaluating performance, and approving overtime.
45. Because SRK received fees based on and paid from the resources’ EOE hourly wages, each of these decisions by Uppaluri was a particular matter in which SRK, Uppaluri, and her immediate family members, as owners and officers of SRK, had to Uppaluri’s knowledge a financial interest.
46. Therefore, by, as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor, supervising IT resources she knew had contractual relationships to SRK and from whose hourly wages SRK received fees, Uppaluri repeatedly violated G.L. c. 268A, § 6.

Section 23(b)(2)

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

Hiring IT Resources for EOE through Family Business

48. Uppaluri’s hiring as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor of IT resources associated with her family’s business was an unwarranted privilege that was not properly available to any state employee.
49. The unwarranted privilege was of substantial value because SRK received fees of well over $50[1] from each resource’s work.  
50. Therefore, by, as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor, using her official position to hire IT resources associated with her family’s business, from whose EOE hourly wages her family’s business received substantially valuable fees, Uppaluri knowingly or with reason to know, repeatedly used her official position to secure for herself and others unwarranted privileges of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. In doing so, Uppaluri repeatedly violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(2)(ii).

Hiring IT Resources Outside of Standard Hiring Process

51. Having its IT resources hired for full-time work at EOE was a substantially valuable privilege for SRK because SRK received a portion of each resource’s hourly wages as a fee for its services.
52. The privilege was unwarranted because SRK was not an approved vendor. It did not respond to the Commonwealth’s RFR and was not selected to provide IT recruiting services to the Commonwealth. As such, SRK was not able to respond to job postings on CommBuys or perform recruiting services for positions with the Commonwealth in exchange for a fee.  
53. Uppaluri knowingly used her EOE position to secure for SRK a business opportunity to which it was not otherwise entitled by hiring IT resources, recruited by SRK, under the Category Two lower-overhead contract, rather than by, as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor, posting the positions to CommBuys and allowing the approved vendors to perform the recruiting services for profit.  
54. Therefore, by, as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor, knowingly using her official position to hire SRK resources as IT resources for the EOE outside of the standard hiring process, in order to give a business opportunity to her family’s business to which it was not entitled, Uppaluri knowingly or with reason to know, repeatedly used her official position to secure for herself and others unwarranted privileges of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. In doing so, Uppaluri repeatedly violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(2)(ii).

Section 4(a)

55. Section 4(a) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a state employee from, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of her official duties, receiving compensation from anyone other than the Commonwealth or a state agency in relation to any particular matter in which the state is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.
56. EOE’s decisions to hire and continue to employee IT resources were particular matters in which the Commonwealth had a direct and substantial interest.
57. SRK received compensation from someone other than the Commonwealth or a state agency by withholding a portion of each resource’s wages paid from the lower-overhead vendor to SRK.
58. SRK’s receipt of such compensation, in exchange for recruiting the resources to work on Uppaluri’s team at EOE, was in relation to the particular matters in which the Commonwealth and EOE had a direct and substantial interest.
59. As an SRK officer, director, and/or registered agent, and account owner and signatory for SRK’s financial account, Uppaluri had control of and access to SRK’s financial accounts and the fees it received for recruiting consultants.  As a result, Uppaluri directly or indirectly received the compensation SRK received from the lower-overhead vendor for recruiting the resources to Uppaluri’s team.  
60. Her indirect receipt of such compensation was not as provided by law for the proper discharge of Uppaluri’s duties as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor.
61. Therefore, Uppaluri repeatedly violated G.L. c. 268A, § 4(a) by, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of her official duties, receiving compensation from someone other than the Commonwealth or a state agency in relation to particular matters in which the Commonwealth or a state agency was a party or had a direct and substantial interest.

Section 7

62. Section 7 of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a state employee from having a financial interest, directly or indirectly, in a contract made by a state agency in which the Commonwealth or a state agency is an interested party of which interest the state employee has knowledge or reason to know.
63. SRK had a financial interest in the contract between the Commonwealth and the lower-overhead vendor under which each of the four IT resources performed services for EOE and the lower-overhead vendor issued payment of the IT resources’ wages to SRK.
64. As an SRK officer, director, and/or registered agent, and account owner and signatory for SRK’s financial account, Uppaluri had control of and access to SRK’s financial accounts and the fees it received for recruiting consultants. As such, she had a direct or indirect financial interest in the contract between the Commonwealth and the lower-overhead vendor.  
65. Therefore, by, while serving as EOE Systems Programmer/Systems Supervisor, having to her knowledge a financial interest in the contract between the Commonwealth and the lower-overhead vendor, Uppaluri violated G.L. c. 268A, § 7.

Disposition

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

(1)        that Uppaluri pay to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with such payment to be delivered to the Commission, the sum of $70,000 as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, §§ 4, 6, 7, and 23(b)(2); and

(2)        that Uppaluri 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, Uppaluri acknowledges that she has personally read this Disposition Agreement, that it is a public document, and that she agrees to its terms and conditions.

 

STATE ETHICS COMMISSION

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