Not Your Average Joe’s says former vendor owes it $600K after federal probe of OT wages
By Alex Spanko
The Patriot Ledger
MIDDLEBORO — Federal officials accused the Not Your Average Joe’s chain of stiffing employees out of overtime wages, but the Middleboro-based company says a third-party firm mishandled the payments.
The federal Department of Labor found that the chain underpaid workers at 15 locations – including restaurants in Norwell, Randolph and Hyannis.
But Joe McGuire, the company’s chief financial officer, said the problem stemmed from the restaurant chain’s relationship with Operations Management Group, a now-defunct Framingham staffing firm that provided line cooks for Not Your Average Joe’s and many other restaurants.
Operations Management Group assured Not Your Average Joe’s that it would handle the cooks’ payroll correctly, McGuire said, but never paid them overtime.
Under federal law, that arrangement is considered “joint employment,” Labor Department spokesman Ted Fitzgerald said. As a result, the host company is responsible for wages that the staffing firm fails to pay, even if it didn’t directly cause the shortfall.
Not Your Average Joe’s severed its relationship with Operations Management Group as soon as the Labor Department pointed out the problem in 2010, McGuire said. The restaurant chain reached an agreement with the government to repay nearly $600,000 in back wages to more than 150 former and current employees last summer, he said. All the money has since been repaid.
The federal agency just announced that agreement Thursday to promote its efforts to crack down on the restaurant industry.
Not Your Average Joe’s is suing Operations Management Group and its former owner, Adilso Bosi, in Suffolk Superior Court for the amount the restaurant chain paid in back wages. The chain, which filed the lawsuit in September, hired Pinkerton Government Services to try to find Bosi, McGuire said.
“We feel kind of duped, and we feel victimized as anybody,” McGuire said.
The federal investigation turned up more than $1.3 million in back wages owed to workers at Massachusetts restaurants for a variety of reasons, including improperly calculated overtime pay. The T.G.I. Friday’s location in Framingham and several Fresh City locations were among the 34 restaurants listed in the report. All of the establishments’ owners agreed to repay the back wages, the Labor Department said.
Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x777659225/Not-Your-Average-Joe-s-says-former-vendor-owes-it-600K-for-back-pay#ixzz1qhhmTvkz
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Probation Dept. Resolution
Since Grand Judy testimony is secret, it's difficult to know where the current Grand Jury will lead and who will be indicted, although Beacon Hill has taken few steps to remedy their own arrogance.
Particularly worrisome and of local concern is the potential involvement of Senator Marc Pacheco, excerpts below from the "Ware" Report:
REPORT OF
THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
November 9, 2010
http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/docs/report-of-independent-counsel-110910.pdf
Excerpts:
396. Dooley was appointed as first assistant chief probation officer.303 Accordingly,
there was no occasion for O.Brien to leave the position vacant.
397. Senator Pacheco testified that O.Brien never made the statement attributed to him, nor did he ever repeat that statement to Dooley. It is Independent Counsel.s conclusion that the testimony of Dooley and Slaney regarding what Pacheco said is truthful.
660. In addition to fundraising for Petrolati and Cahill, one chief probation officer
testified that Senator Marc Pacheco, a friend of his, asked him on more than one occasion to
solicit contributions from among his fellow Probation Department employees, and he did so:
Q. Senator Pacheco asks you to help him sell tickets --
A. In the past he’s asked me if I could take tickets to sell to
friends.
Q. Has he ever specifically asked you to see if anyone else in
the Probation Department would be interested in attending?
A. Yes.
Testimony of Joseph Dooley, September 17, 2010 (Exhibit 106), at 49-50.
661. Senator Pacheco denied ever asking Dooley to raise funds among Probation
Department employees.
Independent counsel concludes that the testimony of the chief
probation officer, who had no motive to incriminate himself, is more credible than that of Senator Pacheco on this issue.
This investigation, however, revealed a degree of abuse and
systemic corruption in hiring and promotion that cannot be ignored, and which as implemented, became an obstacle to the very principles of hiring articulated in Trial Court policies. That extent of interference with merit hiring and promotion transformed a credible process into a patronage hiring machine. However well-oiled, that machine no longer serves the public interest.
DiMasi said to give lengthy testimony in Probation case
March 16, 2012By Andrea Estes
Salvatore F. DiMasi, former speaker of the Massachusetts House, told a visitor to his temporary prison in Rhode Island that he testified for five hours before a federal grand jury investigating the hiring scandal in the state Probation Department, answering a question that has gripped Beacon Hill for weeks.
But DiMasi, who was transported here under a cloak of secrecy from federal prison in Kentucky in order to testify, insisted he did not provide significant information that prosecutors could use against current or former legislators, said several people briefed on DiMasi’s comments.
Whether DiMasi would cooperate with investigators and whom, if anyone, he might implicate have been topics of intense speculation among state politicians and lobbyists. As speaker from 2004 until he resigned in the face of an unrelated scandal in 2009, DiMasi was so important to former probation commissioner John J. O’Brien that he kept a spreadsheet containing a list of all the people DiMasi supported for probation jobs.
Representative Charles A. Murphy, a Burlington Democrat, said DiMasi’s return last month added to the air of apprehension that had engulfed the Legislature amid reports that US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz might seek indictments against a dozen or more people in the probation investigation, including current or former legislators.
“Nobody has any real sense of what may or may not happen,’’ said Murphy. “Sal’s presence escalated the apprehension. No one knows what he said or if he said anything.’’
DiMasi’s testimony is secret, but some lawyers say the fact that prosecutors want to ship him back to Kentucky, where he was serving an eight-year sentence in an unrelated corruption case, suggests that DiMasi was not that helpful.
DiMasi had asked to remain at the Wyatt Detention Center in Central Falls, R.I., but Judge Mark L. Wolf rejected that request this week, siding with federal prosecutors who wrote that DiMasi should go back to Kentucky right away because “the reason for his temporary custody at Wyatt no longer exists.’’
DiMasi’s lawyer, Thomas R. Kiley, would neither confirm nor deny that DiMasi had appeared before the probation grand jury.
“I have not talked about this grand jury, and I’m not going talk about it now,’’ Kiley said.
But Representative Angelo M. Scaccia, Democrat of Readville, who visited the former speaker in Rhode Island, has told several people that prosecutors asked DiMasi whether certain politicians had called him on behalf of probation job candidates. Scaccia told at least one person that DiMasi told him he was not interested in any deal to reduce his prison term in exchange for cooperating with prosecutors.
After several hours of questioning, the prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney Fred Wyshak, wrapped up the session, concluding that DiMasi’s testimony was not going to be particularly helpful, according to one person briefed on DiMasi’s appearance.
Scaccia did not respond to a request for comment on his meeting with DiMasi.
Former US attorney Donald K. Stern, now in private practice at Cooley LLP, said that calling DiMasi to the grand jury does not mean the government’s investigation is faltering.
“It doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about the ongoing investigation,’’ said Stern, who is not involved in the probation case. “It tells you the government believes this witness has evidence that is relevant and not easily obtainable from another source.’’
In fact, the federal investigation appeared to be wrapping up in mid-January when one person familiar with the investigation told the Globe that prosecutors are “just checking details at this point.’’ But, since DiMasi departed his Kentucky prison on Feb. 2, the investigation seemed to gain new energy.
On Wednesday, for instance, about 20 witnesses were scheduled to appear before the grand jury, according to a person who was at the session in Worcester. That person asked to remain anonymous because the grand jury’s proceedings are confidential.
The federal investigation stems from a 2010 series by the Globe Spotlight Team. It portrayed the Probation Department as a virtual hiring agency for the well connected few under O’Brien, who faces state criminal charges that he traded political donations from his employees for a job for his wife under former state treasurer Timothy P. Cahill.
Ortiz launched the investigation in November 2010 after a special counsel, Paul F. Ware Jr., released his 300-page report detailing how O’Brien and his lieutenants rigged the hiring and promotion process to funnel jobs to insiders, especially friends, family, and supporters of legislators.
Ware found that DiMasi may have been the single greatest beneficiary of the favoritism, obtaining jobs or promotions for at least 24 job candidates that he supported.
Some speculated that DiMasi, 66 and facing serious financial problems at home, might be tempted to cooperate with Ortiz’s office in hope of shortening his prison sentence for steering state contracts to the software company Cognos in exchange for cash funneled through a law associate. In addition, DiMasi might be able to serve his sentence closer to home, as he had requested last fall.
Instead, DiMasi faces the prospect of returning to Lexington, Ky., where he is scheduled to remain until Nov. 17, 2018.
At almost the same time that Wolf declined to help DiMasi stay in Rhode Island, another judge authorized the East Boston Savings Bank to foreclose on and sell the condominium on Commercial Street in the North End where DiMasi’s wife, Debbie, still lives.
Particularly worrisome and of local concern is the potential involvement of Senator Marc Pacheco, excerpts below from the "Ware" Report:
REPORT OF
THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL
November 9, 2010
http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/docs/report-of-independent-counsel-110910.pdf
Excerpts:
396. Dooley was appointed as first assistant chief probation officer.303 Accordingly,
there was no occasion for O.Brien to leave the position vacant.
397. Senator Pacheco testified that O.Brien never made the statement attributed to him, nor did he ever repeat that statement to Dooley. It is Independent Counsel.s conclusion that the testimony of Dooley and Slaney regarding what Pacheco said is truthful.
660. In addition to fundraising for Petrolati and Cahill, one chief probation officer
testified that Senator Marc Pacheco, a friend of his, asked him on more than one occasion to
solicit contributions from among his fellow Probation Department employees, and he did so:
Q. Senator Pacheco asks you to help him sell tickets --
A. In the past he’s asked me if I could take tickets to sell to
friends.
Q. Has he ever specifically asked you to see if anyone else in
the Probation Department would be interested in attending?
A. Yes.
Testimony of Joseph Dooley, September 17, 2010 (Exhibit 106), at 49-50.
661. Senator Pacheco denied ever asking Dooley to raise funds among Probation
Department employees.
Independent counsel concludes that the testimony of the chief
probation officer, who had no motive to incriminate himself, is more credible than that of Senator Pacheco on this issue.
This investigation, however, revealed a degree of abuse and
systemic corruption in hiring and promotion that cannot be ignored, and which as implemented, became an obstacle to the very principles of hiring articulated in Trial Court policies. That extent of interference with merit hiring and promotion transformed a credible process into a patronage hiring machine. However well-oiled, that machine no longer serves the public interest.
DiMasi said to give lengthy testimony in Probation case
March 16, 2012By Andrea Estes
Salvatore F. DiMasi, former speaker of the Massachusetts House, told a visitor to his temporary prison in Rhode Island that he testified for five hours before a federal grand jury investigating the hiring scandal in the state Probation Department, answering a question that has gripped Beacon Hill for weeks.
But DiMasi, who was transported here under a cloak of secrecy from federal prison in Kentucky in order to testify, insisted he did not provide significant information that prosecutors could use against current or former legislators, said several people briefed on DiMasi’s comments.
Whether DiMasi would cooperate with investigators and whom, if anyone, he might implicate have been topics of intense speculation among state politicians and lobbyists. As speaker from 2004 until he resigned in the face of an unrelated scandal in 2009, DiMasi was so important to former probation commissioner John J. O’Brien that he kept a spreadsheet containing a list of all the people DiMasi supported for probation jobs.
Representative Charles A. Murphy, a Burlington Democrat, said DiMasi’s return last month added to the air of apprehension that had engulfed the Legislature amid reports that US Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz might seek indictments against a dozen or more people in the probation investigation, including current or former legislators.
“Nobody has any real sense of what may or may not happen,’’ said Murphy. “Sal’s presence escalated the apprehension. No one knows what he said or if he said anything.’’
DiMasi’s testimony is secret, but some lawyers say the fact that prosecutors want to ship him back to Kentucky, where he was serving an eight-year sentence in an unrelated corruption case, suggests that DiMasi was not that helpful.
DiMasi had asked to remain at the Wyatt Detention Center in Central Falls, R.I., but Judge Mark L. Wolf rejected that request this week, siding with federal prosecutors who wrote that DiMasi should go back to Kentucky right away because “the reason for his temporary custody at Wyatt no longer exists.’’
DiMasi’s lawyer, Thomas R. Kiley, would neither confirm nor deny that DiMasi had appeared before the probation grand jury.
“I have not talked about this grand jury, and I’m not going talk about it now,’’ Kiley said.
But Representative Angelo M. Scaccia, Democrat of Readville, who visited the former speaker in Rhode Island, has told several people that prosecutors asked DiMasi whether certain politicians had called him on behalf of probation job candidates. Scaccia told at least one person that DiMasi told him he was not interested in any deal to reduce his prison term in exchange for cooperating with prosecutors.
After several hours of questioning, the prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney Fred Wyshak, wrapped up the session, concluding that DiMasi’s testimony was not going to be particularly helpful, according to one person briefed on DiMasi’s appearance.
Scaccia did not respond to a request for comment on his meeting with DiMasi.
Former US attorney Donald K. Stern, now in private practice at Cooley LLP, said that calling DiMasi to the grand jury does not mean the government’s investigation is faltering.
“It doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about the ongoing investigation,’’ said Stern, who is not involved in the probation case. “It tells you the government believes this witness has evidence that is relevant and not easily obtainable from another source.’’
In fact, the federal investigation appeared to be wrapping up in mid-January when one person familiar with the investigation told the Globe that prosecutors are “just checking details at this point.’’ But, since DiMasi departed his Kentucky prison on Feb. 2, the investigation seemed to gain new energy.
On Wednesday, for instance, about 20 witnesses were scheduled to appear before the grand jury, according to a person who was at the session in Worcester. That person asked to remain anonymous because the grand jury’s proceedings are confidential.
The federal investigation stems from a 2010 series by the Globe Spotlight Team. It portrayed the Probation Department as a virtual hiring agency for the well connected few under O’Brien, who faces state criminal charges that he traded political donations from his employees for a job for his wife under former state treasurer Timothy P. Cahill.
Ortiz launched the investigation in November 2010 after a special counsel, Paul F. Ware Jr., released his 300-page report detailing how O’Brien and his lieutenants rigged the hiring and promotion process to funnel jobs to insiders, especially friends, family, and supporters of legislators.
Ware found that DiMasi may have been the single greatest beneficiary of the favoritism, obtaining jobs or promotions for at least 24 job candidates that he supported.
Some speculated that DiMasi, 66 and facing serious financial problems at home, might be tempted to cooperate with Ortiz’s office in hope of shortening his prison sentence for steering state contracts to the software company Cognos in exchange for cash funneled through a law associate. In addition, DiMasi might be able to serve his sentence closer to home, as he had requested last fall.
Instead, DiMasi faces the prospect of returning to Lexington, Ky., where he is scheduled to remain until Nov. 17, 2018.
At almost the same time that Wolf declined to help DiMasi stay in Rhode Island, another judge authorized the East Boston Savings Bank to foreclose on and sell the condominium on Commercial Street in the North End where DiMasi’s wife, Debbie, still lives.
Beacon Hill's Baffling Priorities
Beacon Hill has kept the Bottle Bill bottled up in committee because of vested interests even though 77% of Massachusetts residents favor it.
An Updated Bottle Bill would expand our container deposit system to include “new age” drinks such as non-carbonated beverages, water, iced tea, juice, and sports drinks. It would decrease litter and increase recycling.
An estimated 3.3 billion beverages are consumed annually in Massachusetts, of which 1.3 billion are “new-age” (e.g. water, sports drinks, flavored teas), and this number is only expected to increase. As consumers purchase more of these beverages, an increasing number of containers are finding their way to landfills and by the sides of our roads.
Yet they can cram through hastily considered legislation such as this to deny justice:
State lawmakers consider bill limiting court-appointed attorneys
Only those facing jail time would be given lawyers
Published : Thursday, 15 Mar 2012
Laura Hutchinson
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) - State lawmakers are considering a bill that could result in fewer people getting court-appointed attorneys. It's a controversial measure that's designed to save the state money.
No threat of jail time, no lawyer. The state of Massachusetts spends millions of dollars each year on court-appointed attorneys. But, that could change if lawmakers approve a bill filed Wednesday that proposes court-appointed attorneys only be assigned to defendants facing the possibility of jail time. "I don't think everyone needs to have a lawyer I mean if it's minor, come on now, give it to someone who really needs it," said Deborah Williams of Springfield.
Right now even minor offenders can be assigned an attorney. But, some lawmakers say it's gotten too expensive.
Just to put this into perspective, last fiscal year there were nearly 45,000 cases of someone being arraigned on a single misdemeanor charge who qualified for a court-appointed attorney and it cost the state more than $17 million dollars.
The bill would mean minor offenders hire their own lawyers, or represent themselves.
Ludlow's Herminia Arnold represented herself once and says it's not something she'd recommend. "I think I did a pretty good job but I could have done better with a lawyer. I just saw a case in there that this person didn't have a lawyer the first time so they threw everything out and now they've got to start all over again so you should always have someone, it's not where cuts should be made."
Authors of the bill say it could save the state $10 million dollars. [There is not even a 'report' referenced in this article indicating that this issue has been studied or carefully considered. It would seem that they are simply plucking figures out of the air.]
Attorney Justin Lavelle, Law Offices of Richard Ravosa, says he's not against the measure, but he doesn't think someone should be ruled out for a free attorney without some consideration.
"There are a lot of misdemeanors where the client could face some very adverse consequences that may not necessarily involve incarceration but could definitely have some adverse effects down the line."
Under the proposal if during trial evidence surfaced warranting a recommendation for jail time, the judge can intervene and appoint council.
An Updated Bottle Bill would expand our container deposit system to include “new age” drinks such as non-carbonated beverages, water, iced tea, juice, and sports drinks. It would decrease litter and increase recycling.
An estimated 3.3 billion beverages are consumed annually in Massachusetts, of which 1.3 billion are “new-age” (e.g. water, sports drinks, flavored teas), and this number is only expected to increase. As consumers purchase more of these beverages, an increasing number of containers are finding their way to landfills and by the sides of our roads.
Yet they can cram through hastily considered legislation such as this to deny justice:
State lawmakers consider bill limiting court-appointed attorneys
Only those facing jail time would be given lawyers
Published : Thursday, 15 Mar 2012
Laura Hutchinson
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) - State lawmakers are considering a bill that could result in fewer people getting court-appointed attorneys. It's a controversial measure that's designed to save the state money.
No threat of jail time, no lawyer. The state of Massachusetts spends millions of dollars each year on court-appointed attorneys. But, that could change if lawmakers approve a bill filed Wednesday that proposes court-appointed attorneys only be assigned to defendants facing the possibility of jail time. "I don't think everyone needs to have a lawyer I mean if it's minor, come on now, give it to someone who really needs it," said Deborah Williams of Springfield.
Right now even minor offenders can be assigned an attorney. But, some lawmakers say it's gotten too expensive.
Just to put this into perspective, last fiscal year there were nearly 45,000 cases of someone being arraigned on a single misdemeanor charge who qualified for a court-appointed attorney and it cost the state more than $17 million dollars.
The bill would mean minor offenders hire their own lawyers, or represent themselves.
Ludlow's Herminia Arnold represented herself once and says it's not something she'd recommend. "I think I did a pretty good job but I could have done better with a lawyer. I just saw a case in there that this person didn't have a lawyer the first time so they threw everything out and now they've got to start all over again so you should always have someone, it's not where cuts should be made."
Authors of the bill say it could save the state $10 million dollars. [There is not even a 'report' referenced in this article indicating that this issue has been studied or carefully considered. It would seem that they are simply plucking figures out of the air.]
Attorney Justin Lavelle, Law Offices of Richard Ravosa, says he's not against the measure, but he doesn't think someone should be ruled out for a free attorney without some consideration.
"There are a lot of misdemeanors where the client could face some very adverse consequences that may not necessarily involve incarceration but could definitely have some adverse effects down the line."
Under the proposal if during trial evidence surfaced warranting a recommendation for jail time, the judge can intervene and appoint council.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Gas and Electric Commission at 7:30 PM!
The Gas and Electric Commission has rescheduled for Friday Night at the Town Hall in the Selectman's Room at 7:30.
Please try and attend, this is our Gas and Electric company and we want it back!!!
And please forward this email to everyone you know who lives, work or runs a business in Middleboro and Lakeville.
Thank you and I look forward to seeing you on Friday Night, pizza at the Central after!
Allin Frawley
Please try and attend, this is our Gas and Electric company and we want it back!!!
And please forward this email to everyone you know who lives, work or runs a business in Middleboro and Lakeville.
Thank you and I look forward to seeing you on Friday Night, pizza at the Central after!
Allin Frawley
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
G&E Utility commissioners delay Tuesday meeting
Middleboro selectmen may seek postponement of utility head's contract talks
Utility commissioners delay Tuesday meeting
By Alice Elwell
Enterprise correspondent
Mar 12, 2012
MIDDLEBORO —
Selectmen tonight will vote on whether to send a letter to the Gas & Electric commissioners asking for a delay in discussions of General Manager John P. Granahan’s contract until after the April 7 town election.
Commissioners Donald R. Triner and Terrence Murphy are not seeking reelection so the make-up of the utility's board will change after the election.
The utility's commissioners had planned to meet on Tuesday, going into an executive session to discuss Granahan's contract, but cancelled the meeting Monday afternoon, saying the board expects a large crowd and wants to find a bigger venue. The meeting will likely be rescheduled later this week.
Selectman Allin J. Frawley has said Granahan is presently making $188,850 and receiving a $3,632 productivity bonus, as well as benefits that include a vehicle and gas card; full medical and dental coverage; 15 vacation days; 3 personal days; 12 holidays and 2 floating holidays.
Read more: http://www.enterprisenews.com/topstories/x299874486/Middleboro-selectmen-may-seek-postponement-of-utility-heads-contract-talks#ixzz1ozh3mXLO
Utility commissioners delay Tuesday meeting
By Alice Elwell
Enterprise correspondent
Mar 12, 2012
MIDDLEBORO —
Selectmen tonight will vote on whether to send a letter to the Gas & Electric commissioners asking for a delay in discussions of General Manager John P. Granahan’s contract until after the April 7 town election.
Commissioners Donald R. Triner and Terrence Murphy are not seeking reelection so the make-up of the utility's board will change after the election.
The utility's commissioners had planned to meet on Tuesday, going into an executive session to discuss Granahan's contract, but cancelled the meeting Monday afternoon, saying the board expects a large crowd and wants to find a bigger venue. The meeting will likely be rescheduled later this week.
Selectman Allin J. Frawley has said Granahan is presently making $188,850 and receiving a $3,632 productivity bonus, as well as benefits that include a vehicle and gas card; full medical and dental coverage; 15 vacation days; 3 personal days; 12 holidays and 2 floating holidays.
Read more: http://www.enterprisenews.com/topstories/x299874486/Middleboro-selectmen-may-seek-postponement-of-utility-heads-contract-talks#ixzz1ozh3mXLO
Sunday, March 11, 2012
MG&E Commissioners on Tuesday March 13 at 7:30 PM
There is a meeting of the MG&E Commissioners on Tuesday March 13 at 7:30 PM. This is a must attend meeting.
The MG&E have been running amok for far too long.
The rates are the highest in the state, the money that is being stockpiled may well be above legal limits.
The salaries and benefits for the management team are outrageous.
The return to the town for PILOT is miniscule.
There has been some discussion the this Board of Commissioners will vote on the contract for the GM.
The contract was voted already in executive session, a direct violation of the open meeting law. But they get their legal council from an attorney that deals with power supply contracts, not the Town Attorney. The power supply attorney charges $350.00 per hour the Town Attorney is on retainer.
So grab your pitch forks and torches it's time to stand up to the commission.
--
Best regards,
Stephen McKinnon
The MG&E have been running amok for far too long.
The rates are the highest in the state, the money that is being stockpiled may well be above legal limits.
The salaries and benefits for the management team are outrageous.
The return to the town for PILOT is miniscule.
There has been some discussion the this Board of Commissioners will vote on the contract for the GM.
The contract was voted already in executive session, a direct violation of the open meeting law. But they get their legal council from an attorney that deals with power supply contracts, not the Town Attorney. The power supply attorney charges $350.00 per hour the Town Attorney is on retainer.
So grab your pitch forks and torches it's time to stand up to the commission.
--
Best regards,
Stephen McKinnon
DEP doesn't pass SMELL TEST!
After all these years fighting to get the Striar property cleaned up, a known hazardous waste site with elevated neighborhood cancer rates, the MA DEP SMELLED the soil?
How does that constitute TESTING?
How does that make the MA DEP credible?
Molly Cote, project manager for the DEP, said a visual inspection did not reveal contamination.
Johnston said there was no smell, which would be present with chlorinated benzene.
Cleanup of Middleboro waste site nearing completion
Rockland Industries site could be reused in two years
By Alice C. Elwell
enterprise correspondent
MIDDLEBORO — Officials from the state Department of Environmental Protection told town leaders Thursday the cleanup of the Rockland Industries hazardous waste site is in the home stretch and the land could be redeveloped in two years.
David Johnston, regional director of the DEP’s Lakeville office, recommended a two-year wait before the site is redeveloped to allow time to analyze data from monitoring wells.
Unaware of a recommended two-year waiting period, Michael Striar, an owner of the site, said he is ready to develop as soon as possible. Striar said he envisions a Plymouth Street railway station on the site. “It’s my A-number-one plan,” he said.
In November, DEP Commissioner Ken Kimmel set a Dec. 31 deadline to dig out the contaminated soil, Striar couldn’t meet the deadline and the DEP stepped in and hired experts to do the job.
Thursday’s meeting was called because town officials thought there would be testing to determine how far to excavate. But when the digging was complete, officials learned testing had not been done.
Johnston, the DEP’s regional director, said there was no indication of any contamination in the remaining soil. He said a 15-foot by 32-foot hole was dug 18 feet deep in a former lagoon where chemicals were dumped, 283 cubic yards of soil were removed and sent to a hazardous waste dump in Canada.
Molly Cote, project manager for the DEP, said a visual inspection did not reveal contamination.
“Things were not oozing out,” Cote said. “No ooey-gooey gross stuff was leaching out.”
Johnston said there was no smell, which would be present with chlorinated benzene. He said monitoring wells will be installed to test for any remaining contamination.
Johnston said Striar is required to pay back the cost of the $178,250 cleanup, plus interest.
The site at 255 Plymouth St. was a former chemical factory and the land was contaminated with chlorinated benzene, a cancer-causing chemical.
Read more: http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x770707764/Cleanup-of-Middleboro-waste-site-nearing-completion#ixzz1ooMBMEL3
How does that constitute TESTING?
How does that make the MA DEP credible?
Molly Cote, project manager for the DEP, said a visual inspection did not reveal contamination.
Johnston said there was no smell, which would be present with chlorinated benzene.
Cleanup of Middleboro waste site nearing completion
Rockland Industries site could be reused in two years
By Alice C. Elwell
enterprise correspondent
MIDDLEBORO — Officials from the state Department of Environmental Protection told town leaders Thursday the cleanup of the Rockland Industries hazardous waste site is in the home stretch and the land could be redeveloped in two years.
David Johnston, regional director of the DEP’s Lakeville office, recommended a two-year wait before the site is redeveloped to allow time to analyze data from monitoring wells.
Unaware of a recommended two-year waiting period, Michael Striar, an owner of the site, said he is ready to develop as soon as possible. Striar said he envisions a Plymouth Street railway station on the site. “It’s my A-number-one plan,” he said.
In November, DEP Commissioner Ken Kimmel set a Dec. 31 deadline to dig out the contaminated soil, Striar couldn’t meet the deadline and the DEP stepped in and hired experts to do the job.
Thursday’s meeting was called because town officials thought there would be testing to determine how far to excavate. But when the digging was complete, officials learned testing had not been done.
Johnston, the DEP’s regional director, said there was no indication of any contamination in the remaining soil. He said a 15-foot by 32-foot hole was dug 18 feet deep in a former lagoon where chemicals were dumped, 283 cubic yards of soil were removed and sent to a hazardous waste dump in Canada.
Molly Cote, project manager for the DEP, said a visual inspection did not reveal contamination.
“Things were not oozing out,” Cote said. “No ooey-gooey gross stuff was leaching out.”
Johnston said there was no smell, which would be present with chlorinated benzene. He said monitoring wells will be installed to test for any remaining contamination.
Johnston said Striar is required to pay back the cost of the $178,250 cleanup, plus interest.
The site at 255 Plymouth St. was a former chemical factory and the land was contaminated with chlorinated benzene, a cancer-causing chemical.
Read more: http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x770707764/Cleanup-of-Middleboro-waste-site-nearing-completion#ixzz1ooMBMEL3
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Supporting Corrupt Candidates?
We can and must do better with weeding out questionable candidates. Former Rep. Delahunt needs to conduct his due diligence, readily available on the internet, before encouraging and supporting candidates.
At what point does the Party, any Party, have a responsibility to condemn this corrupt conduct?
Sutter was cheating the state; Sanctioned by Bar Ethics Committee [Politics]
The man who would be our Congressman stole services from his own DA's office
Accepted free services from a law firm he was paid to fight in court
By Walter Brooks
Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter's present problem of jeopardizing the murder case against Jonathan Niemic is still simmering as new evidence is discovered of perhaps even worse ethical violations in this recent past.
While he answered Friday's charges by saying, "If Bill Keating wants to make this campaign about my record as district attorney against his record as district attorney and if he wants to make it about my integrity against his integrity, I would be happy to do that," his wish may to be diminished as his past comes back to haunt him.
A dozen years ago while serving as Assistant District Attorney in the same Bristol County DA's office, Sutter admitted to violating a state conflict of interest law in a case in which a defendant was represented by a private firm with which the prosecutor was doing business. Sutter admitted to the violation in a recently released legal settlement with the State Ethics Commission. The incident stemmed from his service as an Assistant DA before being elected to that office.
Then there's the money he and his wife improperly received as DA.
In 2009, the same year as the ethics violation above, Sutter's wife was forced to return $4,000 she was given as a present from a convicted embezzler.
Bottom line, Sam Sutter has several ethical blind spot and has trouble with telling the truth, telling the press this week, "I take great pride in my integrity and probity."
That word is defined as "adherence to the highest principles and ideals."
The complete text of his ethics violation sanction is below:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
Sutter, C. Samuel Docket No. 581
Docket No. 581
In the Matter of C. Samuel Sutter
Date: January 20, 1999 State Ethics Commission.
DISPOSITION AGREEMENT
This Disposition Agreement ("Agreement")is entered into between the State Ethics Commission ("Commission") and C. Samuel Sutter ("Sutter") pursuant to Section 5 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final order enforceable in the Superior Court, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.40).
On February 10, 1998, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(a), a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by
Sutter. The Commission has concluded its inquiry and, on July 22, 1998, found reasonable cause to believe that Sutter violated G.L. c. 268A.
The Commission and Sutter now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1.1. Sutter was, during the time relevant, a Bristol County assistant district attorney ("ADA").[1/] As such, Sutter was a state employee as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1.
2.Casey & Thompson P.C. is a law firm practicing inBristol County. John Casey ("Casey")and Bruce Thompson ("Thompson")are shareholders in the firm.[2/]
3.In December 1994, Sutter solicited legal advice fromCasey concerning his recent separation from his wife.[3/] BetweenDecember 1994 and March 14, 1995, Sutter and Casey consulted onseveral occasions regarding this matter.
4.On March 14, 1995, Sutter as an ADA represented the Commonwealth regarding a motion to dismiss in the district court asto which Thompson represented the defendant.[4/]
5.As of March 14, 1995, Sutter was still consulting withCasey regarding the above-described personal matter, and he expected that the law firm of Casey & Thompson would represent himon that matter if it continued. [5/]
6.Sutter did not disclose to his appointing authority, the District Attorney ("the DA"), his private relationship with thelaw firm of Casey & Thompson.
7.General laws chapter 268A, s.23(b)(3) prohibits astate employee from acting in a manner which would cause areasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances,to conclude that any person can improperly influence him or undulyenjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or thathe is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank,position or undue influence of any party or person.
8.By participating as an ADA in a matter in which thelaw firm of Casey & Thompson had an interest at a time when he had through his dealings with Casey a private relationship with Casey & Thompson in a personal matter, Sutter acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances to conclude that the attorneys at Casey &Thompson could improperly influence Sutter or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of Sutter's official duties, thereby violating G.L. c. 268A, s.23(b)(3). [6/ 7/]
9.By way of mitigation, Sutter notes that on March 14, 1995, he was filling in the district court, received several files scheduled for hearing or trial for that day for the first time on that morning, and had no prior knowledge that Thompson would be representing the defendant until shortly before the hearing began.
According to Sutter, due to the time pressures of handling several cases that day on short notice and because he had been dealing only with Casey about his personal matter, it did not occur to him that his litigating a matter with Thompson would create an appearance problem.The Commission is not unmindful of the difficulties faced by an ADA in district court session and does find these circumstances to be somewhat mitigating. Nevertheless, it concludes that he had the opportunity and obligation to inform the judge that he had a conflict, obtain a continuance for the purpose of disclosing the conflict to the District Attorney, and have the District Attorney decide who should handle the matter.[8/]
10.Sutter cooperated with the Commission's investigation.
In view of the foregoing violation of G.L. c. 268A by Sutter, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be served by the disposition of this matter without further
civil penalty. In disposing of this matter by this disposition agreement, Sutter waives 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 proceedings to which the Commission is or may be a party.
---------------------
[1/] From January 1994, to February 6, 1995, Sutter was the
Supervisory ADA at the Attleboro District Court. On February 6,
1995, Sutter was transferred to Superior Court. He continued to
appear in the Attleboro District Court to fill in for ADAs who were
ill or on vacation, but anew Supervisory ADA was appointed for the
Attleboro District Court.
[2/] The other major shareholder of the firm is not relevant
to these proceedings.
[3/] They had no prior attorney-client relationship.
[4/] The defendant was being prosecuted for operating under
the influence of alcohol. On February 28, 1995, Thompson filed a
motion to dismiss the case on various grounds. On March 14, 1995,
Sutter and Thompson engaged in an evidentiary hearing which
involved presenting witnesses and making oral arguments regarding
the motion. After the hearing, the judge took the matter under
advisement. While the matter was under advisement. Sutter took
steps so that the matter would be appealed in the event that the
judge allowed the motion. The judge did allow the motion to
dismiss, the Commonwealth did appeal, and the judge's decision was
eventually reversed by the Appeals Court and the case was remanded
back to the district court.
[5/] The law firm of Casey & Thompson did continue to
represent Sutter. Sutter has paid for a substantial portion of
these services and intends to pay the outstanding balance.
[6/] Section 23(b)(3) provides in relevant part: "It shall be
unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has
disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no
appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public
in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a
conclusion."
[7/] There is no evidence to indicate that Sutter provided
Casey & Thompson with any preferential treatment or that he
conducted himself other than in a professional manner regarding the
above described evidentiary hearing-
[8/] As a matter of public policy it is important that public
officials not engage in activity which creates the appearance that
their integrity has been undermined. In a recent decision and
order, In re Scaccia. 1996 SEC 838, the Commission stated its
position:
"Section 23(b)(3) is concerned with the appearance of a
conflict of interest as viewed by the reasonable person,
not whether the [public employee or official] actually
gave preferential treatment. The Legislature, in passing
this standard of conduct, focused on the perceptions of
the citizens of the community, not the perceptions of the
players in the situation." In re Hebert, 1996 SEC 800.
[I]n applying s.23(b)(3) to a public employee, [the
Commission] will evaluate whether, 'due to his private
relationship or interest, an appearance arises that the
integrity of the public official's action might be
undermined by the relationship or interest.' In re
Flanagan, 1996 SEC 757. See also In re Antonelli, 1982
SEC 10 1, 110 (evaluating precursor of s.23(b)(3),
Commission indicated major purpose of section to prohibit
public employee from engaging in conduct which will raise
questions over impartiality or credibility of his work).
Id. at 848.
This policy concern is especially applicable to our criminal
justice system where appearances of conflict of interest must be
avoided if our citizens' confidence in the integrity of the system
is to be maintained.
Page 927
End of Decision
DA Sam Sutter's misconduct may free murder suspect
Sutter misconduct may free murder suspect Jonathan Niemic
Bristol County DA and Congressional candidate makes egregious error
Boston Channel 5, WCVB, reports that murder suspect Jonathan Niemic could go free due to the misconduct of DA Sam Sutter in releasing telephone recordings between the defendant and his attorney.
Niemic is charged with fatally stabbing Michael Correia in October 2010.
The Standard-Times reports that Niemic's defense attorney, Robert M. Griffin of Walpole, is asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the indictment with prejudice due to "egregious prosecution misconduct."
Griffin said in his motion, "The conduct of the prosecution in this case was so egregious and prejudicial to the defendant so as to warrant dismissal of the charge now pending against him."
In 2003 Sutter's conduct freed two murder suspects
According to the WCVB report this is the second time Sutter's office has been accused of misconduct.
In 2003 murder charges were dropped against Shawn Hunt and Jonathan Pittman. Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson ruled that Sutter had "reckless disregard for the truth" and had "sought to the grand jury."
What will be effect on his challenge of Congressman Bill Keating
Samuel Sutter's attempt to unseat an incumbent member of Congress from his own party has been under a cloud since he announced his bid last month. His habit of lying was revealed ten days ago when he misstated his opponent's record twice in his announcement of his candidacy.
Many Massachusetts Democrats wondered what motivated Sutter who lives in a section of Fall River which is outside the 9th District.
That was solved when it was first reported here on February 20th that the former Congressman William Delahunt was the mastermind who urged not only Sutter to challenge Keating, but also encouraged former State Senator Rob O'Leary to run in the Democratic Primary in September.
O'Leary soon discovered that Keating's popularity was too great and dropped out within days.
Sutter's challenge continued until today when many party officials hope he will suspend his race.
That would give Sutter more time to attend to the conduct of his "day job" as District Attorney of Bristol County.
At what point does the Party, any Party, have a responsibility to condemn this corrupt conduct?
Sutter was cheating the state; Sanctioned by Bar Ethics Committee [Politics]
The man who would be our Congressman stole services from his own DA's office
Accepted free services from a law firm he was paid to fight in court
By Walter Brooks
Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter's present problem of jeopardizing the murder case against Jonathan Niemic is still simmering as new evidence is discovered of perhaps even worse ethical violations in this recent past.
While he answered Friday's charges by saying, "If Bill Keating wants to make this campaign about my record as district attorney against his record as district attorney and if he wants to make it about my integrity against his integrity, I would be happy to do that," his wish may to be diminished as his past comes back to haunt him.
A dozen years ago while serving as Assistant District Attorney in the same Bristol County DA's office, Sutter admitted to violating a state conflict of interest law in a case in which a defendant was represented by a private firm with which the prosecutor was doing business. Sutter admitted to the violation in a recently released legal settlement with the State Ethics Commission. The incident stemmed from his service as an Assistant DA before being elected to that office.
Then there's the money he and his wife improperly received as DA.
In 2009, the same year as the ethics violation above, Sutter's wife was forced to return $4,000 she was given as a present from a convicted embezzler.
Bottom line, Sam Sutter has several ethical blind spot and has trouble with telling the truth, telling the press this week, "I take great pride in my integrity and probity."
That word is defined as "adherence to the highest principles and ideals."
The complete text of his ethics violation sanction is below:
STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
Sutter, C. Samuel Docket No. 581
Docket No. 581
In the Matter of C. Samuel Sutter
Date: January 20, 1999 State Ethics Commission.
DISPOSITION AGREEMENT
This Disposition Agreement ("Agreement")is entered into between the State Ethics Commission ("Commission") and C. Samuel Sutter ("Sutter") pursuant to Section 5 of the Commission's Enforcement Procedures. This Agreement constitutes a consented to final order enforceable in the Superior Court, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.40).
On February 10, 1998, the Commission initiated, pursuant to G.L. c. 268B, s.4(a), a preliminary inquiry into possible violations of the conflict of interest law, G.L. c. 268A, by
Sutter. The Commission has concluded its inquiry and, on July 22, 1998, found reasonable cause to believe that Sutter violated G.L. c. 268A.
The Commission and Sutter now agree to the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
1.1. Sutter was, during the time relevant, a Bristol County assistant district attorney ("ADA").[1/] As such, Sutter was a state employee as that term is defined in G.L. c. 268A, s.1.
2.Casey & Thompson P.C. is a law firm practicing inBristol County. John Casey ("Casey")and Bruce Thompson ("Thompson")are shareholders in the firm.[2/]
3.In December 1994, Sutter solicited legal advice fromCasey concerning his recent separation from his wife.[3/] BetweenDecember 1994 and March 14, 1995, Sutter and Casey consulted onseveral occasions regarding this matter.
4.On March 14, 1995, Sutter as an ADA represented the Commonwealth regarding a motion to dismiss in the district court asto which Thompson represented the defendant.[4/]
5.As of March 14, 1995, Sutter was still consulting withCasey regarding the above-described personal matter, and he expected that the law firm of Casey & Thompson would represent himon that matter if it continued. [5/]
6.Sutter did not disclose to his appointing authority, the District Attorney ("the DA"), his private relationship with thelaw firm of Casey & Thompson.
7.General laws chapter 268A, s.23(b)(3) prohibits astate employee from acting in a manner which would cause areasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances,to conclude that any person can improperly influence him or undulyenjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or thathe is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank,position or undue influence of any party or person.
8.By participating as an ADA in a matter in which thelaw firm of Casey & Thompson had an interest at a time when he had through his dealings with Casey a private relationship with Casey & Thompson in a personal matter, Sutter acted in a manner which would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances to conclude that the attorneys at Casey &Thompson could improperly influence Sutter or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of Sutter's official duties, thereby violating G.L. c. 268A, s.23(b)(3). [6/ 7/]
9.By way of mitigation, Sutter notes that on March 14, 1995, he was filling in the district court, received several files scheduled for hearing or trial for that day for the first time on that morning, and had no prior knowledge that Thompson would be representing the defendant until shortly before the hearing began.
According to Sutter, due to the time pressures of handling several cases that day on short notice and because he had been dealing only with Casey about his personal matter, it did not occur to him that his litigating a matter with Thompson would create an appearance problem.The Commission is not unmindful of the difficulties faced by an ADA in district court session and does find these circumstances to be somewhat mitigating. Nevertheless, it concludes that he had the opportunity and obligation to inform the judge that he had a conflict, obtain a continuance for the purpose of disclosing the conflict to the District Attorney, and have the District Attorney decide who should handle the matter.[8/]
10.Sutter cooperated with the Commission's investigation.
In view of the foregoing violation of G.L. c. 268A by Sutter, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be served by the disposition of this matter without further
civil penalty. In disposing of this matter by this disposition agreement, Sutter waives 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 proceedings to which the Commission is or may be a party.
---------------------
[1/] From January 1994, to February 6, 1995, Sutter was the
Supervisory ADA at the Attleboro District Court. On February 6,
1995, Sutter was transferred to Superior Court. He continued to
appear in the Attleboro District Court to fill in for ADAs who were
ill or on vacation, but anew Supervisory ADA was appointed for the
Attleboro District Court.
[2/] The other major shareholder of the firm is not relevant
to these proceedings.
[3/] They had no prior attorney-client relationship.
[4/] The defendant was being prosecuted for operating under
the influence of alcohol. On February 28, 1995, Thompson filed a
motion to dismiss the case on various grounds. On March 14, 1995,
Sutter and Thompson engaged in an evidentiary hearing which
involved presenting witnesses and making oral arguments regarding
the motion. After the hearing, the judge took the matter under
advisement. While the matter was under advisement. Sutter took
steps so that the matter would be appealed in the event that the
judge allowed the motion. The judge did allow the motion to
dismiss, the Commonwealth did appeal, and the judge's decision was
eventually reversed by the Appeals Court and the case was remanded
back to the district court.
[5/] The law firm of Casey & Thompson did continue to
represent Sutter. Sutter has paid for a substantial portion of
these services and intends to pay the outstanding balance.
[6/] Section 23(b)(3) provides in relevant part: "It shall be
unreasonable to so conclude if such officer or employee has
disclosed in writing to his appointing authority or, if no
appointing authority exists, discloses in a manner which is public
in nature, the facts which would otherwise lead to such a
conclusion."
[7/] There is no evidence to indicate that Sutter provided
Casey & Thompson with any preferential treatment or that he
conducted himself other than in a professional manner regarding the
above described evidentiary hearing-
[8/] As a matter of public policy it is important that public
officials not engage in activity which creates the appearance that
their integrity has been undermined. In a recent decision and
order, In re Scaccia. 1996 SEC 838, the Commission stated its
position:
"Section 23(b)(3) is concerned with the appearance of a
conflict of interest as viewed by the reasonable person,
not whether the [public employee or official] actually
gave preferential treatment. The Legislature, in passing
this standard of conduct, focused on the perceptions of
the citizens of the community, not the perceptions of the
players in the situation." In re Hebert, 1996 SEC 800.
[I]n applying s.23(b)(3) to a public employee, [the
Commission] will evaluate whether, 'due to his private
relationship or interest, an appearance arises that the
integrity of the public official's action might be
undermined by the relationship or interest.' In re
Flanagan, 1996 SEC 757. See also In re Antonelli, 1982
SEC 10 1, 110 (evaluating precursor of s.23(b)(3),
Commission indicated major purpose of section to prohibit
public employee from engaging in conduct which will raise
questions over impartiality or credibility of his work).
Id. at 848.
This policy concern is especially applicable to our criminal
justice system where appearances of conflict of interest must be
avoided if our citizens' confidence in the integrity of the system
is to be maintained.
Page 927
End of Decision
DA Sam Sutter's misconduct may free murder suspect
Sutter misconduct may free murder suspect Jonathan Niemic
Bristol County DA and Congressional candidate makes egregious error
Boston Channel 5, WCVB, reports that murder suspect Jonathan Niemic could go free due to the misconduct of DA Sam Sutter in releasing telephone recordings between the defendant and his attorney.
Niemic is charged with fatally stabbing Michael Correia in October 2010.
The Standard-Times reports that Niemic's defense attorney, Robert M. Griffin of Walpole, is asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the indictment with prejudice due to "egregious prosecution misconduct."
Griffin said in his motion, "The conduct of the prosecution in this case was so egregious and prejudicial to the defendant so as to warrant dismissal of the charge now pending against him."
In 2003 Sutter's conduct freed two murder suspects
According to the WCVB report this is the second time Sutter's office has been accused of misconduct.
In 2003 murder charges were dropped against Shawn Hunt and Jonathan Pittman. Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson ruled that Sutter had "reckless disregard for the truth" and had "sought to the grand jury."
What will be effect on his challenge of Congressman Bill Keating
Samuel Sutter's attempt to unseat an incumbent member of Congress from his own party has been under a cloud since he announced his bid last month. His habit of lying was revealed ten days ago when he misstated his opponent's record twice in his announcement of his candidacy.
Many Massachusetts Democrats wondered what motivated Sutter who lives in a section of Fall River which is outside the 9th District.
That was solved when it was first reported here on February 20th that the former Congressman William Delahunt was the mastermind who urged not only Sutter to challenge Keating, but also encouraged former State Senator Rob O'Leary to run in the Democratic Primary in September.
O'Leary soon discovered that Keating's popularity was too great and dropped out within days.
Sutter's challenge continued until today when many party officials hope he will suspend his race.
That would give Sutter more time to attend to the conduct of his "day job" as District Attorney of Bristol County.