| Date: | 01/18/1989 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
| Docket Number: | 366 |
- This page, In the Matter of George Munyon, Jr., is offered by
- State Ethics Commission
Settlement
Settlement In the Matter of George Munyon, Jr.
Table of Contents
Disposition Agreement
This Disposition Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and George Munyon, Jr. (Mr. Munyon) 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(d).
On April 6, 1987, the Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, involving Mr. Munyon. The Commission concluded its inquiry, and on May 25, 1988, found reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Munyon violated G.L. c. 268A, s.19.
The Commission and Mr. Munyon now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Mr. Munyon is the superintendent of the Lunenburg Highway Department (Highway Department), a full-time paid municipal position. Accordingly, Mr. Munyon is a municipal employee as defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1(g).
2. Mr. Munyon was appointed superintendent by. the Lunenburg Board of Selectmen (Selectmen) approximately twelve years ago. As superintendent, Mr. Munyon supervises a Highway Department staff of two foremen and approximately six laborers.
3. Mr. Munyon has a son, Christopher Munyon (Christopher). Christopher is, thus, a member of Mr. Munyon's immediate family as defined in G.L c. 268A, s.1(e).
4. In early 1985, there was an opening for a laborer in the Highway Department. The opening was not posted or otherwise advertised. The Highway Department relied upon "word of mouth" to inform potential candidates of the opening.
5. By July, 1985, three or four qualified candidates had applied for the laborer's position, including Christopher. Mr. Munyon, as superintendent, reviewed the respective qualifications of the candidates and determined that Christopher was the best-qualified for the position.
6. At a meeting of the Selectmen on July 29, 1985, Mr. Munyon recommended to the Selectmen that they appoint Christopher to fill the laborer vacancy. Mr. Munyon told the Selectmen that Christopher was the best-qualified person available for the position. The Selectmen voted unanimously to hire Christopher for the position, to be paid at an hourly rate of $6.93.
7. Shortly before Christopher's appointment, Mr. Munyon spoke with the then chairman of the Selectmen, Ann P. Hall, and asked her if she had any problem with Christopher applying for the laborer position. Chairman Hall responded in the negative. Mr. Munyon then asked Chairman Hall to pose the same question to Selectman Lance May. Chairman Hall did as asked, and Selectman May did not object to Christopher's being a candidate. Mr. Munyon asserts that he also asked Selectman Walter Keeler the same question and that Selectman Keeler did not have any problem with Christopher's applying for the position; Selectman Keeler, however, was unable to confirm or deny Mr. Munyon's assertion.
8. Mr. Munyon neither sought nor received any legal counsel regarding his participation in the appointment of his son prior to that appointment being made.
9. On or before April 8, 1987, Mr. Munyon was notified that the Commission had authorized a preliminary inquiry into the legality of his participation in the appointment of Christopher.
10. On July 20, 1988 Christopher resigned from his municipal position.
11. Section 19 of G.L. c. 268A provides, in relevant part, that, except as permitted by s.19(b), a municipal employee is prohibited from participating, as such an employee, in a particular matter in which, to his knowledge, a member of his immediate family has a financial interest.
12. The selection and appointment of Christopher to a position with the Highway Department were particular matters within the meaning of s.19. Mr. Munyon participated, as superintendent, in those particular matters by determining that Christopher was the best-qualified candidate for the position and by recommending his appointment by the Selectmen. Because the position was a paid position, Christopher had, at the time of the appointment, a financial
Page 391
interest in the appointment. Mr. Munyon was aware at the time that he participated in the selection and recommendation of his son for appointment to the position with the Highway Department that his son would receive compensation for his services as a Highway Department employee.
13. By participating in the selection and appointment of his son to be a Highway Department employee, as described above, Mr. Munyon participated, as superintendent, in particular matters in which his son had a financial interest, thereby violating G.L. c. 268A, s.19.
14. Under G.L. c. 268A, s.19(b), a municipal official can avoid violating s.19 if the employee advises his appointing authority of the nature and circumstances of the particular matter in which he would participate and the financial interest involved, and receives in advance a written determination that the financial interest is, not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the municipality may expect from him. While Mr. Munyon showed some sensitivity to the conflict of interest problems created by his son's selection as a Highway Department employee by asking the Selectmen whether they had any problem with Christopher applying for the laborer position, his actions fell short of what was required to secure the benefits of a s.19(b) exemption. Neither Mr. Munyon's disclosure nor the Selectmen's response to Mr. Munyon's inquiry were put into writing, as required by G.L. c. 268A, s.s.19 and 24. As a result, the nature and extent of the disclosure are not clear. Further, given the dear problem that Mr. Munyon's conduct created under s.19 of the conflict law, it might well have been that, had Mr. Munyon and the Selectmen followed the proper s.19(b) procedures, the Selectmen would have determined that Mr. Munyon's participation was unwise and, therefore, either the Selectmen themselves or someone other than Mr. Munyon would have handled the selection of the person to be appointed to the laborer position. If, on the other hand, the Selectmen bad authorized Mr. Munyon to proceed, that authorization would have been a matter of public record. It is for these reasons that the Commission has, as a matter of practice, insisted on strict compliance with the written disclosure and authorization provisions of s.19(b).
Nonetheless, the Commission has given consideration to Mr. Munyon's having made some disclosure to his appointing authority. Accordingly, 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 here properly reflects those mitigating factors.[1]
In view of the foregoing violation of G.L. c. 268A, s.19, 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 Mr. Munyon:
1. that he pay to the Commission the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) as a civil penalty for his violation of s.19; and
2. that he waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this agreement in any related administrative or judicial proceeding to which the Commission is or may be a party.