| Date: | 09/11/1984 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
| Docket Number: | 265 |
- This page, In the Matter of Thomas Joy, is offered by
- State Ethics Commission
Settlement
Settlement In the Matter of Thomas Joy
Table of Contents
Disposition Agreement
This Disposition Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and Thomas Joy (Mr. Joy) pursuant to section 11 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. The Agreement constitutes a consented to final order of the Commission enforceable in superior court under G.L. c. 268B, s.4(d).
On March 12, 1984, the Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of G.L. c. 268A by Mr. Joy, chief building inspector for the city of Malden. The Commission concluded that preliminary inquiry and, on August 14, 1984, found reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Joy had violated c. 268A.
The parties now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Page 192
1. Mr. Joy is chief building inspector for the city of Malden. As such, he is a municipal employee, as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1(g).
2. Domenic Cibene (Mr. Cibene) worked for Mr. Joy as an assistant building inspector from July 1982 until March 1983. At or about this same time, Mr. Cibene also owned and operated a construction company, Scorpio Construction, that primarily dealt in real estate investment and development.
3. On October 27, 1982, Mr. Cibene, acting for himself and Mr. Joy, signed a purchase and sale agreement to purchase a piece of property in Malden for $38,000,
4. The property was conveyed on December 31, 1982, and four months later resold at a net profit of $14,000. Mr. Joy and Mr. Cibene equally divided that profit. 5. During this same period of time, Mr. Joy and Mr. Cibene entered into another partnership arrangement to purchase a second piece of property in Malden. 6. This property was sold on March 27, 1983, again at a profit of approximately $14,000. Mr. Joy and Mr. Cibene also equally divided that profit.
7. In both ventures, Mr. Cibene made the full down-payment and used only his own financial information in securing the financing for the properties.
8. At or about the time Mr. Joy and Mr. Cibene were involved in the real estate ventures, Mr. Cibene gave Mr. Joy a short term, no interest loan in the amount of $2,000.
9. Mr. Joy, as the building inspector, also inspected Mr. Cibene's private construction work at a time when or soon after Mr. Cibene engaged in these private business relationships.
10. General Laws c. 268A, s.23(paragraph 2)(3) prohibits a public employee, as Mr. Joy, from giving reasonable basis for the impression that any person can unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties. By entering into private real estate transactions with and accepting a loan from Mr. Cibene, Mr. Joy violated s.23(paragraph 2)(3). Such conduct gave reasonable basis for the impression that Mr. Cibene would unduly enjoy the favor of Mr. Joy in any decisions he might make as his supervisor and also in inspecting his private construction work.
Based on the foregoing, 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, to which Mr. Joy has agreed:
(a) that he pay to the Commission the sum of $1250 forthwith as a civil penalty for violating G.L. c. 268A, s.23(paragraph 2)(3); and
(b) that he waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms contained in the Agreement in this or any other related administrative or judicial proceedings in which the Commission is a party.
End Of Decision