Settlement  In the Matter of William C. Lannon

Date:	12/24/1984
Organization:	State Ethics Commission
Docket Number:	277

Disposition Agreement

This Disposition Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and William C. Lannon (Mr. Lannon) pursuant to section 11 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes an assented to final Commission order enforceable in Superior Court pursuant to General Laws chapter 268B, s.4(d). 

On September 11, 1984, the Commission initiated a preliminary inquiry pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(d), into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, involving Mr. Lannon, former Cambridge superintendent of schools. The Commission concluded that preliminary inquiry and, on November 27, 1984, found reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Lannon had violated chapter 268A. 

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

1. Mr. Lannon was superintendent of schools for the city of Cambridge from August 15,1975 to August 15, 1984. As such, he had supervisory authority over  

Page 209 

Cambridge school personnel. As superintendent. Mr. Lannon was a municipal employee within the meaning of G.L. c. 268A, s.1(g). 

2. In the fall of 1978, Mr. Lannon asked a teacher subject to his supervisory authority for a loan of $3,000. The teacher agreed to loan the money to Mr. Lannon. 

3. Some time later, Mr. Lannon's wife asked the same teacher for an additional $2,000 loan, and the teacher again agreed. At or about this time, a promissory note was entered into by Mr. Lannon and the teacher. The terms set out in the note stated that the $5,000 was to be repaid within five years and was subject to eight percent annual interest. The interest was to be paid annually at the end of each year. 

4. On several occasions during the term of the loan, the teacher approached Mr. Lannon regarding payments of the interest due. Mr. Lannon made two partial payments totaling approximately $200, but otherwise made no payments on the interest or principal. 

5. While this loan was outstanding, the teacher applied for a sabbatical leave. Following the review and approval of such an application by a staff council, the superintendent of schools must recommend to the school committee that such a leave should be granted before the school committee will do so. Mr. Lannon recommended that the teacher's application for a sabbatical be granted. 

6. In July of 1984, Mr. Lannon repaid the loan and paid the interest due after the teacher filed a civil suit against him. 

7. In early 1984, an employee of the Cambridge school system subject to Mr. Lannon's authority offered to loan him $3,000 to pay certain outstanding debts. Mr. Lannon accepted that offer. Mr. Lannon has not repaid that loan. 

8. Both individuals who made loans to Mr. Lannon stated that they had developed a friendship with Mr. Lannon while subject to his authority. 

9. Section 23(paragraph 2)(3) prohibits a municipal employee from engaging in conduct which gives reasonable basis for the impression that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the conduct of his official duties. By entering into loan transactions with individuals subject to his authority as Cambridge school superintendent, Mr. Lannon violated s.23(paragraph 2)(3). 

10. In addition, by recommending that the Cambridge school committee grant a sabbatical leave to a teacher at a time when he was substantially in debt to that teacher, Mr. Lannon gave reasonable basis for the impression that the teacher could improperly influence or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, in violation of s.23(paragraph 2)(3). 

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 Mr. Lannon: 

1. that he pay to the Commission the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) as a civil penalty for the above described violations of G.L. c. 268A, s.23(paragraph 2)(3); and 

2. that he waive all rights to contest the findings of fact, conclusions of law and terms and conditions contained in this Agreement in this or any other related administrative or judicial proceeding in which the Commission is a party.