Settlement  In the Matter of Robert N. Scola

Date:	06/20/1986
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	212

Disposition Agreement

 This Disposition Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into between the State Ethics Commission (Commission") and Robert N. Scola (Judge Scola") pursuant to section 11 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This agreement constitutes a consented to final order of the Commission enforceable in the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 268B, s. 4(d). 

On March 22, 1983, the Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s. 4(a), into possible violations of the Conflict of Interest law, G. L. c. 268A, involving Judge Scola, presiding justice of the Spencer District Court. The Commission concluded that preliminary inquiry and on May 5, 1983, found reasonable cause to believe that Judge Scola violated G. L. c. 268A, s. 23 (s. 2) (3). The parties now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 

1. Judge Scola is a district court judge and presiding justice of the Spencer District Court. He is therefore a state employee" as defined in G. L. c. 268A, s.1(q). 

2. In August 1982, a Spencer court probation officer brought to Judge Scola's attention an educational program for criminal defendants offered by a recently organized non-profit corporation, MAP, Inc. This program, know as SAAP (the Social Attitude and Alcohol Awareness Program), was a single, hour-and-a-half session aimed at young persons charged with less serious misdemeanors related to alcohol and controlled substance abuse, such as possession of alcohol or marijuana, transporting alcohol, disturbing the peace or trespassing. The charge for SAAP was $20. Judge Scola had previously expressed his interest to other alcohol programs, without success, in a relatively short educational program for such less serious offenses as a sentencing alternative, and SAAP sounded like something that might meet his requirements. As a result, he met with the probation officer and the two principals of MAP, Inc. to discuss SAAP. Further meetings among Judge Scola and MAP, Inc. representatives followed.

 3. Judge Scola approved SAAP in the latter part of August and began using it as a sentencing alternative after trial and a finding of sufficient facts: if the offender agreed to complete the program and proof was submitted that he or she had, the court would dismiss the charges on a pre-set date at the end of a three-month period of probation without the defendant having to appear. Other judges sitting in both Spencer and Dudley district courts also used SAAP as a sentencing alternative. 

4. MAP Inc. also offered an educational program, known as MAP (Massachusetts Alcohol Program), which was longer and more expensive than SAAP. MAP was a program designed for repeat offenders arrested for driving under the influence; it was offered in either a 14-, 20- or 32 week format and cost from $180 to $300, depending on which format was chosen. The two principals of MAP, Inc. were marketing MAP at various district courts in the Worcester area and discussed it with Judge Scola in Spencer. 

5. Judge Scola's daughter took a job and started work at MAP, Inc. on September 14, 1982. Hers was the only paid position, and her salary was derived from MAP and SAAP referral income. In January, 1983, MAP, Inc. was forced to let her go because the new Massachusetts drunk driving laws had severely curtailed MAP, Inc.'s income from MAP referrals. As a result, MAP, Inc. was forced to reduce its operating expenses. 

6. During the four-month period his daughter worked at MAP, Inc., Judge Scola continued to refer offenders to SAAP. These referrals totalled approximately 75 during this period and represented a significant portion of MAP, Inc.'s SAAP income. In addition, Judge Scola directed at least two offenders to the corps ration's MAP program while his daughter was employed there; these referrals occurred in the second half of September, but ended in October as a result of the new drunk driving law. 

7. Judge Scola had no program similar to SAAP available to him as a sentencing alternative during this period, although alternatives to some, but not all, MAP programs were available. 

8. Section 23(s. 2) (3) forbids a public official from giving reasonable basis, by his conduct, 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. 

9. By continuing to assign offenders to attend programs given by the corporation employing his daughter,Judge Scola gave reasonable basis for the impression that MAP, Inc. and his daughter could improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties or that he was unduly affected by the fact that MAP, Inc. employed his daughter;Judge Scola thereby violated s. 23 (s.20) (3). 

10. In assessing the penalty here, the Commission

Page 389  has taken into consideration that Judge Scola's MAP and SAAP referrals do not appear to have been motivated by his daughter's interest in them or by a desire to benefit his daughter. 

WHEREFORE, 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 representations agreed to by Judge Scola: 

1. that he pay the Commission the sum of $250 forthwith as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, s. 23 (s. 2) (3), because he assigned offenders to programs offered by an organization employing his daughter; and 

2. that he waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions contained in this Agreement in this or any related administrative and/or judicial proceedings.