| Date: | 11/14/1995 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
| Docket Number: | 536 |
- This page, In the Matter of Jerold Gnazzo, is offered by
- State Ethics Commission
Settlement
Settlement In the Matter of Jerold Gnazzo
Table of Contents
Disposition Agreement
The State Ethics Commission ("Commission") and Jerold Gnazzo
("Gnazzo") enter into this Disposition Agreement ("Agreement")
pursuant to s.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, s.4(j).
Page 747
On September 14, 1993, the Commission initiated, pursuant to
G.L. c. 268B, s.4(j), a preliminary inquiry into possible
violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by
Gnazzo. The Commission has concluded its inquiry and, on May 9,
1995, found reasonable cause to believe that Gnazzo violated G.L.
c. 268A.
The Commission and Gnazzo now agree to the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
1. At all times material to this matter, Gnazzo was the
Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles ("RMV") Registrar. As
such, he was a state employee within the meaning of G.L. c. 268A,
s.1.
2. At all times material to this matter, Gnazzo's wife,
Jane S. Gnazzo ("Jane"), was the president of Krisco Corporation.
Krisco Corporation owned and operated a MAACO Autobody shop
located at 444 Somerville Avenue in Somerville, Massachusetts.
According to Gnazzo, neither Jane nor Gnazzo had an ownership
interest in Krisco Corporation.[1]
3. In the fall of 1992, the Massachusetts Attorney
General's ("AG") Environmental Strike Force ("Strike Force"),
working closely with the Division of Environmental Law
Enforcement ("DELE") of the Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs,[2] commenced a criminal investigation into alleged
illegal hazardous waste transfers at the above Somerville MAACO
shop.
4. On or about April 28, 1993, in furtherance of this
investigation, the Strike Force issued a subpoena duces tecum to
the "Keeper of the Records, Krisco Inc." at 444 Somerville
Avenue, Somerville, Massachusetts.
5. Jane was furnished with a copy of the subpoena either
by mail or by facsimile at her usual place of business.
6. Gnazzo obtained a copy of the above subpoena from his
wife.
7. The subpoena did not identify the Strike Force. The
names of an assistant attorney general and an environmental
police officer were identified on the subpoena.
8. Having assumed the subpoena had been authorized by
DELE, on or about May 5, 1993, Gnazzo telephoned the DELE
director and asked him to come to his office.[3] When the DELE
director arrived at Gnazzo's office, Gnazzo showed him the Strike
Force subpoena. The DELE director informed Gnazzo of the
relationship between DELE and the Strike Force.
9. Gnazzo explained to the DELE director that he, Gnazzo,
knew that there had been an ongoing investigation into matters
related to the disposal of paints and other hazardous substances
at the Somerville MAACO shop, but that he, Gnazzo, understood
that the situation had been investigated and that he, Gnazzo,
believed the matter was being resolved administratively. Gnazzo
further explained that he was concerned that the subpoena had
targeted his wife, and through her Gnazzo himself, solely for
political reasons.
10. Gnazzo asked the DELE director to find out whether the
case had substance or if it was politically motivated. The DELE
director agreed to do this.
11. Gnazzo did all of the foregoing on behalf of his wife
and the Krisco Corporation (his wife was still named Krisco
Corporation's president).
12. Later that same day, the DELE director telephoned a
DELE State Police lieutenant assigned to the Strike Force and
asked to see her at his office. The DELE director was the DELE
lieutenant's supervisor. When the DELE lieutenant arrived at the
DELE director's office, the DELE director handed her a copy of
the MAACO subpoena he had received from Gnazzo. The DELE
director related to the DELE lieutenant the information Gnazzo
had told him, and expressed Gnazzo's concern that the DELE case
against Krisco Corporation and Jane was politically motivated.
13. The DELE lieutenant told the DELE director that the
investigation was substantive and was not motivated by politics.
14. The DELE director thereafter returned to Gnazzo's
office, where the DELE director told Gnazzo what the DELE
lieutenant had said. The DELE director and Gnazzo both testified
that Gnazzo did not ask the DELE director to take any additional
action.
15. On August 11, 1993, the AG's office announced an
indictment against the Somerville MAACO shop, arising out of the
alleged illegal disposal of paints and other hazardous substances
used in the day-to-day operation of the auto body shop.
16. Jane was not named in the indictment.
Conclusions of Law
17. Section 4(c) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a state employee
from acting as agent for anyone other than the Commonwealth or a
state agency in connection
Page 748
with any particular matter in which the Commonwealth or state
agency is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.
18. The Strike Force's determination to conduct a criminal
investigation into alleged illegal hazardous waste transfers at
the Somerville MAACO shop was a particular matter[4] in which the
Commonwealth was a party or had a direct and substantial
interest. When Gnazzo made inquiries to the DELE director in
relation to the investigation on behalf of his wife and the
Krisco Corporation, he acted as agent for someone other than the
Commonwealth in connection with a particular matter in which the
Commonwealth was a party. Therefore, Gnazzo violated G.L. c.
268A, 4(c).
19. Section 4 reflects the maxim that a person cannot serve
two masters. Whenever a state employee acts on behalf of private
interests in matters in which the state also has an interest,
there is a potential for divided loyalties, the use of insider
information and favoritism, all at the expense of the state. See
generally EC-COI-92-4; 82-176. An inquiry into an ongoing
sensitive criminal investigation raises such concerns, especially
when made by a high-ranking public official like the RMV
Registrar.[5]
20. Gnazzo cooperated with the Commission's investigation.
Resolution
In view of the foregoing violation of G.L. c. 268A by
Gnazzo, 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 Gnazzo:
(1) that Gnazzo pay to the Commission the sum of five
hundred dollars ($500) as a civil penalty for violating
G.L. c. 268A, s.4(c);
(2) that Gnazzo 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.