Settlement

Settlement  In the Matter of Rev. Benjamin Lockhart

Date: 05/17/1988
Organization: State Ethics Commission
Docket Number: 355

Table of Contents

Disposition Agreement

This Disposition Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and the Rev. Benjamin Lockhart (Rev. Lockhart) pursuant to section 11 of the Commissions Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final Commission order enforceable in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(d). 

On June 30, 1987, the Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, involving Rev. Lockhart, Agawam Town Councilor. The Commission concluded its inquiry and, on September 16, 1987, found reasonable cause to believe that Rev. Lockhart violated G.L. c. 268A, s.19. 

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

1. Rev. Lockhart has been an Agawam Town Councilor since October, 1985. This is a part-time, elected position, for which he receives $2,000 annually. As such he is a municipal employee subject to the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A. 

2. Rev. Lockhart's son, Peter Lockhart, is an Agawam firefighter and has been so Since 1969. In July, 1986, Rev. Lockhart's son held the rank of private. 

3. On July 7, 1986, the Agawam Town Council, at a regular council meeting, considered an ordinance authorizing salary increases for the Agawam Fire Department, The ordinance specifically listed privates, lieutenants, mechanics, inspectors and drill masters as the recipients of the salary increases. The salary increase listed for privates ranged between $1,072 and $1,238, depending upon the step level of the particular individual. 

4. The salary increases called for in the ordinance being considered by the Council had been negotiated between town counsel and the firefighter's union during the previous year. Town councilors did not participate in any matters concerning the negotiations. 

5. The ordinance was passed by a 13 to zero vote, with Rev. Lockhart voting favorably on the ordinance. Town counsel was present at the council meeting at the time of the vote, but there was no discussion regarding G.L. c. 268A. 

6. Except as otherwise permitted in that section, s.19 of G.L. c. 268A prohibits a municipal employee from participating as such an employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge his immediate family has a financial interest.[1] 

Page 340 

7. The salary increase proposed for the particular categories of firefighters in the ordinance is a particular matter as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1(k). 

8. Rev. Lockhart's son's interest in the proposed raise listed in the ordinance gave him a financial interest in the passage of the ordinance. 

9. By voting on passage of the pay raise ordinance, Rev. Lockhart was personally and substantially involved in its passage,[2] knowing his son had a financial interest in the ordinance. Therefore, Rev. Lockhart thereby violated s.19. 

10. In view of the foregoing violation of G.L. c. 268A, s.19, 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 Rev. Lockhart:

1. that he pay to the Commission the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) as a civil penalty for his violation of s.19; and 

2. that he 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 or may be a party.

[1] None of the exceptions in 19 is relevant here. 

[2] The plain language of s.19 does not require that the participation be influential or determinative of a result. A s.19 violation can arise despite the fact that the vote was unanimous In the matter of James Geary, Commission Docket No. 323, October 5, 1987; See. also, In the matter of John Rodgers,Jr.. 1985 SEC 227. The fact that it was a unanimous vote may be considered in mitigation when determining a fine, however. Geary, supra.

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback