Date: | 08/03/1995 |
---|---|
Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
Docket Number: | 531 |
- This page, In the Matter of John Beukema, is offered by
- State Ethics Commission
Settlement In the Matter of John Beukema
Table of Contents
Disposition Agreement
This Disposition Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into between the State Ethics Commission ("Commission") and John Beukema ("Beukema") 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).
On January 26, 1993, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(a), a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by Beukema. The Commission has concluded its inquiry and, on May 9, 1995, voted to find reasonable cause to believe that Beukema violated G.L. c. 268A, s.s.17(a) and 17(c).
The Commission and Beukema now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Beukema was, during the times here relevant, a member of the Douglas Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA").[1] Beukema was appointed to the ZBA by the Douglas Board of Selectmen and, after serving as
[Page 732]
a ZBA associate member, became a full or regular ZBA member in October 1989. As such, Beukema was a municipal employee as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1.
2. At all times here relevant, Beukema was self-employed as an architect, with an office in Douglas.
3. In January 1990, Beukema asked the Douglas selectmen to designate him a G.L. c. 268A "special municipal employee."[2] The selectmen did not act on this request because it was not from the ZBA itself.[3] The ZBA then asked that all its members be so designated. On February 28, 1990, selectmen voted to make all ZBA members "special municipal employees."
4. In 1991, a proposed landfill and a recycling facility (to be located on nearly 290 acres on the north side of Route 16 in Douglas) was under development by Douglas Environmental Associates, Inc. ("DEA"). The landfill and the recycling facility, once developed, were to be operated by Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. ("BFI").
5. In September 1991, Beukema, d/b/a JN Albert Associates, entered into an Architectural Service Agreement ("Service Agreement") with BFI to design the buildings for the landfill's recycling facility. Pursuant to the Service Agreement, Beukema was to receive a fee of $2,920 for the design of the recycling facility buildings.[4] The Service Agreement further provided, "When requested, the architect shall assist the owner in acquiring necessary permits."[5]
6. After entering into the Service Agreement, Beukema proceeded to draw up plans for the recycling facility buildings and site layout.
7. Pursuant to the Service Agreement, in 1992 Beukema prepared an application to the ZBA for a special permit ("Site Plan Review") for the proposed recycling facility under Section VI 6:02 of the Douglas Zoning Bylaw. The special permit application named DEA president Vincent Barletta ("Barletta") as the applicant. Beukema signed the application for Barletta on July 13, 1992, and filed it with the ZBA. The application was received by the ZBA on July 16, 1992. The ZBA then scheduled a public hearing on the matter for August 12, 1992, and gave public notice of the meeting by posting and newspaper advertisement between July 22, 1992, and August 5, 1992.
8. On August 12, 1992, Beukema appeared with Barletta at the ZBA public hearing relating to the recycling facility. Beukema, as Barletta's architect, made a presentation to the ZBA describing the recycling facility and responded to questions from the ZBA and members of the public.
9. Near the end of the August 12, 1992 ZBA public hearing, a member of the public questioned whether Beukema had a conflict of interest in being a ZBA member and Barletta's (the special permit applicant's) architect. In response, ZBA Chairman Lawrence "Guy" Bacon ("Bacon") stated that Beukema would not vote on the matter and that, because ZBA members had been designated as special municipal employees, Beukema's being the special permit applicant's architect did not create a conflict of interest. Bacon was then asked if the Commission had been consulted on the issue and Bacon responded "no."[6]
10. Beukema abstained from any participation in the recycling facility matter as a ZBA member. On September 22, 1992, the ZBA, without Beukema participating, unanimously approved the special permit subject to several conditions.
11. Beukema was paid approximately $3,000 by DEA as compensation for his services under the Service Agreement.[7]
12. Section 17(a) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties, directly or indirectly receiving or requesting compensation[8] from anyone other than the municipality or an agency of the municipality in relation to a particular matter[9] in which the municipality is a part or has a direct and substantial interest.
13. Section 17(c) of G.L c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee, otherwise than in the proper discharge of his official duties, from acting as agent[10] for anyone other than the municipality or an agency of the municipality in connection with any particular matter in which his town has a direct and substantial interest.
14. Section 17 further provides that a special municipal employee, such as Beukema, is subject to s.17(a) and s.17(c) only in relation to a particular matter (a) in which he has participated as a municipal employee, or (b) which is, or within one year has been, a subject of his official responsibility, or (c) which is pending in the municipal agency in which he is serving (provided he has served more than 60 days during any 365 consecutive day period).[11]
[Page 733]
15. The ZBA's special permit site plan review of the proposed recycling facility was a particular matter, in which the town was a party and had a direct and substantial interest, and was a subject of Beukema's official responsibility as a ZBA member, within the meaning of s.17,[12] at the time when Beukema acted on Barletta's behalf in connection with it and within one year of Beukema's receiving compensation from DEA in relation to it.[13] Thus, condition (b) of the special municipal employee provisions in s.17 was met, and Beukema was subject to s.17(a) and s.17(c) despite his status as a special municipal employee.
16. By receiving compensation from DEA for his services in connection with the special permit site plan review application, Beukema received compensation from someone other than the Town of Douglas in relation to a particular matter (then or within one year a subject of his official responsibility) in which the town was a party and had a direct and substantial interest. In so doing, Beukema violated G.L. c. 268A, s.17(a).
17. By preparing Barletta's special permit site plan review application and filing it with the ZBA, and by speaking on behalf of Barletta at the ZBA hearing, Beukema acted as agent for someone other than the Town of Douglas in connection with a particular matter (then a subject of his official responsibility as a ZBA member) in which the town was a party and had a direct and substantial interest. In so doing, Beukema violated G.L. c. 268A, s.17(c).
18. According to Beukema, at the time of his above-described actions he believed that his conduct was lawful because he was a special municipal employee. As set forth above, Beukema was mistaken about the effect of his special municipal employee status. In addition, according to Beukema, he relied on ZBA Chairman Bacon's concurrence with this misunderstanding of the law. Neither of these circumstances, however, excuses Beukema's violations of G.L. c. 268A, s.17.[14]
19. Beukema cooperated fully in the Commission's investigation of this matter.
In view of the foregoing violations of G.L. c. 268A by Beukema, 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 Beukema:
(1) that Beukema pay to the Commission the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, s.s.17(a) and 17(c); and
(2) that Beukema waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this Disposition Agreement in this or any other related administrative or judicial proceedings to which the Commission is or may be a party.[15]