| Date: | 08/04/1987 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
| Docket Number: | 336 |
- This page, In the Matter of James V. Thompson, is offered by
- State Ethics Commission
Settlement
Settlement In the Matter of James V. Thompson
Table of Contents
Disposition Agreement
This Disposition Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and James V. Thompson (Mr. Thompson), 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 February 23,1987, the Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, involving Mr. Thompson, town counsel for the Town of Ludlow. The Commission concluded the inquiry and, on May 18,1987, found reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Thompson violated G.L. c. 268A, s.s.17 and 19. Pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(c), the Commission also authorized the initiation of a adjudicatory proceeding to determine whether there had been a violation. The parties now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Mr. Thompson currently serves as Ludlow Town Counsel and has been in this position since approximately 1982. As town counsel, Mr. Thompson is a municipal employee as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1(g).
2. In approximately February, 1986, Thomas Hiersche (Hiersche), a previous law client of Mr. Thompson, approached Mr. Thompson with a signed purchase and sale agreement with a private purchaser for a particular piece of property located in Ludlow. Hiersche requested that Thompson represent him on the sale. Thompson agreed to represent Hiersche and charged a standard fee for handling the matter.
3. On February 5,1986, prior to Hiersche retaining Thompson, Hiersche's realtor filed a notice with the town pursuant to G.L. c. 61B, s.9, giving the town a 90-day right of first refusal (option) on the land.
Page 299
4. Subsequent to being retained by Hiersche, and while as town counsel routinely reviewing correspondence to the Ludlow Board of Selectmen (Selectmen), Thompson observed the c. 61B notice filed by Hiersche's realtor and realized that it was incorrect. Thompson then contacted Hiersche, advised him of the problem and informed him that he (Thompson) would write a proper notice for Hiersche to the Selectmen. Thompson subsequently prepared a new notice, dated February 21,1986, and filed it with the Selectmen on behalf of Hiersche.
5. At the February 25,1986 Selectmen meeting, Mr. Thompson was asked questions by and provided clarification to the Selectmen regarding the c. 61B process. At the March 25,1986 Selectmen meeting, Thompson again provided clarification to the Selectmen regarding the c. 61B process. In particular, at this latter meeting Thompson advised the Selectmen that the town had 90 days from the date of the notice to exercise the right of first refusal, that the Selectmen would have to have an appropriation from town meeting and be able to pay the sale price within the 90 day period, and that the description of the parcel the Selectmen were provided was sufficient to go to town meeting. Mr. Thompson participated in both the February 25 and March 25, 1986 Selectmen meetings in the role of town counsel, not as attorney for Hiersche.
6. At all times material herein, Mr. Thompson has been a 50 per cent stockholder in Pheasant Run, Inc. (Pheasant Run), which is a corporation which had been seeking to build condominiums in the Town of Ludlow. Pheasant Run had purchased property which was zoned industrial and sought a zoning change to Residence zone B to develop the property into a condominium project. On August 27,1986 the Ludlow Planning Board (Board) held a public hearing concerning Pheasant Run's request for a zoning change. Mr. Thompson was present at that meeting and acted as agent or attorney for Pheasant Run in answering questions regarding the proposed development. There is no evidence that on August 27 Mr. Thompson provided the Board with any advice as town counsel regarding the proposed development.
7. In approximately December, 1986 the Board met and reheard all of the proposals which were presented at the August 27,1986 Board meeting. This included a rehearing of the Pheasant Run proposal. The August 27, 1986 matters were reheard by the Board upon the advice of Mr. Thompson after he had reviewed the complaint of an individual who had claimed that the Board acted improperly at the August 27,1986 meeting in failing to act properly in relation to the individual's proposal. Mr. Thompson acted as town counsel in advising the Board to rehear all the matters of the August 27, 1986 meeting. Mr. Thompson did not represent Pheasant Run during the rehearing.
8. General Laws c. 268A, s.17(a) prohibits a municipal employee, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, from directly or indirectly receiving or requesting compensation from anyone other than the town in relation to any, particular matter in which the same town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.
9. By filing a corrected notice with the Selectmen on behalf of Hiersche on February 21,1986, for which service Mr. Thompson was compensated by Hiersche, Mr. Thompson directly received compensation from someone other than the town in relation to a particular matter in which the town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, thereby violating G.L. c. 268A, s.17(a).
10. General Laws c. 268A, s.17(c) prohibits a municipal employee, otherwise than in the proper discharge of his official duties, from acting as agent or attorney for anyone in connection with any particular matter in which the same town is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.
11. By filing the above corrected notice with the Selectmen on behalf of Hiersche, Mr. Thompson acted, otherwise than in the proper discharge of his duties, as attorney for Hiersche in connection with a matter in which the town had a direct and substantial interest, thereby violating G.L. c. 268A, s.17(c).
12. By appearing before the Board at the August 27, 1986 public hearing and answering questions regarding Pheasant Run's request for a variance, Mr. Thompson acted, otherwise than in the proper discharge of his duties, as agent or attorney for someone in connection with a particular matter in which the town was a party or had a direct and substantial interest, thereby violating s.17(c).
13. General Laws c. 268A, s.19, except as otherwise permitted in s.19,[1] prohibits a municipal employee from participating as such an employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge he or a partner has a financial interest. By reviewing the August 27, 1986 Board minutes as town counsel and advising the Board that they rehear the August 27, 1986 matters, which included consideration of the Pheasant Run condominium project, Mr. Thompson participated as a municipal employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge he or a partner had a financial interest, thereby violating s.19.
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. Thompson:
1. that he pay to the Commission the total amount of five hundred dollars ($500) as a civil penalty for his violations of s.s.17(a), 17(c), and 19;
Page 300
2. that he waive all rights to contest findings of facts, conclusions of law and terms and conditions proposed under this Agreement in this or any related administrative or judicial civil proceeding in which the Commission is a party.