| Date: | 01/17/2006 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
| Docket Number: | 06-0001 |
- This page, In the Matter of Kelly Giampa, is offered by
- State Ethics Commission
Settlement
Settlement In the Matter of Kelly Giampa
Table of Contents
Disposition Agreement
The State Ethics Commission and Kelly Giampa enter into this Disposition Agreement pursuant to Section 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 March 31, 2004, 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 Giampa. The Commission has concluded its inquiry and, on September 21, 2005, found reasonable cause to believe that Giampa violated G.L. c. 268A.
The Commission and Giampa now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings of Fact
1. In early 2003, Giampa was appointed as the Springfield Parking Authority ('the Authority') operations and facilities manager.
2. In summer 2003, the Authority decided to obtain bids for the removal and replacement of a retaining wall at an Authority parking lot.
3. Giampa was responsible for soliciting telephone bids from masonry and construction contractors to do the work.
4. Edward Rossi, whose wife worked at the Authority, found out about the job and decided to bid on it.
5. The Authority's acting executive director, Clement Chelli, questioned whether the contract could be awarded to Rossi, the husband of an Authority employee, because of possible conflict-of-interest concerns.
6. Giampa was aware of Chelli's concern and, in response to it, told Rossi's wife, 'I want [Rossi] to do the job. He can do it under my friend's contract number and he can give me $1,000 and I'll get him the job.'
7. During a cookout at Rossi's house in early September 2003, Rossi and Giampa discussed Rossi's bidding on the contract.
8. Giampa told Rossi that Chelli was not going to allow him to get the contract. Giampa then told Rossi that if he gave her $1,000 and her friend $1,000, she would make sure that Rossi got the contract, and they would use the friend's name on the contract so that Chelli wouldn't know that Rossi was working on the contract.
9. Rossi declined Giampa's suggestion.
10. Rossi submitted his bid of $21,476, dated September 16, 2003, and it was the lowest bid that the Authority received.
11. When the Authority learned that Giampa had allegedly solicited money from Rossi in relation to his bid, the Authority canceled the bids and ordered an investigation.
12. Giampa was suspended from her position on September 23, 2003 and tendered her resignation on October 17, 2003.
Conclusions of Law
13. As the Authority operations and facilities manager, Giampa was a municipal employee as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s. 1(g), and therefore subject to the conflict-of-interest law.
14. Section 2(b) of G.L. c. 268A, in relevant part, prohibits a municipal employee from directly or indirectly corruptly asking, demanding, exacting, soliciting, seeking, accepting, receiving or agreeing to receive anything of value for herself or for any other person or entity, in return for being influenced in her performance of any official act or any act within her official responsibility.
15. As noted above, Giampa told Rossi's wife that she would get Rossi the job if Rossi gave Giampa $1,000, and she asked Rossi to pay her $1,000 and her friend $1,000 in return for making sure that Rossi got the job.
16. Giampa asked for the money with the corrupt intent of being influenced in her performance of official acts regarding the awarding of the contract.
17. Thus, by corruptly soliciting money from Rossi for herself and/or for her friend in return for getting Rossi the job, Giampa violated s. 2(b).
Resolution
In view of the foregoing violations of G.L. c. 268A by Giampa, 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 Giampa:
(1) that Giampa pay to the Commission the sum of $3,000 as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A; and
(2) that Giampa 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.