| Date: | 03/02/2020 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
| Docket Number: | 19-0008 |
- This page, In the Matter of Peter Skorput - Disposition Agreement, is offered by
- State Ethics Commission
Settlement
Settlement In the Matter of Peter Skorput - Disposition Agreement
Table of Contents
Disposition Agreement
The State Ethics Commission (“Commission”) and Peter Skorput (“Skorput”) enter into this Disposition Agreement pursuant to Section 3 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, § 4(j).
On June 23, 2017, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, § 4(a), a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A. On January 23, 2019, the Commission concluded its inquiry and found reasonable cause to believe that Skorput violated G.L. c. 268A, §§ 19, 20, and 23.
The Commission and Skorput now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Background
1. Skorput, a resident of West Stockbridge, was during the relevant time the chief of the West Stockbridge Fire Department (“WSFD”).
2. The WSFD Fire Chief is appointed to a three-year term by the West Stockbridge Board of Selectmen (“BOS”).
3. In May 2013, Skorput was elected to the BOS.
4. As of the 2010 census, West Stockbridge’s population was 1,306.
Holding Two Municipal Positions
Findings of Fact
5. As Fire Chief, Skorput received a single yearly payment called a “Fire-person’s Incentive.”
6. BOS members receive a biannual stipend.
7. On May 21, 2013, Skorput contacted the Commission’s Legal Division and asked whether he, as a selectman, could sign a lease on a new fire truck. Skorput was told that, because he was also Fire Chief and because he was using the “selectman’s exemption” to serve in both positions, the conflict of interest law prohibited him from signing the lease unless his doing so was a legal necessity. Skorput was advised to talk to Town Counsel and find out whether there was someone else in town government who could sign the lease and to call back for further advice. Although Skorput called the Legal Division two days later to say that he had not yet spoken with Town Counsel, he did not subsequently contact the Legal Division for further advice.
8. On May 22, 2013, the West Stockbridge Town Administrative Assistant1 contacted Town Counsel regarding, in part, exemptions available to Skorput regarding his dual positions as Fire Chief and Selectman under the conflict of interest law.
9. On May 30, 2013, Town Counsel sent an email to the Town Administrative Assistant (“May 30, 2013 email”) which stated that a § 20(d) exemption would allow Skorput to accept pay as both Fire Chief and Selectman. Town Counsel advised that Skorput “follow the requirements” for the exemption and she attached a § 20(d) exemption form to her email.
10. The Town Administrative Assistant showed Town Counsel’s May 30, 2013 email to Skorput.
11. As of January 9, 2017, Skorput had not filed any conflict of interest law disclosures with the Town Clerk, had not obtained a § 20(d) exemption and, was not in compliance with the requirements of the Selectmen’s exemption.
12. From June 2013 to January 2017, Skorput accepted both Fire-person’s Incentive and Selectman’s stipends as follows: in Fiscal Year 2014,2 Skorput accepted $1172.22 as Selectman and $500 as Fire Chief; in Fiscal Year 2015, he received $2,200 as Selectman and $400 as Fire Chief; and in Fiscal Year 2016, he received $2,000 as Selectman and $500 as Fire Chief.
13. During this same time period, Skorput acted as a selectman on matters within the purview of the WSFD by signing warrants to pay Fire-person’s Incentives and other WSFD expenses that he requested payment of as Fire Chief.
14. On January 9, 2017, Skorput submitted a 20(f) disclosure form to the BOS.
Conclusions of Law
15. As WSFD Fire Chief, Skorput was a municipal employee as defined in G.L. c. 268A, § 1(g). As a West Stockbridge selectman, Skorput was a special municipal employee as defined in G.L. c. 268A, § 1(n).
16. Section 20 of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from having a financial interest, directly or indirectly, in a contract made by a municipal agency of the same city or town, in which the same city or town is an interested party, of which financial interest the employee has knowledge or reason to know, except as permitted by one of the exceptions to the section.
17. Skorput’s appointment as Fire Chief was a contract with the Town for the purposes of the conflict of interest law.
18. Skorput had a financial interest in this contract because the position of Fire Chief was compensated.
19. In May 2013, when Skorput was elected as a selectman, his financial interest in his Fire Chief position raised an issue under § 20, which prohibited that interest unless the requirements of an exemption to that section were met by Skorput.
20. The “selectman’s exemption” to § 20 allows a compensated, appointed municipal employee who is elected as a selectman in the same municipality to serve in both positions without violating § 20. To qualify for the exemption, the selectman must: a) decline compensation for all but one Town position and b) abstain from voting or acting as a selectman on any matter within the purview of any Town agency that employs the selectman.
21. Skorput failed to meet the requirements of the Selectman’s exemption to § 20 because he accepted both the selectmen’s stipends and the Fire-person’s Incentive and acted as a selectman on matters within the purview of the WSFD, including the warrants to pay the Fire-person’s Incentives and other WSFD expenses.
22. Section 20(d) makes an additional exemption to § 20 available to special municipal employees. Selectmen in a town with a population of fewer than 10,000 people are special municipal employees. G.L. c. 268A, § 1(n). The exemption requires that a written § 20(d) disclosure be approved by the board of selectmen. The approved disclosure must be filed with the town clerk. As a selectman in West Stockbridge, Skorput was eligible to seek this exemption to permit him to serve as both a selectman and Fire Chief and to accept compensation for both positions.
23. A § 20(f) disclosure is available to municipal employees seeking employment in a part time, call or volunteer capacity with the fire department in a municipality with a population of less than 35,000. It allows a person who is already a municipal employee in another position to add the position of firefighter. Given that Skorput held the position of Fire Chief before he became a selectman, the 20(f) disclosure was not available to him.
24. From the time he became a selectman in May 2013 until January 2017, Skorput did not seek or obtain an exemption to § 20. On January 9, 2017, Skorput sought a § 20(f) exemption for which he was not eligible.
25. Therefore, Skorput violated § 20 by continuing to hold the compensated position of Fire Chief after he was elected to the BOS.
Participating in his own reappointment and awarding stipends to himself, his daughter and his nephew
Findings of Facts
26. On June 17, 2013, the BOS voted on the renewal of Skorput’s contract as Fire Chief.
27. Skorput, as a selectman, participated in the vote, and voted in favor of his re-appointment.
28. All members of the WSFD receive a Fire-person’s Incentive.
29. Skorput, as Fire Chief, is responsible for determining the amount of the Fire-person’s Incentives for each firefighter including himself.
30. There are no written criteria to determine how the Fire-person’s Incentives are distributed among the WSFD members.
31. Although Skorput purportedly based the amount of the Fire-person’s Incentive on each member’s participation, Skorput did not document or maintain any records of each member’s participation in trainings, meetings, or response calls.
32. In or about December 2013, 2014, and 2015, as Fire Chief, Skorput unilaterally decided the amount of his own Fire-person’s Incentive. He then signed and submitted a bills payable schedule regarding these Fire-person’s Incentives to the BOS for payment.
33. On or about January 9, 2017, Skorput filed a § 19 conflict of interest disclosure form related to his own Fire-person’s Incentive with the BOS.
34. Tricia Skorput is Skorput’s daughter.
35. From approximately 2011 to 2015, Tricia was a member of the WSFD.
36. In or about December 2013 and 2014, as Fire Chief, Skorput unilaterally decided the amounts of the Fire-person’s Incentive for Tricia. He then signed and submitted a bills payable schedule regarding these Fire-person’s Incentive to the BOS for payment.
37. At no time did Skorput file a conflict of interest disclosure related to his daughter and her Fire-person’s Incentives.
38. William Cooper is Skorput’s nephew.
39. At all times relevant to this matter, Cooper was a member of the WSFD.
40. In or about December 2013, 2014, and 2015, as Fire Chief, Skorput unilaterally decided on the amounts of the Fire-person’s Incentive for his nephew. He then signed and submitted a bills payable schedule regarding these Fire-person’s Incentives to the BOS for payment.
41. At no time did Skorput file any conflict of interest disclosures relating to Cooper and his Fire-person’s Incentives.
42. In December 2013 and 2014, Skorput, as Selectman, signed warrants for payments including Fire-person’s Incentives for his daughter and nephew.
Conclusions of Law
Section 19
Skorput’s Reappointment as Fire Chief
43. Except as otherwise permitted,3 § 19 of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from participating4 as such an employee in a particular matter5 in which, to his knowledge, he or an immediate family member6 has a financial interest.7
44. The BOS’s decision to reappoint Skorput as Fire Chief was a particular matter.
45. Skorput had a financial interest in the particular matter of his reappointment as Fire Chief because it is a compensated position.
46. In June 2013, Skorput participated as Selectman in the particular matter of his reappointment as Fire Chief by voting as a selectman in favor of his reappointment.
47. At the time of his participation, Skorput knew that he had a financial interest in the particular matter of his reappointment as Fire Chief.
48. Accordingly, by participating as Selectman in his reappointment as Fire Chief, Skorput violated § 19.8
Fire-person’s Incentives for Skorput and his Daughter
49. The decision regarding the amount of Fire-person’s Incentives to pay firefighters and the payment of those Fire-person’s Incentives were particular matters.
50. Both Skorput and his daughter had a financial interest in these particular matters because the Fire-person’s Incentives were compensation.
51. As Skorput’s daughter, Tricia Skorput is a member of Skorput’s immediate family.
52. Skorput participated as Fire Chief in these particular matters by deciding the amount of and awarding Fire-person’s Incentives to himself and his daughter and submitting them to the BOS for payment.
53. Skorput also participated as Selectman in these particular matters by signing warrants that contained Fire-person’s Incentives for his daughter.
54. At the time of his participation as Fire Chief and as Selectman, Skorput knew that both he and his daughter had a financial interest in these particular matters.
55. A § 19 disclosure requires that a municipal employee first advise the official responsible for appointment to his position of the nature and circumstances of the particular matter and make full disclosure of such financial interest, and receive in advance a written determination made by that official that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the municipality may expect from the employee.
56. Prior to January 9, 2017, Skorput did not advise his appointing authority, the BOS, of his own financial interest or that of his daughter in the particular matters of determination of the amount and the awarding of the Fire-person’s Incentives.
57. Thus, by participating as Fire Chief and as Selectman in particular matters concerning the WSFD Fire-person’s Incentives for himself and his daughter, Skorput violated § 19.
Section 23
Fire-person’s Incentive for Nephew
58. Section 23(b)(3) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from, knowingly, or with reason to know, acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person. The section further provides that it shall be unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a conclusion.
59. By, as described above, participating as Fire Chief in WSFD matters regarding his nephew, including calculating and awarding a yearly Fire-person’s Incentive, Skorput knowingly or with reason to know, acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of all the relevant circumstances to conclude that Skorput would be likely to act favorably towards his nephew as a result of kinship in the performance of his official duties as Fire Chief.
Participation and Retaliation Regarding Complaints Against Him
Findings of Facts
60. In September 2014, Dominic Luchi (“Luchi”) appeared at the BOS and voiced criticism about Skorput’s performance as Fire Chief. Skorput did not recuse himself from participating in the matter as a Selectman. Skorput, while sitting at the selectmen’s table, verbally responded to Luchi’s complaints.
61. At the October 26, 2015 BOS meeting, Luchi appeared and further discussed his concerns about Skorput. Skorput did not recuse himself from participating in the matter as a selectman. Skorput, while sitting at the selectmen’s table, responded to Luchi’s complaints.
62. At the November 9, 2015 BOS meeting, the selectmen discussed Luchi’s concerns. Skorput did not recuse himself from participating as a selectman in the discussion.
63. In 2016, James Hallock (“Hallock”), a twenty-five-year veteran firefighter, was a lieutenant in the WSFD.
64. At the February 8, 2016 BOS meeting, Hallock submitted a written complaint regarding Skorput’s performance as chief. Skorput, as Selectman, stated that he was “insulted with the exaggerations and lies” by Hallock who was “stabbing him in the back because he wants to become Fire Chief.”
65. Approximately twenty-four minutes after the February 8, 2016 BOS meeting adjourned, Skorput sent a text message to Hallock that read, “Turn in your gear.”
66. On February 26, 2016, Hallock was summoned to a meeting of the WSFD membership. Thereafter, Skorput terminated Hallock from the WSFD.
67. In February or March 2016, Skorput consulted Town Counsel to ask whether the Town’s non-retaliation policy applied to him. Skorput was advised that it did.
68. At the March 7, 2016 BOS meeting, Town Counsel opined that, because of Skorput’s actions, the Town was at risk for a lawsuit under the Whistle Blower Act.
69. At the March 21, 2016 BOS meeting, Hallock’s concerns were again discussed and the Chair moved to request Town Counsel hire a firm to conduct an audit of the WSFD.
70. An audit was conducted in August 2016 and filed in October and it found that Skorput's record-keeping for the WSFD roster and the process around stipend payments was insufficient.
71. As a result of the audit, Skorput was required to provide regular WSFD reports to the BOS.
Conclusions of Law
Section 19
72. The complaints regarding Skorput’s performance as Fire Chief were particular matters.
73. Skorput had a financial interest in the complaints regarding his job performance because such criticism could affect his compensated position as Fire Chief.
74. In September 2014, October 2015, November 2015, and February 2016, Skorput participated as a selectman in the particular matters of the complaints by discussing the merits of the complaints at BOS meetings.
75. At the time of his participation, Skorput knew that he had a financial interest in the particular matters of the complaints.
76. Accordingly, by participating as Selectman in the complaints regarding his fitness as Fire Chief, Skorput violated § 19.
Section 23(b)(2)(ii)
77. Section 23(b)(2)(ii) of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from, knowingly, or with reason to know, using or attempting to use his official position to secure for himself or others unwarranted privileges or exemptions which are of substantial value and which are not properly available to similarly situated individuals.
78. The opportunity to retaliate against Hallock for complaining about Skorput’s performance as Fire Chief by terminating Hallock without justification was a privilege.
79. The privilege was unwarranted because Skorput was not authorized as Fire Chief to terminate Hallock based on Skorput’s personal feelings about Hallock, rather than on objective criteria such as Hallock’s work performance; and the privilege was not properly available to individuals similarly-situated to Skorput as Fire Chief.
80. This privilege was of substantial value9 because Skorput's termination of Hallock resulted in the removal of a source of complaints that caused the BOS to order an audit and could have resulted in Skorput losing his paid position as Fire Chief. Skorput’s stipend was worth more than $50.
81. Skorput was only in a position to terminate Hallock because he was Fire Chief and he used his position as Fire Chief to cause that termination in retaliation for Hallock’s complaint about him to the BOS.
82. Therefore, by, in the manner described above, by using his position as Fire Chief to retaliate against Hallock, Skorput knowingly or with reason to know used his official position to secure for himself an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to other similarly situated individuals in violation of § 23(b)(2)(ii).
Appearance Violation regarding Board of Health Chair and Health Agent
Finding of facts
83. In June 2017, the Board of Health ("BOH") received notice from the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") regarding an allegation of illegal dumping of refuse materials on Skorput’s property. The DEP letter advised the BOH to take action. At the time, Scott Sawyer was the Chair of the BOH and Earl Moffatt was the Health Agent.
84. An inspection by the BOH revealed that off site refuse had been deposited on Skorput’s property. The dumping site was found to possibly impact a semi-public water supply and several private water supply wells on adjoining properties.
85. On May 25, 2018, the BOH issued a letter to Skorput. Although the BOH had the authority to order Skorput to remove the material, it did not do so because of the “enormous financial burden” to Skorput. Instead, the BOH ordered Skorput obtain a plan of property delineating the affected area, prepared by a certified professional, and cause it to be filed as a deed restriction on Skorput’s property. The letter was signed by Sawyer and Luci Leonard.
86. On June 18, 2018, the BOS acted on the Annual Officer Appointments. Skorput voted against reappointing:
a. Moffatt as Health Agent;
b. Moffatt as member of the Historical Commission;
c. Moffatt as member of the Sewer and Water Commission; and
d. Sawyer as member of the Historical Commission.
87. Skorput did not file any disclosure regarding past issues between himself and Moffatt or Sawyer.
Conclusions of Law
88. By, as described above, participating as a selectman in matters regarding Sawyer and Moffat shortly after the BOH issued a letter to him requiring him to take action concerning the dumping site on his property including filing a deed restriction on the property, Skorput, knowingly or with reason to know, acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, including Skorput’s animosity towards Sawyer and Moffatt, to conclude that Skorput would be likely to act unfavorably towards Sawyer and Moffatt in the performance of his official duties as a selectman.
89. Skorput did not file a disclosure sufficient to dispel these appearances of undue influence and favoritism in his official actions.
90. In so acting, Skorput violated G.L. c. 268A, § 23(b)(3).
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing violations of G.L. c. 268A by Skorput, 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 Skorput:
- that Skorput pay to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with such payment to be delivered to the Commission, the sum of $5,000 as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, §§ 19, 20 and 23; and
- that Skorput waive all rights to contest, in this or any other administrative or judicial proceeding to which the Commission is or may be a party, the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this Agreement.
By signing below, Skorput acknowledges that he/she has personally read this Disposition Agreement, that it is a public document, and that he/she agrees to all of the terms and conditions therein.