Settlement  In the Matter of Lowell L. Richards, III.

Date:	02/13/1984
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	251

Disposition Agreement

This disposition agreement ("agreement") is entered into between the State Ethics Commission 

Page 174  ("Commission") and Lowell L. Richards, III ("Mr. Richards") pursuant to section 11 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This agreement constitutes a consented to final order of the Commission enforceable in superior court under G.L. c. 268B, s.4(d). 

On July 19, 1983, the Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of G.L. c. 268A, s.23, by Mr. Richards, Collector Treasurer of the City of Boston ("City"). The Commission concluded that preliminary inquiry and, on December 13, 1983, found reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Richards had violated chapter 268A. 

The parties hereto, being desirous of reaching an agreement that satisfies the public interests and those of the parties, and no order to show cause having been issued and no hearings having been held with respect to these matters, hereby agree to the following finding of fact and conclusions of law: 

1. Mr. Richards is Collector Treasurer of the City of Boston ("City') and, as such, a municipal employee, as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1(g).  

2. In addition to his responsibilities as Collector Treasurer, Mr. Richards also served as City Parking Clerk and deputy Parking Clerk during the 1981-83 period. In this capacity, he had authority to dismiss parking tickets. 

3. In January or early February 1983, Mr. Richards dismissed 21 of 25 parking tickets owed by Colleen McGee ("Ms. McGee"), daughter of Speaker Thomas McGee, on a car registered in her name. This represented a release of $420 of her $500 liability to the City. 

4. In early February 1983, Mr. Richards dismissed 27 of 39 tickets Ms. McGee owed on another car she had been using, a car registered in her brother's name. This represented a release of $540 of her $789 liability to the City. 

5. Mr. Richards has been unable to explain why he dismissed some of these tickets and those reasons are not apparent. The records of the dismissals do not provide legitimate reasons supporting some of these dismissals.* According to Ms. McGee, she did not tell Mr. Richards or anyone else why her tickets should be dismissed. As a result, it appears that Mr. Richards dismissed some of the tickets owed by Ms. McGee because she was the daughter of Speaker McGee. 

6. Section 23 (paragraph 2)(3) prohibits a public official from giving reasonable basis for the impression that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is unduly affected by the kinship, rank, position or influence of any party or person. 

7. By dismissing parking tickets for the daughter of a powerful Massachusetts political figure without legitimate reasons apparent for some of these dismissals, Mr. Richards gave reasonable basis for the impression that her family connections had unduly and improperly influenced his decisions, thereby violating s.23(paragraph 2)(3).

In light of the foregoing, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be served by terminating this matter without further enforcement proceedings or the imposition of a civil penalty. In deciding not to impose a fine, the Commission has taken into consideration the following factors: Mr. Richards obtained no personal benefit or financial gain from dismissing these tickets; and dismissals under these circumstances appear to have been the exception rather than the rule in Mr. Richards' handling of tickets. 

In disposing of this matter by means of this disposition agreement, Mr. Richards has agreed to waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this agreement in this or any related administrative or judicial proceeding to which the Commission is a party.

* Construing the facts favorably to Mr. Richards, of the 48 tickets dismissed, there is no explanation for 23 of these dismissals. That is, of the other 25 tickets dismissed, 21 lacked a street number identifying the location of the violation and were therefore incomplete; 3 misidentified the make of the car; and 1 was issued before 1980. Each of these 3 reasons for dismissal was used regularly by Mr. Richards in making decisions to dismiss tickets. On the other hand, where Ms. McGee did not plead her case, no reason for dismissal regularly used by Mr. Richards is apparent for the other 23 dismissals.