Ethics Commission eyes Rotondi transfer
Published on October 22nd, 2003
STONEHAM, MA - The State's Ethics Commission launched a preliminary inquiry into Town Meeting Moderator Michael Rotondi's ill-fated $5 transfer at last May's Town Meeting, according to information provided by Town Administrator David Berry, several anonymous sources, and Rotondi himself.
On Friday October 10, Berry was summoned before the commission to detail his account of the events that transpired during the annual Town Meeting.
"The Friday before the long weekend, I had to go there to talk to them...I was called in just to verify what transpired. I was just verifying what I already told them several months before that [over the phone]," Berry commented, adding that he was first contacted by commission members shortly after the spring meeting.
While Rotondi did confirm that the commission has conducted "informal discussions" about the transfer, he maintained that he initiated several of those conversations.
"There's only informal discussions going on at this point...The end result of this could be that I handled this [transfer] correctly," said Rotondi.
The Town Meeting Moderator further asserted that it isn't uncommon for the Ethics Commission to gather information for the purpose of educating a town official about how to avoid future conflicts of interest.
"I have had several exchanges of information [with the commission] that have been very positive and proactive discussions that I initiated...There are things I've learned through this experience that have helped me understand how to handle things better in the future," said the moderator, who attended a State Ethics Commission seminar last Thursday night that was sponsored by the Stoneham Town Clerk's office.
While the Ethics Commission may investigate a matter for a variety of reasons, information contained on the board's web site seems to validate Rotondi's claim.
"Many enforcement cases end confidentially at the conclusion of the screening with a private educational letter sent to the subject of the investigation," reads one section of the commission's Web site.
Despite Berry's confirmation that he was called before the ethics commission, a spokesperson for the state entity would not verify the report.
"I can't confirm or deny that we've received any allegations or are conducting an investigation...what I can tell you is the commission has the authority to impose civil penalties of up to $2000 per violation," commented Carol Carson, the State Ethics Commission's Director of Public Communications and Education.
The State Ethics Commission, formed to investigate possible breaches of the Common-wealth's conflict of interest and financial disclosure laws, conducts a three-phase investigation process.
According to the commission's Web site, after the board receives a complaint about a particular individual, an initial fact finding stage is conducted.
"If the complaint falls within the Commission's jurisdiction, an initial 'screening' is done to determine if the facts warrant a formal investigation," the Web site reads.
During the second phase, called a preliminary inquiry that is similarly kept confidential, "the Commission staff has subpoena powers for testimony under oath," according to the Web site.
While Carson would not comment on the existence of any formal inquiry, the claims by Berry and several other sources (who spoke on the condition of anonymity) that they have testified under oath about the transfer seems to indicate that the commission has entered into this second stage.
However, if the board has entered this stage of the process, the commission would still have to find that "reasonable cause" exists indicating that Rotondi violated the law.
Only then would Rotondi's case officially be heard before the board, during which "the subject of the complaint is entitled to a public hearing before the Commission to present evidence and testimony," according to the Web site.
At the end of the reasonable cause hearing, the board would issue its final decision as to what fine, if any, should be levied against a party found guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest or Financial Disclosure Act.
Even at that point, "a person has the right to appeal the Commission's decision directly to superior court," and may, "in the alternative...settle the case by admitting publically that he or she violated the law and agreeing to pay a civil penalty," the Web site says.
Throughout all three stages of the process, all evidence, testimonies, and facts heard by the commission are supposed to be kept confidential by all involved parties unless the accused is found guilty of violating the law.
Rotondi first became the subject of controversy shortly after May Town Meeting approved a $5 transfer from the moderator's operating to personnel budget.
Claiming that Rotondi "deceived" the public by not informing the Town Meeting audience that the transfer would make him eligible for pension benefits, Stoneham residents Terry Ghannam and Edie Previdi successfully lobbied to have the transfer overturned at a Special Town Meeting this past July.
In his defense, Rotondi has asserted that his responsibilities as moderator prohibited him from speaking about a personal issue at Town Meeting. In addition, Rotondi claimed that he notified Town Administrator David Berry about the specifics of the transfer at least a week before Town Meeting.
While Berry has admitted he knew that the warrant article was related to the moderator's pension, the Town Administrator has repeatedly claimed that Rotondi promised to divulge the specifics of the transfer at a summit meeting held a half-hour prior to the start of Town Meeting.
While Rotondi expressed his "disappointment" that the confidentiality of the Ethics Commission inquiry was breached, the moderator says he has learned much from the entire experience.
As the result of one of the lessons learned, Rotondi has requested that all motions to be made at this October's Town Meeting be presented to him prior to this Monday's meeting.
"I don't think it's an individual lesson learned just by me, hopefully it's also the Town Administrator and the Selectmen because they're the ones who drive the motion making process," explained Rotondi.
"It's only fair to myself, to all the players involved in the process and to Town Meeting that we have all the motions in advance. Historically, motions have changed right up to before the start of Town Meeting and it's important that everything be given in advance so everybody knows what's happening," the moderator added.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!