Thursday, September 27, 2007

Interpreting the Ethics Laws

Ethics Commission

The vote Mr Kelley didn't like will not be overturned because the Ethics Commission will find that UMass faculty (or faculty wife, in my case) does not have a financial interest in the outcome of the vote, and (b)(3) applies.

I noted the following on Stephanie's blog: Stephanie, if you'd rather we take any continuance of this thread to Larry's blog or mine, rather than continue here, please let us know:-)

268A:19. Municipal employees, relatives or associates; financial interest in particular matter.

Section 19. (a) Except as permitted by paragraph (b), a municipal employee who participates as such an employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge he, his immediate family or partner, a business organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest, shall be punished by a fine of not more than three thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

(b) It shall not be a violation of this section

(l) if the municipal employee first advises the official responsible for appointment to his position of the nature and circumstances of the particular matter and makes full disclosure of such financial interest, and receives in advance a written determination made by that official that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the municipality may expect from the employee, or

(2) if, in the case of an elected municipal official making demand bank deposits of municipal funds, said official first files with the clerk of the city or town, a statement making full disclosure of such financial interest, or

(3) if the particular matter involves a determination of general policy and the interest of the municipal employee or members of his immediate family is shared with a substantial segment of the population of the municipality.

1 comment:

LarryK4 said...

Actually I’m now going to file another complaint under M.G.L 93A (Consumer Protection or truth in advertising law that carries a triple damages sanction). At one point in the discussion Professor Kusner, the math wizard, says the waiver is only $38,000 over five years or “a little less than $200,000.”

Well it now turns out that Umass consumption of effluent—because the new Powerplant does both seasonal heat and year round electricity—will AT THE VERY LEAST DOUBLE, meaning the waiver this year alone (factoring in the recent 25% hike in rates) is worth $100,000 to Umass and over the course of the five year “strategic agreement” could easily top $1million.

Yikes! Maybe Professor Kusner would cover the difference in his advertised cost vs. actually cost out of his 100-K salary per year?