| Date: | 06/02/1989 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
| Docket Number: | 369 |
- This page, In the Matter of Arthur Tucker, is offered by
- State Ethics Commission
Settlement
Settlement In the Matter of Arthur Tucker
Table of Contents
Disposition Agreement
This Disposition Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and Arthur Tucker (Mr. Tucker) pursuant to Section 11 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final Commission order enforceable in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(j).
On January 6, 1988, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(a), a preliminary inquiry into a possible violation of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by Mr. Tucker. The Commission has concluded that inquiry and, on November 21, 1988,found reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Tucker violated G.L. c. 268A, s.19.
The Commission and Mr. Tucker now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Mr. Tucker is and at all material times herein was the building inspector for the Town of Oakham, commencing November, 1983. Mr. Tucker is, therefore, a municipal employee as defined in s.1(g) of G.L. c. 268A. Mr. Tucker is also the full-time building inspector for the Town of Spencer.
2. Since 1977, Mr. Tucker has owned and resides year-round on Lots 16 and 17 on Pine Lane in Oakham. The area is a summer camp area next to a lake. Mr. Tucker's house on Lot 17 contains three bedrooms and has been converted to year-round use. Mr. Tucker's Lot No. 17 directly abuts Lot No. 18, owned by Mr. John Lane.
3. Mr. Lane has owned Lots 18, 19,26 and 27 on Pine Lie in Oakham (hereafter referred to collectively as the Property) since 1966. Mr. Lane's house, which straddles Lots 18 and 19, is the only one
Page 411
in the neighborhood that has not been converted to year-round use. There is a well on Lot 18.
4. Mr. Tucker can see Mr. Lane's house from his own, as the Lane house is less than 40 feet from Mr. Tucker's.
5. Until sometime in 1983, a tenant resided in the house on the Property. During this time, while an open cesspool leeched into the surrounding ground, neither Mr. Tucker nor anyone else reported this condition to the Oakham Board of Health. From 1983 until January, 1986, the Property remained vacant.
6. In January, 1986, Mr. Tucker learned that Mr. Lane was selling the Property. Mr. Tucker approached Mr. Lane and expressed interest in purchasing the Property so that he could use the well water, as his present well was shallow and had limited water supply.[1] When Mr. Lane explained that he was considering selling off the Property in two pieces (Lots 18 and 19 together, and its 26 and 27 together), each as buildable lots, Mr. Tucker told Mr. Lane that he could have problems if he did that (presumably because the lots would not satisfy the zoning requirements)[2] Mr. Tucker did not approach Mr. Lane as the building inspector. No offer was made, and there was no further discussion about a possible arrangement between the two after that date.
7. On or about January 30, 1986, Mr. Lane sold Lots 18 and 19 to a Mr. Alfred LaPrade.
8. Mr. Tucker learned of the sale, and, in his capacity as Building Inspector,[3] on or about February 10, 1986, told the Oakham Board of Selectmen (Selectmen) at their meeting that he believed the sale to Mr. LaPrade had involved an illegal subdivision. At that time, Mr. Tucker did not tell the Selectmen of his having discussed purchasing the property with Mr. Lane. (The Selectmen did not learn of this until a meeting on March 24. See 14, below.) Mr. Tucker states, and the Commission has no information to the contrary, that, because he was Mr. Lane's abutter, he requested that someone other than he should issue the zoning enforcement order.
9. Because Oakham is such a small town, the Selectmen knew the proximity of Mr. Tucker's property to Mr. Lane's, although they may not have known precisely how close Mr. Tucker's house was to Mr. Lane's.
10. By letter dated February 17, 1986, the Selectmen notified Mr. Lane that the sale to Mr. LaPrade violated Oakham zoning regulations.
11. At a Selectmen's meeting on or about March 3, 1986, Mr. Tucker, striving not to be directly involved because of the reasons mentioned in 8, requested that the Selectmen visit Mr. Lane's house on Pine Lane to see the condition of the property.
12. At a Selectmen's meeting on or about March 17, 1986, Mr. Tucker explained that the house at Pine Lane appeared to have been gutted and was being reconstructed, even though it remained an illegal subdivision, in violation of the Selectmen's order, and non-conforming use. He also told the Selectmen that no building permit had been applied for. As a result of this report, the Selectmen asked Mr. Tucker to issue a stop-work order to Mr. LaPrade, which Mr. Tucker did on or about March 20, 1986.
13. On March 21, 1986, Mr. Tucker sent a letter, at the request of the Selectmen, to Mr. LaPrade and Mr. Lane, stating that the owner was violating the building code by beginning reconstruction without a building permit, that the zoning problems remained, and that the stop-work order would be in effect until a building permit was obtained.
14. On or about March 24, 1986, in response to that stop-work order, Mr. Tucker and Mr. Lane attended the Selectmen's meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Lane told the Selectmen of his conversation with Mr. Tucker in January, 1986 during which Mr. Tucker inquired about buying Mr. Lane's property. The March 24, 1986 meeting was the first time the Selectmen were told of Mr. Tucker's interest in buying Mr. Lane's property.
15. On or about June 20, 1986, Mr. LaPrade deeded back Lots 18 and 19 to Mr. Lane because the lots, even when combined, were not buildable.
16. By letter dated July 21, 1986, Mr. Tucker, as a private citizen, wrote to the Board of Health, requesting that it inspect the Property because it had been abandoned and left dangerous, unsafe and unsanitary. Mr. Tucker mentioned problems with the septic system, electrical and plumbing systems, bare interior walls, un-boarded windows and doors, scattered debris with nails protruding, and with Mr. Lane's lack of effort to make the property safe and secure.
17. On or about September 8, 1986; Mr. Tucker posted the Property as being dangerous and unsafe, and notified Mr. Lane, in writing, that he could receive a building permit to remodel the Property, but must first receive Board of Health approval for his existing septic system, repairs to it, or approval of a design for a new system; otherwise he would have to demolish
Page 412
the structure. The letter demanded that Mr. Lane obtain a disposal works construction permit and a building permit by December 31,1986.
18. By letter dated December 17, 1986, Mr. Tucker explained to Mr. Lane that his request to postpone the approval of a plan for an existing or a new septic system until June, 1987 was merely an attempt to stall.
19. By letter dated December 22, 1986, Mr. Tucker informed Mr. Lane that Mr. Tucker had been informed of the Board of Health's decision to allow him until June 1, 1987 to have a suitable sub- surface sanitary disposal system designed, approved and installed. Mr. Tucker, therefore, granted Mr. Lane an extension until June 1,1987 to make the structure safe. By letter dated December 26, 1986,the Board of Health informed Mr. Lane that, based on a December 6, 1986 inspection, the Board of Health wanted to see engineer- prepared septic systems before March 1, 1987.
20. By letter dated March 6, 1987, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 143, s.8, Mr. Tucker asked the department heads of the Oakham Fire Department, Planning Board and Board of Health to convene an impartial survey board to survey the house on the Property, to determine if it was unused, uninhabited, abandoned, or especially unsafe in case of fire, and to serve a report of the survey's findings on Mr. Lane. Mr. Tucker suggested to the Selectmen that the committee work independently of him.
21. Section 19 of G.L. c. 268A provides in relevant part that, except as permitted by s.19,[4] municipal employees may not participate as such in particular matters in which they have a financial interest.
22. The particular matters were: (1) the decision that the sale by Mr. Lane to Mr. LaPrade was an illegal subdivision, (2) the decision as to whether renovations could proceed without a disposal works permit, and (3) the decision as to whether the property was a public nuisance.
23. Mr. Tucker participated in these matters by, as the building inspector, bringing them before the Selectmen, asking the Selectmen to inspect the Property, issuing stop-work orders, writing letters to the owners concerning conditions on the Property, convening a survey board, and posting the Property as being dangerous and unsafe.
24. Mr. Tucker had an initial financial interest as a potential purchaser and an ongoing financial interest as an abutter in these matters.
25. Therefore, by participating as the building inspector in the foregoing decisions while he had a financial interest in those decisions, Mr. Tucker violated s.19.
26. While the Commission can impose up to a $2,000 fine for each violation of s.19, it has determined that a relatively small fine is appropriate for the following reasons:
the Commission staff found credible Mr. Tucker's assertions that (1) because he was an abutter, he obtained the Selectmen's approval for his actions as building inspector regarding the property; (2) at all times subsequent to the March 24, 1986 Selectmen's meeting, the Selectmen knew the full extent of Mr. Tucker's interest in the Lane property; and (3) he was unaware that he was violating G.L. c. 268A, s.19.[5]
Based on the foregoing facts, 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 agreed to by Mr. Tucker:
1. that he pay to the Commission the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) as a civil penalty for his violation of s.19;
2. that he refrain from participating as a municipal employee in any matter in which he has a financial interest; and specifically, that he refrain from participating, as a municipal employee, in any matter that affects either the Lane property on Pine Lane or any other property abutting Mr. Tucker's property unless he follows the procedure outlined in s.19(b) and receives the written permission provided for therein; and
3. that he waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and terms and conditions proposed under this agreement in this or any related administrative or a judicial civil proceeding in which the Commission is a party.