Settlement  In the Matter of Marjorie Goudreault

Date:	01/29/1987
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	325

Disposition Agreement

This Disposition Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between  the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and Marjorie Goudreault  (Ms. Goudreault), 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 September 15,1986, the Commission initiated a preliminary  inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law,  G.L. c. 268A, involving Ms. Goudreault, a city councilor in the  city of Haverhill. The Commission concluded its inquiry and, on  December 8,1986, found reasonable cause to believe that Ms.  Goudreault violated G.L. c. 268A, s.19.

The parties now agree to the following findings of  fact and conclusions of law:

1. Ms. Goudreault is an elected member of the Haverhill City  Council, a position for which she receives $8,000 per year. As a  city councilor, Ms. Goudreault is a municipal employee as that  term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1(g).

2. William Ryan is Ms. Goudreault's brother and is the elected  mayor of Haverhill. Mr. Ryan is a member of Ms. Goudreault's  immediate family as that term is defined by G.L. c. 268A, s.1(g).

3. In May, 1985, on a motion by Ms. Goudreault, the Haverhill  City Council requested the city's Director of Finance and Records  to conduct a salary survey for administrative and professional  positions within city government. As a result of the study, Mr.  Klueber submitted a proposed municipal reorganization ordinance on  February 10, 1986.

4. The proposed ordinance included two attachments. Attachment  A related to the reorganization of the structure of Haverhill  municipal government. Attachment B related to proposed salaries for  administrative and professional positions within the city  government, listing each position on a two page schedule. The  mayor's salary was listed as $37,500, to be increased to $47,500  effective July 1,1986. Forty nine other positions were listed,  although there was no bottom line total for the salaries listed on  the schedule. The ordinance was brought before the city council for  a vote on February 25,1986. Ms. Goudreault was present at that  meeting and voted in favor of tabling the ordinance until March 11,  1986.

5. On March 11,1986, the city council voted to delete Attachment  A in its entirety, and to pass only Attachment B of the ordinance.  Ms. Goudreault was present and voted in favor of the ordinance as  amended. The vote was six to three.

6. According to G.L. c.44, s.33A, a two-thirds vote of the city  council is needed to pass an ordinance relating to salaries.

7. At the time the ordinance was being considered by the city  council, there was discussion of the document as a whole, but no  discussion of any individual on the schedule. Ms. Goudreault did  not participate in any of the discussions.

8. According to the Haverhill City Charter, the city council has  the power to determine the mayor's salary by ordinance.    9. General Laws chapter 268A, s.19 prohibits a municipal  employee from participating as such in a particular matter in which  he or a member of his immediate family has a financial interest.    10. By voting to approve the proposed administrative salaries  as described above, Ms. Goudreault participated in a particular  matter in which her brother had a financial interest, thereby  violating s.19.[1]    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 Ms. Goudreault:

1. that she pay to the Commission the amount of five hundred  dollars ($500) as a civil penalty for her violation of s.19;  and

2. that, in the future, she refrain from participating in any  matter in which her brother has a financial interest; and.    3. that she waive all rights to contest the findings of fact,  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.

[1] Ms. Goudreault violated s.19 by voting on the salary ordinance.  even though it affected other administrative positions in addition  to her brother's. As the Supreme Judicial Court made clear in  Graham v. McGrail, 370 Mass. 133 (1976), a public official is  barred from more than just those particular matters which affect  only his immediate family member. "A decision to increase the  [family member's] salary seems to a to be a particular matter in  which the [family member] has a financial interest, even though a  number of other employees are given similar increases." Id. at 133.  In giving the statute a workable meaning, the Court went on, to say  that the public official could participate in a vote on a  consolidated budget including the salaries, once the salaries were  approved without the involvement of the disqualified official.  Finally, the Court observed that the best course in such  circumstances is not only to abstain but also to leave the room  during the discussion and vote on the matter.