| Date: | 10/06/1987 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
| Docket Number: | 345 |
- This page, In the Matter of Yvonne B. Desrosiers, is offered by
- State Ethics Commission
Settlement
Settlement In the Matter of Yvonne B. Desrosiers
Table of Contents
Disposition Agreement
This Disposition Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the State Ethics Commission (Commission) and Yvonne B. Desrosiers (Ms. Desrosiers) pursuant to section 11 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final Commission order enforceable in the Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(j).
On March 16,1987, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(a), a preliminary inquiry into a possible violation of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by Ms. Desrosiers. The Commission has concluded that inquiry and, on May 18,1987, found reasonable cause to believe that Ms. Desrosiers violated G.L. c. 268A, s.19.
The Commission and his. Desrosiers now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1. Ms. Desrosiers is and at all material times herein was the Treasurer/Tax Collector for the Town of Acushnet. Ms. Desrosiers is, therefore, a municipal employee as defined in s.1(g) of G.L. c. 268A.
2. In or about May of 1984, Ms. Desrosiers appointed her son, Ronald Desrosiers, to be a deputy tax collector for the Town of Acushnet. As a deputy collector, Ronald did not receive a salary but received statutory fees that varied, depending upon what he did to collect the tax delinquency. For example, a deputy is entitled to seven dollars for sending out a notice of warrant and
Page 310
$12 for serving it on a tax payer in person. According to Ms, Desrosiers, Ronald served as Deputy Tax Collector in 1984,1985 and 1986, earning $1,140, $2,048, and $1,520, respectively.
3. According to Ms. Desrosiers, before she hired Ronald, she called the Property Tax Bureau at the Department of Revenue (DOR) and asked if it would be legal for her to hire her son. She stated
she was told that she could hire her son. [1]
4. After being notified by Commission staff that her employing her son raised a conflict of interest concern, she dismissed her son as a deputy tax collector effective April 3,1987.
5. Section 19 of G.L. c. 268A provides in relevant part that, except as permitted by s.19,[2] a municipal employee is prohibited from participating, as such as employee, in a particular matter in which, to his knowledge, a member of his immediate family has a financial interest.
6. The appointment of Ronald Desrosiers as a deputy tax collector was a "particular matter. Ms. Desrosiers "participated" in that matter by making the appointment. Because the position entitled him to fees, Ronald Desrosiers had, at the time of the appointment, a "financial interest" in the appointment. Ms. Desrosiers was aware at the time she appointed her son that he would receive fees for his services as a deputy tax collector.
7. By appointing her son to be a deputy tax collector, as described above, Ms. Desrosiers participated as the Treasurer/Tax Collector for the Town of Acushnet in a particular matter in which her son had a financial interest, thereby violating G.L. c. 268A, s.19.
8. The Commission has no evidence indicating that Ms. Desrosiers was aware at the time she acted as described above that she was violating G.L. c. 268A, s.19.[3]
9. Assuming that Ms. Desrosiers was told by someone from DOR that she could properly hire her son, the Commission will not accept her reliance on such incorrect advice as a defense to this violation. As the Commission has made clear in prior disposition agreements, see e.g., In the Matter of John A. Deleire, 1985 SEC 236; In the Matter of James F. Connery, 1985 SEC 233; if a public employee involved in a potentially serious conflict of interest situation seeks to rely on a legal opinion as a shield against action by this Commission, the important substantive provisions controlling the issuance of such opinions must be followed. The opinion must be from town counsel, in writing and made a matter of public record. See G.L. c. 268A, s.22. (Note that as of May 1,1986, such opinions must also be filed with the Commission. 930 CMR
1.03(3)). For the same reasons, the Commission will not accept as a defense that Ms. Desrosiers received incorrect legal advice from DOR.
Nevertheless, insofar as Commission staff found Ms. Desrosiers' assertion that she received such advice from DOR to be credible, the Commission has given consideration to that factor in assessing a penalty here. Accordingly, while the Commission can impose up to a $2,000 fine for each violation of s.19, it has determined that a relatively small fine is appropriate.
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 Ms. Desrosiers:
1. that she pay to the Commission the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) as a civil penalty for her violation of s.19;
2. that she refrain from participating as a municipal employee in any matter in which she or an immediate family member has a financial interest; and
3. that she 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 a judicial civil proceeding in which the Commission is a party.