(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Report of the Attorney General for the year ending .."

lie Document 



No. 12 




®I|B Ol0mm0n&r^altl| ai ^^ss^cl]nstits 



Report of the 
Attorney General 
for Fiscal Year 2000 

July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000 



Hoom 







BLICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT APPROVED BY PhILMORE ANDERSON III, StATE PURCHASING AgENT. 
Publication Number 18745-240-700-3/01-4.72-Docuprint 




Tom Reilly 
ATTOR>fEY GENERAL 



Ifie Commonweatth of!Massac/iusetts 

office of the Sittomey QeneraC 

One !Asfii)UTton 'Ptace 

'Boston, S\4A 02108-1698 



In accordance with the provisions of Section 1 1 of Chapter 12 of the 
Massachusetts General Laws, I hereby submit the Annual Report for the Office of 
the Attorney General. This Annual Report covers the period from July 1, 1999 to 
June 30, 2000. 



Respectfully submitted, 



Thomas F. Reill 
Attorney Geneu^l 




TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL APPOINTMENTS i 

BUDGET OVERVIEW vi 

EXECUTIVE BUREAU 1 

Legal Counsel 1 

Human Resource Management Office 3 

Budget Office 4 

Information Technology Division 5 

Operations Division 6 

External Affairs Division 7 

Cormnunications Division 9 

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 10 

FairLaborand Business Practices Division 10 

Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division 16 

Medicaid Fraud Control Unit 21 

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 28 

Victim Compensation and Assistance Division 40 

Safe Neighborhood Initiative Division 46 

CRIMINAL BUREAU 54 

Appellate Division 55 

High Tech and Computer Crime Division 59 

Public Integrity Division 64 

Victim / Witness Assistance Division 67 

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division 73 

Economic Crimes Division 80 

Environmental Crimes Strike Force 90 

Financial Investigation Division 93 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 98 

Administrative Law Division 102 

Trial Division 113 

Environmental Protection Division 120 

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 131 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division 132 

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division 151 

Investigations Division 162 

Public Charities Division 165 

Regulated Industries Division 177 



APPOINTMENTS 



Fiscal Year 2000 (July 1, 1999 - June 30, 2000) 
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 



ATTORNEY GENERAL - TOM REILLY 

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL - DEAN RICHLIN 

CHIEF OF STAFF - JEFFREY SHAPIRO 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL: 



Ann Ackil 
Dorothy Anderson 
David Andrews 
Linda Andros 
Marion Antonucci (30) 
Luz Arevalo (7 1 ) 
Michael Atleson (23) 
Frederick Augenstem 
Steven Baddour (5) 
Thomas Bamico 
Christopher Barry- Smith 
Jason Barshak 
Mary Elizabeth Basile 
Judith Beals (34) 
R. David Beck 
Annette Benedetto 
Barbara Berenson (2) 
Matthew Berge 
Anne Berlin 
Crispin Bimbaura 



(42) 



William Bloomer 
Edward Bohlen 
Wilner Borgella (20) 
John Bowen 
Martha Bower (18) 
John Bowman 
David Breen (33) 
Kevin Brekka (67) 
Matthew Brock 
George Brooks (50) 
Kimberly Brooks (4) 
Matthew Buehler 
Brian Burke (73) 
Ranjana (Chand) Burke 
Romeo Camba (19) 
Jesse Caplan (14) 
Sandra Cardone (30) 
Eric Carriker 
Eugenia Carris (4) 
James Caruso, Jr. 



Aloke Chakravarty (26) 
Lael Chester (40) 
John Christin, Jr. 
John Ciardi (62) 
Peter Clark 
Stephen Clark (17) 
Jeffrey Clements (59) 
Richard Cole 
Joanna Connolly 
Rosemary Connolly 
Patricia Correa 
Arlie Costine-Scott 
Pierce Cray 
John Crimmins 
John Curseaden (20) 
William Daggett 
Norman D' Amours 
Pamela Dashiell 
Leslie Davies (47) 
Gerald D' Avoho, Jr. 



APPOINTMENTS 



George Dean 
Edward Deangelo 
Irene Delbono 
Linda Delcastilho 
Stephen Dick 
Michael Dingle (70) 
Kristen Dionisi 
Henry Eaton (44) 
Anne Edwards 
F. Henry Ellis, III (72) 
Barbara Fain 
James Farrell (10) 
Daniel Field 
Freda Fishman 
Francis Flaherty, Jr. 
Elizabeth Ann Foley 
Mary Freeley 
Elizabeth Frumkin (11) 
Cynthia Gagne 
Rafael Garcia 
Dana Gershengorn 
Bonny Gilbert (54) 
Suzanne Glick Gilfix 
Salvatore Giorlandino 
I. Andrew Goldberg 
Gary n Gordon (13) 
Richard Gordon 



Alexander Gray (8) (65) 

Eliot Green 

Catherine Greene (15) 

John Grossman 

John Grugan 

Daniel Hammond 

Nancy (Betsy) Harper 

Sarah Hartry (38) 

Katherine Hatch 

Ladonna Hatton 

Janice Healy (2) 

Richard Hecht (53) 

Michael Hering 

Muriel Hervey (6) 

R. Scott Hill-Whilton (49) 

John Hitt 

Bart Q.Hollander (29) 

Pamela Hunt 

Marsha Hunter 

Carol lancu 

Matthew Ireland (20) 

Marcia Jackson 

Maria Hickey Jacobson (25) 

Patrick Johnston (52) 

Shelley Richmon Joseph (64) 

Michelle Kaczynski 

Stephanie Kahn (20) 



Judy Kalman 
Glenn Kaplan 
Jamie Katz 
David Kerrigan (8) 
Karen Kleiman (2) 
Mark Kmetz 
Michael Kogut (32) 
Pamela Kogut 
Helen Koroniades (56) 
Joshua Krell (73) 
Siu Tip Lam 
Andrew Latimer 
Andrew Lawlor (4 1 ) 
Kelli Lawrence 
Angela Lee 
Peter Leight 
Gerard Leone, Jr. 
Martin Levin 
Leonard Lopes (75) 
Kara Lucciola (68) 
Jacinta Ma 
Glenn MacKinlay 
Anita Maietta 
Maria Makredes (3) 
M. Toni Maloney 
David Marks 
Laura Marlin 



APPOINTMENTS 



Laura Maslow-Armand 
William Matlack (51) 
William McAvoy (69) 
Catherine McClure 
Timothy McDonough 
Philip McGovem 
Constance McGrane (15) 
Beth McLaughlin (60) 
Marianne Meacham 
William Meade 
Elisabeth Medvedow 
Pamela Meister 
Beth Merachnik 
Howard Meshnick 
Nicholas Messuri 
James Milkey 
Jonathan Mitchell (31) 
Daniel Mitchell (39) 
David Monahan (15) 
Alice Moore 
T. Gregory Motta (48) 
Mark Muldoon 
Mark MuUigan 
David Nalven (1) 
Cathryn Neaves (73) 
Eileen O'Brien (27) 
James O'Brien 



Jean O'Brien (70) 
Michelle O'Brien (57) 
Thomas O'Brien 
James O'Connell (14) 
JohnO'Leary(12) 
Erin Olson 
James Paikos 
Donna Palermino 
Kathryn Palmer (33) 
Emily Paradise 
William Pardee 
Margaret Parks 
Lori Parris (43) 
M. Julie Patino (24) 
Robert Patten (16) 
Peter Paulousky (28) 
Susan Paulson 
Anthony Penski 
Rebeca Perez (61) 
Judith Phillips (75) 
Mary Phillips 
Barbara Piselli (46) 
William Porter 
Candies Pruitt (47) 
Stephen Prunier (20) 
Christopher Quaye 
Jason Queenin 



Robert Quinan 

Susanne Levsen Reardon (58) 

KarlenReed(15) 

Elizabeth Reinhardt (63) 

William Reynolds (7) 

Juliana Rice 

Robert Ritchie 

Lena Robinson 

Beverly Roby 

Anthony Rodriguez 

Joseph Rogers 

Deirdre Rosenberg 

Julie Ross (22) 

Mary Ruppert (15) 

Peter Sacks 

Vanessa Sanchez-Gasparro (66) 

Ernest Sarason 

Kurt Schwartz 

Pasqua Scibelli (52) 

Amy Sharif 

Timothy Shea 

Matthew Shea 

Neil Sherring (32) 

Jeremy Silverfine (35) 

Adam Simms 

GinnySinkel 

Mark Smith (74) 



APPOINTMENTS 



Johanna Sons 

Amy Spector 

Susan Spurlock (36) 

Carol Starkey 

Deborah Steenland 

Kenneth Steinfield (45) 

James Stetson (57) 

Catherine Sullivan 

Mark Sutliff 

James Sweeney 

Diane Szafarowicz 

Daniel Szostkiewicz (16) 

Pamela Talbot 

Rosemary Tarantino 

Neil Tassel 

Danah Tench (9) 

Louisa Terrell (24) 

Joseph Thai (7) (70) 

Steven Thomas 

Linda Tomaselli (17) 

Marini Torres-Benson (9) 

Bruce Trager 

Hung Tran 

Thomas Ulfelder 

Teri Williams Valentine (13) 

Dorothy Varon( 13) 

Linda Wagner (21) 



Gina Walcott (37) 

Teresa Walsh (11) 

Peter Wechsler 

Pamela Wechsler (4) 

William Weinreb 

Karen Wells 

James Whitcomb 

Doris White (20) 

Jonathan White (30) 

Betsy (Sawyer) Whittey (16) 

H. Gregory WilHams (55) 

Jane Willoughby 

Howard Wise 

John Woodruff (60) 

Chi Chi Wu 

Charles Wyzanski 

Judith Yogman 

Karla Zarbo 

Catherine Ziehl 



APPOINTMENTS 



APPOINTMENT DATE 






TERMINATION DATE 


1. 


07/01/99 


31. 


07/02/99 


61. 


03/14/00 


2. 


07/12/99 


32. 


07/05/99 


62. 


03/31/00 


3. 


07/26/99 


33. 


07/09/99 


63. 


04/07/00 


4. 


08/02/99 


34. 


07/27/99 


64. 


04/18/00 


5. 


08/09/99 


35. 


08/06/99 


65. 


04/30/00 


6. 


08/25/99 


36. 


08/26/99 


66. 


05/03/00 


7. 


09/13/99 


37. 


08/31/99 


67. 


05/10/00 


8. 


09/20/99 


38. 


09/01/99 


68. 


05/1 1/00 


9. 


10/04/99 


39. 


09/07/99 


69. 


05/19/00 


10. 


10/07/99 


40. 


09/09/99 


70. 


05/26/00 


11. 


10/25/99 


41. 


09/15/99 


71. 


05/31/00 


12. 


11/01/99 


42. 


10/01/99 


72. 


06/02/00 


13. 


11/08/99 


43. 


10/12/99 


73. 


06/09/00 


14. 


11/29/99 


44. 


10/14/99 


74. 


06/16/00 


15. 


12/06/99 


45. 


10/15/99 


75. 


06/30/00 


16. 


01/03/00 


46. 


10/22/99 






17. 


01/31/00 


47. 


10/29/99 






18. 


02/07/00 


48. 


11/01/99 






19. 


02/22/00 


49. 


1 1/03/99 






20. 


02/28/00 


50. 


1 1/05/99 






21. 


03/01/00 


51. 


1 1/22/99 






22. 


03/10/00 


52. 


12/01/99 






23. 


04/03/00 


53. 


12/03/99 






24. 


05/01/00 


54. 


12/06/99 






25. 


05/09/00 


55. 


12/27/99 






26. 


05/22/00 


56. 


12/31/99 






27. 


06/05/00 


57. 


01/07/00 






28. 


06/19/00 


58. 


01/17/00 






29. 


06/20/00 


59. 


02/18/00 






30. 


06/26/00 


60. 


02/25/00 







BUDGET OVERVIEW 



Q < 



lU CO 

8< 



< CD 

o tr 

- o 



DC Q 

cr HI 

D til 

o o 

Z O 

- DC 

CO Q. 



Q 
=3 
< 

DC 
U. 
HI 

o 
z 
< 

DC 
CO 

^Z 

111 o 
■ F 

63 
Po 

3 DC 



DC ^ 
5 0- 



BUDGET OVERVIEW 



h^ 




7. 




p-i 




1^ 




pj 




LO 




Cri 




D 


o 


pa 




f/i 


o 






Q 


-^ 


Q 


^ 


5 


y 


(y-j 


*A 


fc 





Ui 


PL, 


u 




a 




H 




C>0 




:j 




Di 




H 





o w 

o ^ 
< > 



w < 

m g 
tr o 

§5 
81 

2 LL 
LU ^ 

Q 9 

13 °^ 

F O 



BUDGET OVERVIEW 



c/^ 








u 




W 




Q 




w 




Uh 




Q 


o 


^ 


^ 


i/^ 


od 


Q 


<, 




s 


PU 


:^ 


^ 


uo 


fe 


tl. 


w 




s 




H 




s^ 




CLh 




UJ 




S 




U4 




h 




Z 









n 




z 












-1 


^ 


< 


(M 




EC 


5 


S 


1 


o 


fa 


u. 


fi 




1 





ii 



BUDGET OVERVIEW 



BUDGET OVERVIEW 



• i 

CQ 


in 

S 


1 




§- 


CO 

in 




CD 


cm' 


N 

" 


1 


t^' 


CM 


CO 


co' 


00 

in 


cm' 


i 

^' 


in 


CO 


CO 


1 


cm" 


?' 


in" 


cm" 


til 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


1 


i 


CO 






9 

CO 

in" 


i 


CD 


cm' 


ES 


1 


1 


1 

CM 


CO 


co" 


CO 


cm' 


-*' 


1 


5 

CD 


1 


1 


w 


in" 


in" 


cm" 


§ 
< 


1 

§ 
§ 

§ 


§ 

8 

1 

=! 
z 

1 

u. 
O 

z 


3 
§ 

8 

! 


in 

s 


1 

H 
LU 

< 

LU 
HI 
(J 

Q. 


CO 

1 

5 
o 

UJ 

1 

Q 
LU 

1 

ID 
-1 

^ 
LU 

Z 

> 
< 


d 
Lii 

< 

> 

LU <; 
O -J 

^^ 
"^ 


1 

< 

m 
Q 

1= 
LU 

< < 

m 5 

EC < 

LU ^ 

St 

CO H 
^^ 

^ CO 

O CO 
o < 


< 

CQ 
Q 

> 
en 

LU 

-1 

LU 
EC 

m 

CO 

>P 
CO -• 

'^ < 

p 


< 

tr 

LU 

z 

X 
CO 

O LU 

> y 

< LU 

m CO 

CO CO 

81 

i? 

O CO 


> 

LU 

o 

i 

CO 

> 

CO 
CO 

< 

LJ. 

O 

o 


i 

CO 
LU 

I 

CO 

> 

CO 
CO 

i 

b 


> 

lU 

< 

a 

CO 

-1 

-i 
< 
CO 

> 

CO P 

^t 

2 CO 

O 3 
O < 


CO 
LU 

-1 
< 

< 
LU 

< 

Q 

< 
> 

o 
o 


1 

CO 

j 

8 


-1 
< 

H 
LU 

(f 
CO 

z 

1 

CO 

> 
< 

LU 

o 

8 


tr 
O 
O 

^ 

EC 
LU 

X 

_l 
< 

\- 
LU 

5 


i 

>' 

LU 

Q 

CO 

> 

LU 

o 

8 


§ 

DC 

o 

CO 

> 

LJ. 

o 

LU 

O 

8 


< 

Q. 
CO 

< 

LU 

X 

z 
< 

LU 

LU 
CO 

> 

< 
LU 

O 

8 


1 

o 

-1 

LU 

i 

CO 

> 
< 

LU 

O 

2 


CO 
LU 

>- 

i 
< 

>- 

CO 

> 

CO 

LJ. 

o 

2 


CO 
CO 

1 

LJ. 

o 

i 

o 

CO 

> 
1 

LU 
Q. 


O 

il 

1 

CO 

> 

CO 

LJ. 

o 


LU 
CO 
Q 

CO 
LU 

)^ 

(T. 

< 
> 

CO 
CO 

< 

^co 

LJ. CC 
O LU 
5 D- 


1 


§ 


i 


§ 


§ 


8 

i 


i 


§ 


§ 




in 
§ 




en 
1 


1 


oo 

o 


i 


i 


1 


8 

i 


8 
8 


8 
8 


8 
8 


8 


8 


8 


8 


1 
1 


1 


i 


i 


i 


g 


g 


i 


i 


i 


i 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


i 


i 


g 


1 


i 


i 


o 


i 


1 


i 



BUDGET OVERVIEW 







O)' 




'■ 


§ 




!■ 


fe 


(D 


fe 




00 


s 

N 
^ 


o 


N 
W 
K 


o 


lO 


o 
o 
in 


^ 


cJ 


'■ 




UJ 


o 


o 


o 


o 


§ 


o 


o 


o 


o 


00 


1 

CO 


1 


i. 

CM 


O 


o 


o 


o 


s 

oo" 


o 


o 


o 


,1 
I 

8 


s 

CO 


i 

01 




' 


1 


1 


^ 


ID 


CO 

cm" 




§ 

C\i 

of 


CO 


CO 


1^ 

c\i 


o 


in 


o 
in 


oo' 


CM 


' 


9 


(0 

1 


i 

Q- 
Q 

5 
m 

LU 

u. 

LU 

tr 
$ 
> 

8 


LU 

-1 
> 

< 

O 

o 


O 

1 

o 

LU 

-J 

1 

a 
i 

CO 

> 

8 


5 

> 

LU 

i 

Q 

LU 
O 
CO 

> 
< 

LU 
Z CO 

81 


2 

o 
o 

LU 
_l 
D 
< 
Q. 
CO 
> 
CO 

8 


i 

=j 

1- 
O 
LU 

cr 

Q 
o8 

tr 
\^ 

CO 

z 
z 
< 

m 

LU 

z 
z 

CO 
CO 

> 

8 


CL 

X 

E 
o 
-1 
< 

z 

i 

ii 

Q. LJ. 

gg 
>< 

8i 


CO 

LU 
Q. 

o 

oc 

D- 

1- 

LU 
CC 
CO 

> 

8 


-1 

LU 

Z 

i 

co' 
\fi ^ 

CO CC 
EC O 

£^ 

F LU 
LU F 

ii 

< < 

2 Z 

oi 

2 LU 

8i 


< 

LU 

LU 

Z 
< 

CO 
CO 

LU 

? 

CD 

ii 

CO LU 
CO O 

ii 

is 

5 CO 
O Q 
O Q 


Q- 

oa 

CD 
LU 
O 

d: 

CO 

< 

LU 
CO 
CO 

> 

CO 
CO 

< 

Li. 

o 

o 
o 


D- 

B 

CD 
LU 

CO 

oc 
< 

LU 
CO 
CO 

> 
CO 

LL 

o 

O 

o 


I 

I 

o 

CO Q^ 

lf 

2 LU 
5 Q 

81 


lU 

< 

LU 
O 

s 

Q 

CD 

_I 

yj 

z 

CO 

> 

CO 

IB 

o < 

il 

8^ 


< 

1- 

LU 
LU 

i 

LU 

_l 

< 
D. 
CO 
> 
CO 

LL 

o 

o 
o 


0. 

Li. 

D. 
< 
O 
CO 

> 

LU 

8 


5 

o 
< 

LU 
I 
> 
< 

I CO 

ii 

o ■* 

O LU 


i 

z 

88 


Q- 
O 

LU 

> 
< 

ofl F 
1^ 

LU Z 

LU Q 
D. LU 

il 
I 

<l 
LU ^ 

O 0= 

i| 
o 5 

O Q 


i 

UJ 

oc 
o ^ 

gi 

UJ ^ 
U. Q 
Q ? 

o Q 

al 

CO S 
CO Q 

E^ 

1^ 

^Q 
> z 

z < 

§8 


i 

is 

ii 

CO LU 
> OC 

z «« 

ii 


1 








s 

8 
§ 


o 


o 
§ 


o 
o 
o 

§ 


CO 

o 
o 

§ 


o 
§ 


I-- 
o 
o 

§ 


CO 

o 
o 

i 


05 

o 
o 

§ 


o 

§ 




o 


i 


o 

i 


o 

§ 


o 

i 


o 

i 


o 

§ 


! 

1 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


i 


1 


i 


i 


i 


1 


i 



BUDGET OVERVIEW 




EXECUTIVE BUREAU 

Legal Counsel 

Human Resource Management Office 

Budget Office 

Information Technology Division 

Operations Division 

External Affairs Division 

Communications Dd/ision 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU 



Executive Bureau 

The Executive Bureau provides the overall administration, policy-setting, supervision, and staff training 
for the Office of the Attorney General. The Bureau also handles a number of specialized functions, including 
the coordination of legislative affairs, community outreach, constituent relations, administrative and technical 
support, and all internal and external communications. 

The Executive Bureau is designed to develop and maintain the agency's infrastructure, enabling all of 
the Attomey General's Oflfice to function productively and effectively for the benefit of the Commonwealth's 
citizens. The Bureau consists of the Office of the First Assistant Attomey General which includes the Legal 
Counsel, and the Chief of Staff's Office which includes the Human Resource Management Office, Budget 
Office, Information Technology Division, Operations Division, External Affairs Division, the Communications 
Division, the Bellotti Law Library and Support Services Division. 

AG Tom Reilly hosted a "Youtii Listening Conference" as part of the two day Eastem Regional NAAG 
conference attended by AGs from around tiie counti7. The Youtii Listening Conference was also part of 
a year long NAAG "youtii issues and violence prevention" initiative that took place in 1999 — anotiier 
Youth Listening Conference was attended by AGs at the Winter Conference in Arizona. At the Youth 
Listening Conference held at Fanueil Hall on October 28 and attended by students, parents, and teachers 
from the cities and towns in Massachusetts, AG Tom Reilly moderated a student panel designed to solicit 
input from them on a range of issues, including sexual harassment, weapons, security measures, feeling 
safe, domestic violence, dress codes, and bullying. In a second panel, experts including school 
superintendents, principals, teachers, and counselors identified and considered die issues raised by tiie 
stiidents in the first panel. After a short recap of tiie day's highlights, the students were presented with 
certificates in recognition of tiieir participation and were Q-eated to lunch. 

The Executive Bureau included tiie following staff members: Meredith Baumann; Nancy Gromofsky; 
Susan Kenneally; Diane MacDonald; Pasha Polihronidis; Sharon Scott; Denise Snyder; and Mary 
WoUenhaupt. 



LEGAL COUNSEL 

The office of the Legal Counsel provides recommendations on legal and policy matters to the Attomey 
General, the First Assistant Attomey General, the Chief of Staff and all other Attomey General's Office 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU 



staff. The office is comprised of five attorneys - each of whom is assigned general and specific areas of 
responsibility - one paralegal and a secretary. 

Specific areas of responsibility include applying the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Ethics 
Law; providing legal advice and assistance to the non-legal operational divisions of the office, including 
Human Resources Management and Operations (Support Services, Information Technology and Budget); 
managing Special Assistant Attomey General (S AAG) appointments; approving Contracts for Legal Services 
by state agencies; reviewing and circulating Petitions and Notices from the Board of Bar Overseers; 
coordinating the officewide review of Department of Revenue tax settlements with individuals who have 
failed to pay taxes; reviewing and coordinating responses from bureau chiefs regarding civil amicus briefs 
circulated by the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) for submission to the First Assistant; 
reviewing and distributing requests from NAAG that the Attomey General sign on to letters in support of 
or in opposition to proposed legislation or regulations; and representing the Office of Campaign and 
PoUtical Finance before the Superior Court. 

The office of the Legal Counsel responds to questions and complaints from the public about the Open 
Meeting Law, as it applies to state agencies, and reviews pubhc records law referrals from the Supervisor 
of Public Records in the Secretary of State's Office to determine whether the Attomey General should 
seek to enforce the Supervisor's order. The Legal Counsel serves as the Public Records Officer for the 
Executive Bureau, and coordinates the handUng by the office's public records officers of public records 
requests applicable to other Attomey General's Office bureaus. The Legal Counsel also provides advice 
to Assistant Attorneys General on public records law and records retention issues. 

In addition, the office of the Legal Counsel handles a variety of matters that do not fall within one of the 
bureaus or which require the input of the Executive Bureau. In this regard, the Office handles special 
projects assigned by the First Assistant and assists the Chief of Staff with legal issues relative to the 
administrative and finance responsibilities of the office. Special projects initiated during FY 2000 included 
assuming responsibility for evaluating the Attomey General's role in enforcing the public records law; 
issuing memoranda to all staff about public employees' responsibilities under the State Ethics Law on 
receiving gifts and disclosing their personal interest in matters in which the state has substantial interest; 
preparing a prop>osal to instittite a comprehensive Q-aining program for all OAG employees; working with 
Human Resources to plan and put in place a monthly anti-discrimination training program for all OAG 
supervisors and staff; and creating tiie Attomey General's Fellowship Program and coordinating the 
interviewing and hiring for the first class of legal fellows, scheduled to begin serving the Attomey General's 
Office in September 2000. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE 

The revised Human Resource Manual was released and distributed to the staff in December 1999. 
The contents of the manual were intended to easily inform staff about the Attorney General's policies and 
procedures, and the format was improved to include all forms in the Appendix of the manual. 

Some of the substantive changes that were made to the manual include incorporation of the Diversity 
Mission Statement in the Human Resource Manual to emphasize the Office's commitment to diversity; 
creation of the Domestic Violence Prevention Policy to provide guidance to management and employees 
to address the occurrence of domestic violence and its effect in the workplace; adoption of a Part-Time 
Status Policy to acknowledge the independent needs of staff members and to attract and retain top-notch 
employees; the awarding of paid Cancer Screening Leave for employees to schedule medical screenings; 
and the adoption of an Inclement Weather/Snow Policy to provide helpful information to employees regarding 
office closings. 

The Attorney General's Office vacation policy was revised so tiiat employees earned vacation leave 
on a monthly basis after working the complete month. This change was made for both administrative 
reasons and in preparation for conversion to the state's new payroll system, tiie Human Resource/ 
Compensation Management System (HR/CMS) in April 2000. The Attorney General's Office also revised 
its time and attendance system to be consistent witii tiie implementation of HR/CMS, developing a new 
time reporting system by which employees report their days worked and paid leave days taken on a 
weekly basis. 

Following the release of the Anti- Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Policy in the Spring of 1999, 
tiie Office designed and conducted comprehensive training sessions for botii supervisors and staff. All 
newly hired managers were trained first, then numerous sessions were conducted tiiroughout the year to 
train all staff members. This is the first time in tiie history of tiie Attorney General's Office that tiiis task has 
been undertaken. 

The Attorney General's Office has consistentiy reissued this important pohcy each April to highlight its 
commitment to a workplace free of discriminatory or illegal behavior. 

The Diversity Committee is a cross-bureau initiative aimed at raising awareness of diversity, tolerance 
and cultural sensitivity. Attorney General Reilly has wholeheartedly supported and expanded die efforts of 
the Diversity Committee in order to foster a welcoming work environment, where people of diverse 
backgrounds are valued and respected. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU BUDGET OFFICE 

In conjunction with the Diversity Committee, the Human Resource Management Office sponsored its 
second annual Diversity Reception in an effort to attract and retain employees of diverse backgrounds and 
experiences. As a result, five new staff attorneys were recruited and hired. 

Due to the size and various geographical locations of the Attorney General's Office, the Human Resource 
Management Office held monthly meetings with all bureau and division Administrative Assistants to inform 
them of policy or procedural changes in the Office and provide a forum for discussion. 

The Human Resource Management Office included the following staff members: Diana LaRochelle, 
Director; Luna Bacon; Joyce Delgardo; James Donovan; Doris Donovan; Debra Lacross; Sandra 
Macdonald; Rosemary Miller; Meade Munroe; Joseph Shea; InaTall; and Dazlee Vega. 



BUDGET OFFICE 

During Fiscal Year 2000, the Budget Office issued a Revenue Receivable Manual and an updated 
Internal Control Policy, seeking the advice of both the Office of the State Comptroller and the State 
Auditor's Office to issue them. 

The Budget Office also worked with the State Comptroller to resolve an issue involving the Department 
of Employment and Training (DET). DET provides direct funding to the Office of the Attorney General to 
support investigation and prosecution of unemployment fraud. DET also was charged approximately 
$500,000 in the Statewide Cost Allocation Program, a program administered by the State Comptroller to 
recover federal funds not recovered through other mechanisms. DET believed this was a duplicate charge 
and, after the Budget Office provided information DET had requested in the past, these charges were 
removed. 

In addition, the Office submitted four years of outstanding Drug Forfeiture Certification Reports to the 
Department of Justice. 

In order to effectively manage funding received from other state agencies to support litigation costs, the 
Budget Office recruited an experienced Contract Manager and began conducting internal training about 
the requirements of state purchasing and state finance law. 

The Budget Office also began electronically tracking payroll expenditures by cost center. Prior to 
Fiscal Year 2000, only hard copy records of payroll costs were maintained. This made historical tracking 
of costs difficult to maintain. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

Working with the Human Resource Management Office, the Budget Office successfully made the 
transition to a new payroll system instituted by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance. 
Converting from the 'CAPS' monthly payroll system to the new Human Resource/Compensation 
Management System (HR/CMS) has enhanced the abUity of the office to track costs. 

The Budget Office included the following staff members: Ellen Donaghey, Director; Kristine Hill; James 
Creedon; Tamika Eutsay ; Mary Jane Grace; Michael Guarin; India McConnico; Penny Michalski; Gail 
Samo; and Vincent Shanley. 



INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION 

Attorney General Tom Reilly's Office recognizes the importance of today's government law office and 
its impact upon this agency's ability to efficiently deliver information and services to Massachusetts' citizens. 
Understanding also the need to keep pace with the rapid changes imposed by technology, the Attorney 
General's Office is committed to providing its employees with quality technology resources and solutions. 
To do that, the Information Technology Division (ITD) continues to upgrade and enhance the agency's 
computer systems and network operations. 

In Fiscal Year 2000, FTD first concentrated on completing network upgrades to ensure Y2K compliance. 
The division then focused its efforts on upgrading the level of desktop computing by acquiring and installing 
more than 300 high performance personal computers. Improvements in printing quality and capabilities, as 
well as reductions in repair costs, were gained by the replacement of several printers. 

To meet the increasing needs of legal and investigative staff, the Attorney General's Office took steps 
in Fiscal Year 2000 to acquire a number of notebook computers and mobile printers. Mobile computer 
equipment plays an essential role in the work of Attorney General Reilly's High Tech and Computer 
Crimes Division, and provides increased flexibility to other legal and investigative staff. 

Portable computing equipment also plays an important role in the courtroom since the use of multimedia 
and presentation technology to present evidence has become more common in both civil and criminal 
cases. As a result, in addition to notebook computers and portable printers, the Attorney General's Office 
has widened its scope of technology resources to acquire equipment such as portable projectors, document 
display devices, digital cameras, document scanners and presentation monitors. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU OPERATIONS 

The Information Technology Division also worked with members of the High Tech and Computer 
Crimes Division and the PubUc Protection Bureau to acquire the equipment and resources necessary to 
create an independent computer network. This network is used exclusively by law enforcement and 
investigative staff to conduct investigations into Internet-related crimes and computer forensics. 

The Attorney General's network communications were also upgraded and expanded in Fiscal Year 
2000. A new T 1 connection was installed between the main office in Boston and the Western Massachusetts 
Regional Office in Springfield, providing vastly increased data transmission speed between the two sites. 
This upgrade provides the Springfield Office staff with fast and easy access to network applications that 
were previously unavailable to them. 

Attorney General Reilly also opened two more regional offices in Fiscal Year 2000, in New Bedford 
and in Worcester. ITD configured and installed a local area network in each office. Both new sites 
communicate with the main office through T 1 connections that provide full access to all networic applications 
and resources. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, IT also worked on a variety of other projects and initiatives, such as creating 
and issuing the Attorney General's Acceptable Use Policy for Information Technology Resources, software 
compliance enforcement, the use of adaptive technologies and assisting the Human Resource Management 
Division in implementing a new applicant tracking system. 

The Information Technology Division includes the following staff members: Paula Durant, Director; 
Ronald Rossetti, Claudette Clement; Jean Exantus; Christine Heneghan; Kwong Ma; Amy Oppici; Ronald 
Perreault; Visakha Samaraweera; Thomas Smith; David Spector; and Charles Sullivan. 



OPERATIONS DIVISION 

During Fiscal Year 2000 the Operations Division's function was to provide stability and support to all 
parts of the Office of the Attorney General including the Regional Offices. In keeping with Attorney 
General Tom Reilly's desire to make this Office more responsive to the citizens of the Commonwealth, 
plans were formulated in late 1999 to open full-service offices in Central and Southeastern Massachusetts. 
Despite large population concentrations in these parts of the state, access to AGO services had historically 
been difficult or impossible for a large number of residents. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 

At the start of Fiscal Year 2000, a temporary office was opened in Worcester in space furnished by the 
Office for Development for the city of Worcester. Following the Division of Capital Asset Management's 
(DCAM) procedures for the procurement of leased space, space was secured at One Exchange Place in 
downtown Worcester. The new Central Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General was opened on 
May 15, 2000. 

During Fiscal Year 2000 a temporary office was opened in New Bedford in space furnished by the 
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. Following DCAM procedures, leased space was secured in 
New Bedford in a building owned by the United Way of Greater New Bedford, located at 105 William 
Street. The new Southeastern Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General was opened on June 29, 
2000. These two offices are functioning in a full service capacity and have become important to the 
citizens and regions in which they are located. 

Support Services, part of the Operations Division, upgraded their copiers during Fiscal Year 2000. 
Eight analog copiers were replaced with digital machines increasing copying productivity as well as positioning 
the office for future copying and printing automation. 

In order to improve our data storage and retrieval systems, the Operations Division began using Iron 
Mountam Records Management Incorporated. The use of this off-site storage center allowed us to better 
utilize our limited administrative space and provides attorneys rapid access to critical information. 

The Operations Division includes the following staff members: Frank Velluto, Director; Christy Adams; 
Michael Ball; and Kevin Nolan. The Support Service Office includes the following staff members: William 
Coughlin, Manager; Nestor Morales; Stephen Cress; Sean Donovan; Pier Minghetti; David Scafati; Andrew 
Smith; Dennis Smith; and Harold Tafler. 

The smooth operation of the Attorney General's Office is also reliant on the dedicated professionalism 
of the following staff members, in the Belotti Law Library and the Telecommunicatioas Division, respectively: 
Karin Thurman, Law Librarian; Lori Dyson; Paula Hartman; and Catherine Douglas; Susan Lindsey; and 
Charlene Wilson. 



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION 

The External Affairs Division responds to the public's inquiries, and serves as a liaison between the 
community and the Attorney General's Office. The External Affairs Division consists of the Office of 
Community Partnerships, Intergovernmental Affairs and the Community Liaison. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 

Attorney General Tom Reilly created the Office of Community Partnerships to work with Massachusetts 
mayors, urban leaders and local town officials to address issues that relate to our cities and towns, particularly 
as they affect the health and safety of our children, environmental concerns and housing issues. The office 
acts as a direct liaison between the Attorney General's Office and the state's cities and towns. 

In Fiscal Year 2000, the Office of Community Partnerships worked with the state's mayors, school 
superintendents, urban leaders and local officials in an effort to develop ways in which state and local 
government can partner in the public interest. To this end, the Office of Community Partnerships teamed 
with cities and towns to establish School Safety Programs, Abandoned Housing Initiatives, Brownfields 
Projects as well as offering insight to a broader range of Municipal Law matters. 

The Community Liaison deals with constituents through telephone inquiries, written requests and walk- 
in visits to the office. In Fiscal Year 2000, the Community Liaison fielded and resolved issues resulting 
from approximately 2000 telephone inquiries, 300 written requests and 150 walk-in visitors. 

The Intergovernmental Affairs Office acts as the liaison to other state and federal government offices 
and officials, including the state Legislature, members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation and 
other elected officials from across the country. The Intergovernmental Affairs Office works with other 
bureaus in the Attorney General's Office to develop and file legislative proposals, and monitors legislation 
and budget items relevant to the Office. 

In Fiscal Year 2000, Attorney General Tom Reilly, through the Intergovernmental Affairs Office, filed 
a legislative package directed toward updating the Commonwealth's laws to reflect changes in technology, 
and to provide better tools to protect the state's children, consumers, elderly residents, working famihes, 
victims of crime and the environment. 

The Intergovernmental Affairs Office worked closely with the Legislature in Fiscal Year 2000, providing 
testimony at legislative hearings and technical support to members of the legislative committees on issues 
related to the Attomey General's legislative package. 

The Intergovernmental Affairs Office also acts as the contact for members of the Legislature and their 
staff who have questions or need assistance from the Attomey General's OflRce on behalf of their constituents. 
In Fiscal Year 2000, the Office handled more than 500 inquiries from members of the state Legislattire and 
congressional delegation pertaining to a wide range of matters handled by the Office. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU COMMUNICATIONS 

The External AflFairs Division included the following staff members: Teresa Polhemus; Jason Queenin; 
John Towle; Susan Beer; Karen Charles; Brigid Crowley; Janis DiLoreto; Leonard Lopes; Jerry Shipman; 
Daniel Szostkiewicz; and Elissa Torto. 



COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION 

The Communications Office coordinates all media related matters for the Attorney General's Office. 
The chief responsibihty of the Communications Office is to serve as a centralized pubUc voice for the 
agency. To that end, the Communications Officers work with executive staff and bureau chiefs to ensure 
the Attorney General's priorities are reflected in all public statements and materials, including press releases, 
advisories, public statements, interviews, the Attorney General's Web site and other public appearances 
and events. 

Addressing that need to improve communication within the agency, the Communications Office has 
established protocols for handling the various ways in which the office communicates with the public, 
including dealing with the media, creating publications and brochures and placing materials on the Attorney 
General's Web site. 

The Communications Office included the following staff members: Jill Reilly; Brian Heffron; Stephen 
Bilafer; Marsha Cohen; Ann Donlan; Michael McCann; and Adam Needles. 

WEB SITE 



During December, 1999, Attorney General Reilly announced the launch of the new AGO Web site. 
The Web site is organized by topic and covers the following main areas: Children; Civil Rights; Consumer 
Protection; Crime Prevention; Elders; The Environment; Government; Healthcare; High Tech; Victims' 
Services; and Workers' Rights. Information is also available on public events, press releases, employment 
opportunities, legislative and community initiatives, and various publications printed by this Office. Citizens 
are able to access many of the services of the Attorney General's Office by downloading and viewing 
forms, contact information, and relevant statutes and regulations. 

In addition to providing information on topics of concern to our citizens such as consumer rights, victim 
compensation information, and health care concerns, it is our goal to have this site be more interactive in 
the near future. We intend to make this Web site a place where citizens can not only obtain valuable 
information, forms, and complaints, but where they can also submit these forms and appUcations online. 



BUSINESS AND LABOR 
PROTECTION BUREAU 

Fair Labor and Business Practices Division 

Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division 

Medicaid Fraud Control Unit 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES 

Business and Labor Protection Bureau 



The Business and Labor Protection Bureau is a bureau of over one hundred lawyers, investigators, 
and administrative staff that is responsible for policing and prosecuting a variety of business crimes and 
related civil wrongs. The Bureau consists of the Fair Labor and Business Practices Division, the Insurance 
and Unemployment Fraud Division, and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit. The Bureau's mission is to use 
its enforcement responsibility and public education initiatives to prosecute and deter fraud in the marketplace 
and to create a fair environment in which businesses and workers can mutually participate. The Bureau 
employs staff operating out of all three of the Attorney General's Regional Offices. 

The Bureau's primary offices are located at 200 Portland Street, Boston. The Bureau also staffs the 
Attorney General's Regional Offices in Springfield, Worcester, and New Bedford, as well as its part-time 
sateUite locations in Fall River and Pittsfield. 

The Bureau included the following staff members: David Nalven, Chief; Constance McGrane; Antonetta 
Barone; Barbara Keating; and David Marks. 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

The Fair Labor and Business Practices Division (FLBP) consists of approximately 50 full-time staff 
members: a division chief, deputy division chief, chief of investigations, and a staff of assistant attorneys 
general, inspectors, paralegals, hotline/intake staff, outreach personnel, and administrative staff. FLBP 
maintains full-time staff in all three regional offices, as well as in the satellite offices in Fall River and 
Pittsfield. 

FLBP is responsible for enforcing the Massachusetts wage and hour laws, including the prevailing 
wage, minimum wage, and overtime and nonpayment laws. FLBP is also charged with enforcing the child 
labor and workplace safety laws, and laws concerning adherence to public contracting requirements. 
FLBP staffs a pubUc contracts protest unit that investigates allegations of improper public works bidding 
practices, holds hearings, and issues written decisions concerning pubUc construction bid disputes. FLBP 
is also responsible for reviewing and ruling on apphcations by businesses for waivers from comphance with 
certain workplace laws. 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES 

FLBP's telephone hotline, which serves as a workplace law information center for workers and 
businesses, received nearly 80,000 inquiries in Fiscal Year 2000. FLBP also received and investigated in 
excess of 3,500 formal complaints in that period. In many instances, FLBP's investigators resolved these 
complaints informally, often with payment of full restitution or provision of another qjpropriate remedy to 
the aggrieved employee. In many other cases, consistent with its law enforcement mission and approach, 
FLBP's staff employed its prosecution authority to pursue instances of unlawful conduct and regularly 
sought civil and criminal sanctions to be imposed on workplace law offenders. During Fiscal Year 2000, 
FLBP recovered in excess of $2 milhon in wages that were owed, but unpaid, to Massachusetts workers, 
as well as administrative fines, through these efforts. 

HIGHLIGHTED EFFORTS & SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES 

PAYMENT OF WAGES ENFORCEMENT 



In November 1998, significant new amendments to the wage and hour laws were enacted, enhancing 
criminal penalties for violations of certain wage and hour laws, giving the Attorney General the authority to 
issue civil citations for such violations. Pursuant to this new legislation, FLBP was also authorized to issue 
citations to employers who fail to pay wages, overtime, the minimum wage, or prevailing wages, or who fail 
to provide certified payroll or other employment records required to be maintained and produced under 
Massachusetts law. Under the law, a civil citation issued by FLBP can require the employer to comply 
with the law, pay restitution to the employees, and pay a civil penalty. During Fiscal Year 2000, FLBP 
implemented enforcement using this new legislation, and issued more than 1 35 civil citations for violations 
of the payment of wages and prevailing wage statutes. 

PREVAILING WAGE ENFORCEMENT 



FLBP places a high priority on enforcement of the prevaUing wage law. Well-documented complaints 
often form the basis for FLBP's most effective prosecutions and wage recoveries. FLBP inspectors also 
conduct unannounced site inspections at numerous public construction projects. During Fiscal Year 2000, 
FLBP investigators conducted hundreds of site inspections throughout the Commonwealth. This proactive 
approach not only assists in the discovery of unlawful conduct, but also serves the important public purpose 
of deterring workplace misconduct that might otherwise take place. 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES 
PUBLIC CONTRACT OVERSIGHT 

The Attorney General's Office serves to provide a professional and accessible forum for the resolution 
of public construction bidding disputes. The Attorney General's primary enforcement efforts in this area 
are undertaken by FLBP's Public Contracts Unit. The tools employed by the Public Contracts Unit 
include providing informal advice by telephone to the Commonwealth's awarding authorities and contractors 
who bid on public works projects, adjudicating public works bidding disputes, and, when appropriate, 
investigating allegations of impropriety in connection with public works project bidding. 

FLBP's public contracts enforcement efforts also include an educational component that provides 
public contracting participants with information regarding the public bidding laws. Among other things, the 
Attorney General's Office compiles and makes available the written public conti^acts bid protest decisions 
issued by FLBP in the Francis X. Bellotti Law Library of the Attorney General's Office. In addition, 
FLBP's staff participates in educational programs that provide the substantive and procedural information 
to the construction industry and their counsel necessary to properly solicit or submit public works constmction 
bids. Such proactive efforts serve many useful purposes, not the least of which is to decrease the number 
of bid protests. 

The receipt of and response to, telephone and written inquiries and correspondence also serve an 
educational function. During Fiscal Year 2000, the PubUc Contracts Unit received thousands of written 
and telephone inquiries. The Unit's telephone support has become an estabUshed resource for conQ-actors 
and awarding authorities. Telephone assistance also provides a significant prevention tool, often delivering 
the information necessary to prevent (or quickly remedy) a violation of the public bidding laws. 

CHILD LABOR 



The Massachusetts child labor laws protect workers under the age of 18. These workplace laws 
acknowledge the special vulnerabilities of young workers. The laws allow young workers to optimize their 
educational opportunities by restricting the number of hours minors of catain ages may work. In recognition 
of the increased rate of workplace injury among teenage workers, they also shield minors from working on 
hazardous tasks and equipment. In addition, Uie permitting process, in which FLBP's specially trained 
child labor inspectors are closely involved, creates a stmcture for school superintendents who issue permits 
to review the intended employment to ensure that it is safe, consistent with the child labor laws, and serves 
the best interests of the minor. 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES 

FLBP investigates reports of child labor violations, conducts workplace site inspections, and educates 
employers about their legal obligations. During Fiscal Year 2000, FLBP inspectors visited many businesses 
where minors were employed, noting violations, and advising employers of their responsibilities under the 
child labor laws. 

WORKPLACE SAFETY 



FLBP investigates reports of fatalities and serious injuries that occur in the workplace. FLBP inspectors 
work in conjunction with the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the 
Massachusetts Department of Public Health's Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation Program, the 
State Police Crime Prevention and Control Unit, local police and fire departments, and other federal, state 
and local agencies. 

In addition, the FLBP investigates reports of serious injuries and safety risks that occiu" in the public 
sector. FLBP retains statutory authority to enforce safety standards in municipal and county workplaces. 
During Fiscal Year 2000, inspectors investigated workplace safety issues at a variety of constmction sites, 
service and manufacturing facilities, restaurants, and governmental offices. 

WAIVERS AND INDUSTRL\L HOMEWORK 



FLBP is charged by statute with the authority to waive certain requirements of the labor laws under 
certain conditions. Each request for a waiver is carefully evaluated before a determination is made to grant 
or deny the request. FLBP enforces the industrial homework laws (work performed for a company in the 
employee's home) by issuing permits to the employers and certificates for each employee. FLBP also 
monitors these companies to ensure compliance with the minimum wage and overtime laws. In this Fiscal 
Year, FLBP processed hundreds of waiver applications and industrial homework certificate requests. 

AFFIRMATIVE LITIGATION 



The following provides an overview of cases undertaken by FLBP during Fiscal Year 2000. 
PREVAILING WAGE PROSECUTIONS 



• Commonwealth v. O'Donnell Sand and Gravel/Mary O'Donnell (Suffolk Superior 
Court) O'Donnell pleaded guilty to charges of failure to pay prevailing wage and overtime. The 



13 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES 

company and its principal were also ordered to pay restitution to 1 employees in the amount of 
$63,189. 

• Commonwealth v. Crystal Construction Crystal Construction and its president pleaded 
guilty to prevailing wage violations on three public works projects. Defendants were debarred 
from pubUc works for six months, ordered to pay $20,04 1 in restitution and additional victim 
witness fees, and sentenced to one year probation. 

• Commonwealth v. Classic Siding This window contractor was prosecuted for failing to 
pay its employees prevailing wages. The matter was resolved with an agreement that required 
the contractor to pay full restitution to the employees in the amount of $42,000. plus a fme of 
$30,000, and to be debarred from participation in pubUc works construction projects for a 
period of six months. 

• R.H. White Construction Settlement was reached in this prevailing wage investigation 
with a contractor that had misclassified and underpaid workers who worked on a sewage 
treatment facility in Belchertown. The company paid $56,995 in restitution to the underpaid 
workers. 

NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 



• Commonwealth v. Adrian and Marina Morgado/ Morgado & Sons. Inc. These 
defendants were charged with non-payment of wages, failure to pay prevailing wage and 
overtime, failure to provide records, worker's compensation insurance premium evasion, motor 
vehicle insurance fraud, and other crimes. The court ordered restitution to four complainants in 
the amount of $ 1 5 ,000, with additional fines assessed of $25 ,000. The Court further imposed a 
three-year debarment upon the defendants and their company. 

• Commonwealth v. Alan Darulla/Almighty Courier Services. Inc. This case involved 
nonpayment of wages to eight employees who worked as baggage delivery drivers and 
"sweepers." The Court ordered unsupervised probation for one year, and restitution in the 
amount of $10,007. 

• House of Blues This case began as a small nonpayment of wage case, but through 
investigation, FLB P discovered that the employer failed to pay over a portion of the 1 5 % 
service charge to its employees. An audit was conducted, and the company agreed to pay 
$39,000 in restitution to 53 employees. 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES 

• Commonwealth v. M&M Printing (Salem District Court) Following a two-day jury trial 
in Salem District Court, the company was found guilty of failing to pay commissions earned by a 
salesman in April and May 1998. The company was sentenced to one year probation, 
restitution of $3,000, and a fine of $750. 

• Commonwealth v. Ed Yu The defendant was convicted of nonpayment of wages and 
ordered to pay $ 14,705 in restitution to former employees. He was also sentenced to 
probation for two years. 

CHILD LABOR SUPERVISION 



• Six Flags of New England PursuanttoastatuteenactedinMay 2000, FLBP was 
authorized to waive compliance with the child labor laws for applicants such as Six Flags of 
New England, an amusement park in the Springfield area that employs a large number of minors 
during the summer Six Flags petitioned to allow minor employees to work until midnight. After 
an investigation, a public hearing, and other efforts, FLBP issued a waiver permitting minors to 
work until 1 1 :00 p.m. 

REGULATORY ACTIVITY 



• Center for Living and Working FLBP gave significant attention to non-payment 
complaints by home health aides known as Personal Care Attendants (PCAs). These non- 
payment problems arose in large measure from structural problems inherent in the relationship 
between the PCA, the Medicaid patients they serve, and the home health aide agencies that act 
as a fiscal intermediary with the Commonwealth's Department of Medical Assistance. FLBP 
expects to play a role in shaping the law and protocols concerning this program, and in training 
PCAs and fiscal intermediaries on comphance strategies to avoid non-payment complaints. 

OUTREACH 

Attorney General Tom Reilly believes that public education is the first step in promoting compliance 
with workplace law. Accordingly, outreach to the employee and employer communities, their unions, 
trade associations, counsel, and other advocates, is a FLBP priority. During this Fiscal Year. FLBP staff" 
made more than 70 presentations to bar association and continuing legal education groups, professional 
organizations, trade associations, labor unions, and employee advocacy groups. These presentations 
range from nuts and bolts primers on the Commonwealth's wage and hour laws, and employee and employer 



15 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD 

rights and responsibilities under these laws, to sophisticated presentations on such topics as worker 
classification under the prevailing wage law and treatment of accrued vacation times as wages. During this 
period, FLBP also launched a special outreach effort to immigrant workers and their families who, because 
of language barriers and lack of familiarity with the laws of the Commonwealth, may be especially vulnerable 
to mistreatment in the workplace. 

FLBP also seeks to educate the relevant communities through the production and distribution of advisories 
and other publications. During Fiscal Year 2000, with new minimum wage legislation having been enacted, 
FLBP designed and distributed to 10,000 Massachusetts employers, a new minimum wage and workplace 
rights poster. FLBP also worked with the Commonwealth's Division of Occupational Safety on the 
compilation and distribution of a Compendium of Massachusetts Prevailing Wage law, for use by awarding 
authorities, contractors, workers, and other participants in Massachusetts public works constmction projects. 

FLBP also seeks to communicate with the community with the Worker's Rights section of the Attomey 
General's Office's Web site. The Web site contains basic summaries of Massachusetts workplace law, 
many of the Attomey General's workplace related advisories and publications, and other resources. 

The Division includes the following staff members: Daniel Field, Chief; Luz Arevalo; Francis Flaherty; 
Barbara Piselli; John Baker; Jeremy Banks; Philip Beattie; Kyle Beverly; David Bieksha; Maria Blanciforte; 
Richard Bothwell; Arthur Butier; Cecile Byrne; Ronald Cabezas; Nicholas Carboni; George Clark; Mary 
Dullinger-Cunha; Patrick Faherty; Robert Galvani; Shiriey Garutti; John Gatti; Paul Gordon; Richard 
Hartigan; Marsha Hunter; WiUiam Hurley; Barbara Kane; Patricia Kelleher; Valerie Mabry; Anita Maietta; 
Michael Mard; Laura Miller; M. Katherine Mulligan; Kristin Naugler; Jean O'Brien; Joan Parker; lona 
Powell-Headley; Gregory Reutlinger; Tyrone Robinson; Mario Rosado; Eulalee Rose; Palmer Santucci, 
Jr.; Pasqua Scibelli; Steven Spencer; Bruce Trager; Steven Troiano; Theresa Ukleja; Theresa Vadala; 
Richard Yorra; Karla Zarbo; and Michelle Zelinski. 



INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

The Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division (lUFD) consists of approximately 20 staff members, 
including a division chief, a deputy division chief, assistant attorneys general, a paralegal, investigators, and 
administrative staff. lUFD's mission is to investigate and prosecute fraud against insurers in Massachusetts, 
and against the Commonwealth's unemployment security fund. lUFD prosecutes these crimes to protect 
Massachusetts' businesses, consumers, and taxpayers from the hidden tax that fraud on tiiese systems 
imposes. 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECnON BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD 

lUFD's cases vary widely, including multi-million dollar workers' compensation premium fraud cases, 
conspiracies by medical and legal professionals, fraud in auto repair businesses, staged motor vehicle 
accidents, inflated claims against homeovraer's policies, cases involving claimants working while collecting 
workers' compensation benefits, fraud by businesses on the Commonwealth's unemployment security 
fund, and fraud by individuals who collect unemployment compensation while working. lUFD gives special 
attention to policing fraud by insurance indusO^ insiders, including insurance agents, claims adjusters, and 
damage appraisers, whose frauds can have an especially corrosive effect on public confidence in the 
insurance and unemployment comp)ensation systems. 

lUFD receives referrals from a number of sources. The largest source of referred cases is the 
Massachusetts Insurance Fraud Bureau, a non-governmental entity created by the Massachusetts Legislature 
and funded pursuant to statute indirectly by the Massachusetts insurance industry. In addition, lUFD 
receives referrals from the Commonwealth's Human Resources Division, the Governor's Auto Theft Strike 
Force, the Department of Industiial Accidents, the Workers' Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau, 
the National Insurance Crime Bureau, and the Social Security Administration. lUFD also receives 
complaints and referrals from concerned citizens, private attorneys, and court personnel. This exemplifies 
that IUIT)'s efforts in fighting insurance fraud are appreciated throughout the Commonwealth. 

HIGHLIGHTED EFFORTS & SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES 

lUFD obtained indictments or district court charges in 40 new cases in Fiscal Year 2000 and closed 
56 cases. In this same period, lUFD also handled dozens of cases of fraud against the unemployment 
compensation system, including cases involving substantial orders of restitution to the Commonwealth. As 
of the close of Fiscal Year 2000, lUFD's inventory of active matters included 60 cases that had been 
charged and 87 cases under active investigation. 

The following are representative cases that were concluded in Fiscal Year 2000: 

The most prominent matter in lUFD during Fiscal Year 2000 was tiie trial of 



James N. Ellis, Jr., a partner in the Worcester family law furo of Ellis & Elhs. The Ellis cases as 
a whole involved 246 indictments brought against numerous Ellis family members, their clients, 
consultants, and other joint ventures. The case tried against James N. EUis, Jr., the first of what 
are expected to be a series of trials, alleged that James N. Ellis, Jr. had knowingly submitted a 
fraudulent claim for worker's compensation insurance on behalf of a client. The central proof of 
the fraud was that Ellis had previously submitted a claim for the identical injury for the same 
client, but using the client's ahas. The defense argued that the claim was for an aggravation of 
the injury upon which the first claim was based, and was therefore appropriate for submission; 



17 



BUSINESS AND lABOR PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD 

and that because the client's true identity was not material to the claim, the submission under the 
alias identity did not constitute a fraud. The trial began in early January and ended in mid- 
March, with a hung jury. Retrial was scheduled for early in the next fiscal year. 

During this period, other EUis & EUis matters moved forward, as follows: 

• Commonwealth v. Leo Biliouris (Worcester Superior Court) After a three- week trial on 
workers' compensation fraud charges, the defendant, a former Ellis & EUis employee, client, and 
business associate, was convicted and sentenced to three years in state prison followed by four 
years' probation. He was also ordered to perform 800 hours of community service and pay 
$240,000 restitution to four insurance companies. 

• Commonwealth v. .lay Rosenfield (Worcester Superior Court) Former Elhs & Ellis cUent 
and employee pleaded guilty to multiple counts of workers' compensation and other insurance 
fi-aud and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two and a half years in the Worcester 
County House of Corrections. He was also ordered to pay fines and full restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. James Reilly (Worcester Superior Court) This former Ellis & Ellis 
client pleaded guilty to workers' compensation insurance fraud. He was sentenced to a term of 
imprisonment of 1 8 months in the Worcester County House of Corrections and ordered to pay 
restitution in the amount of $25,000. 

• Commonwealth v. James Economou (Worcester Superior Court) This former Elhs & 
Ellis employee and business associate, and owner of a Worcester doughnut shop, pleaded guilty 
to participating in a scheme to assist doughnut shop employees in submitting fraudulent workers' 
compensation claims . The defendant was sentenced to a term of incarceration of 1 2 months in 
the Worcester County House of Corrections. 

• Ellis Habeas Corpus Challeng e (Supreme Judicial Court) In the last fiscal year, the 
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, by a vote of 7-0, rejected the Ellises' appeal from a 
motion to dismiss the indictments returned against them on the grounds that the Attorney 
General's Office, having received funding, pursuant to a statutory scheme enacted by the 
Massachusetts legislature, for prosecution of insurance fraud in Massachusetts, was not 
disinterested with respect to its prosecutions. The defendants sought further rehef from the 
Supreme Judicial Court's ruling via a habeas petition to the United States District Court. In tliat 
proceeding, the United States District Judge ordered discovery to proceed, but via a writ of 
mandamus, the Attorney General requested that the United States Court of Appeals for the 



BUSINESS AND L\BOR PROTECnON BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD 

First Circuit review the decision. By unanimous vote, the federal appeals court dismissed the 
EUises' federal challenge and allowed the Attorney General's prosecutions to proceed. 

• New England Job Center This case charged a temporary employment agency and its 
principal, Richard Purtell, with misclassifying its employees as independent contractors in order 
to avoid contribution into the unemployment security fund and purchase of workers' 
compensation insurance. The corporation entered a plea of guilty, and the principal was placed 
on pretrial probation for one year. Both were ordered to pay restitution and fines in excess of 
$650,000. 

• Commonwealth v. Gary Sbordonne (Middlesex Superior Court) Boston area 
chiropractor was charged with multiple counts of submitting fraudulent claims for treatment of 
motor vehicle and workers' compensation insurance claimants. In Fiscal Year 2000, the 
defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve 30 days in the Middlesex County House 
of Corrections and two years' probation, and to pay approximately $ 10,000 in restitution and 
fines. During the term of probation, the defendant was also prohibited from reapplying for his 
chiropractic Ucense. 

• Commonwealth v. William Jerome (Middlesex Superior Court) The defendant, a Boston 
lawyer, was convicted after Qial of submitting false statements to an insurer in connection with 
his cUent's fraudulent motor vehicle insurance claim. He was sentenced to six months in the 
Middlesex County House of Corrections, 30 days to serve, and ordered to pay approximately 
$12,000 in restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Celise Dessin (Middlesex Superior Court )The defendant, the owner 
and operator of an auto driving school, was convicted after Qial on charges of motor vehicle 
insurance fraud and sentenced to serve two years in the Middlesex County House of 
Corrections, three years probation, and ordered to pay $40,000 in restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Nadia Jean-Michel (Plymouth Distiict Court) Following a one-week 
jury trial, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of fraud and larceny arising from 
numerous fraudulent insurance and welfare benefit claims. The defendant was sentenced to 
serve six to ten years in state prison and ordered to pay $66,(X)0 in restitution. 

• Operation Overdue Following an undercover investigation conducted by the Governor's 
Auto Theft Strike Force and the Massachusetts State Police, the Attorney General prosecuted 
nine individuals who had falsely reported that their automobiles had been stolen and had 



19 



BUSINESS AND lAB OR PROTECnON BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD 

submitted fraudulent stolen vehicles claims to their insurers. As of the close of Fiscal Year 
2000, eight of the nine defendants in this investigation had pleaded guilty and were sentenced 
generally to suspended or probationary sentences, and were also ordered to pay restitution and 
fines. 

• Commonwealth v. Donald Bolster (Norfolk Superior Court) In this prosecution, an 
independent insurance investigator bribed an insurance company adjuster for work assignments 
and then inflated his bills to the insurance company to cover the cost of the payoffs. The 
defendant pleaded guilty and received a two-year state prison sentence. 

• Commonwealth v. Walter Lewinski (Brookline District Court) The defendant was 
charged with workers' compensation insurance fraud. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 
serve six months in the Norfolk County House of Corrections, suspended for 18 months, and 
was ordered to pay full restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Scott Gaumond. Robert Newell, and Stephen Todd (Essex and 
Suffolk Superior Courts) These defendants were charged with instirance fraud and larceny in 
connection with the establishment of a home repair contracting business and frauds against 
elderly consumers. The defendants were sentenced in Essex and Suffolk Superior Courts to 
terms of incarceration ranging from three years to seven years in state prison. 

OUTREACH 



lUFD is an active participant in insurance industry outreach and training activities. During Fiscal Year 
20(X), lUFD staff participated in numerous training events with the Massachusetts Insurance Fraud Bureau, 
National Insurance Crime Bureau, Northeast Insurance Auditors' Association, and other organizations. 
lUFD continues to work insurance industry and law enforcement personnel to augment its own anti- fraud 
efforts. 

The Division included the following staff members: William Weinreb; Eliot Green; Martha Bower; Gina 
Walcott; John Ciardi; Erin Olson; David Andrews; Anne Beriin; Brian Burke; John Crimmins; John 
Curseaden; Martin Flood; Jeannette Frey ; Rafael Garcia; Aisling Kennedy; Joshua Krell; Catherine Mcclure; 
Shauna Neuhauser; John O'Leary; James Paikos; Lena Robinson; and Amy Sharff. 



20 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 
MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

The Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) consists of approximately 30 full-time 
members, including a division chief, a chief of investigations, a staff of assistant attomeys general, financial 
investigators and auditors, pharmacists, nurses, a dental investigator, and administrative staff. 

MFCU's mission is to protect the Massachusetts Medicaid program, which administers the provision 
of approximately $5 billion of health care services to 700,000 indigent and disabled recipients in 
Massachusetts. In addition to prosecuting corporate and individual health care providers who commit 
crimes against the Medicaid program, MFCU is also responsible for prosecuting companies and individuals 
who abuse, neglect, or mistreat elderly and disabled residents of the Commonwealth's 550 Medicaid 
funded long term care faciUties, most of which are funded extensively, if not exclusively, by the Medicaid 
program. 

Recognizing that Medicaid fi-aud is complex and costly to prosecute, the federal government provides 
approximately 75% of the funding for MFCU's operation. Among its counterparts in other states across 
the nation. Attorney General Tom Reilly's MFCU is a leader in the number of successful criminal prosecutions 
and affirmative civil actions it produces. 

Consistent with its mission to protect the Medicaid program on a statewide basis, MFCU uses a team 
approach, through staff in the Attorney General's Boston and Springfield offices, to both deter and prosecute 
fraud on the Commonwealth's taxpayers. Through the extensive use of a Special Grand Jury sitting in 
Boston, as well as its statutory and regulatory discovery authority, MFCU has obtained convictions and 
recovered funds for the Medicaid program well in excess of its budget. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, MFCU brought both criminal and civil enforcement actions against hospitals, 
nursing home owners, pharmacies, physicians, dentists, home health care companies, billing intermediaries, 
and other medical providers. These enforcement actions focused on providers that misrepresented the 
services they provided to the Medicaid program, inflated the costs of their services, provided medically 
unnecessary services, or violated Medicaid's anti-kickback laws. As a result of its efforts, MFCU initiated 
and completed 38 investigations, obtained 28 indictments, secured convictions against three corporate 
and seven individual defendants and recovered in excess of $3. 1 million. 

MFCU also invesdgated reports of patient abuse and financial exploitation in the Commonwealth's 
long-term care facilities. During the Fiscal Year 2000, MFCU investigated more than 500 reports of 
patient abuse, and brought several significant prosecutions against nursing home providers. 



21 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

In addition, MFCU investigated physicians and psychiatrists that prescribe controlled substances for 
non-medical reasons, or not supported by medical diagnosis or necessity. MFCU investigated dentists 
and durable medical equipment companies for upcoding and unbundling their services. It investigated 
pharmacy chains and pharmaceutical companies that overcharge the Medicaid program and inflate the 
costs of prescription drugs. And, in Fiscal Year 2000, MFCU investigated the relationships between 
physicians, hospitals, and laboratories to detect illegal referrals, kickbacks and conflicts with patient care. 



HIGHLIGHTED EFFORTS & SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES 



CRIMINAL CASES 

The following provides an overview of cases undertaken by MFCU during Fiscal Year 2000. 

• Commonwealth v. Harold Goodman. M.D. (Norfolk Superior Court) A Quincy 
orthopedic surgeon was convicted in Norfolk County Superior Court after a three- week jury 
trial of providing medically unnecessary treatment to ten patients. The jury found that the 
physician had performed medically unnecessary x-rays or injections and knowingly billed the 
state's Medicaid program nearly $40,000 for these treatments. Evidence introduced at trial 
showed that one patient received 7 1 x-rays and 96 injections over a two-year period and 
another received 74 x-rays and 112 injections during less than three years of treatment. The 
physician was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six months in the House of Corrections, 
and, along with his corporation, was fmed a total of $62,500. 

• Commonwealth v. Acton Medical Supply Company An Acton medical supply 
company pleaded guilty in Suffolk Superior Court to 16 counts of Medicaid fraud and larceny 
and paid more than $ 1 60,000 in restitution and fines for engaging in several fraudulent billing 
schemes. From 1990 to 1994, the medical supply company billed both Medicaid and Blue 
Cross/Blue Shield for delivery of the same products and for more goods than it actually 
delivered. 

• Commonwealth v. Byron Robmson D.M.D. (Suffolk Superior Court) A Roxbury dentist 
pleaded guilty in Suffolk Superior Court to practicing without a license and committing Medicaid 
fraud. The dentist admitted that he provided dental services to Medicaid patients after die 
Massachusetts Board of Registration in Dentistry had suspended his dental license. He was 
sentenced to a nine-month suspended jail sentence and fmed $ 1 3,750, the maximum allowable 



22 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

by law. The dentist also agreed to repay the Medicaid program $ 161,250 in civil restitution, 
plus investigative costs of $25,000. and to permanently relinquish his license to practice 
dentistry in Massachusetts and every other state. 

• Commonwealth v. Hanson Medical Supply Company (Suffolk Superior Court) A 
Hanson medical equipment company and its president pleaded guilty in Suffolk Superior Court 
to charges that they allegedly stole thousands of dollars from the state's Medicaid program and 
from Tufts Health Plan. The medical supply company's president was sentenced to two years in 
the House of Correction, suspended for two years, with probation. In addition, she was 
ordered to pay $50,000 in restitution to the Medicaid program and $ 1 0,000 in restitution to 
Tufts Health Plan. The company also was fined $25,000. 

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 



• Lionel Lyon, Ph.D. Four greater Boston public school systems recouped more than 

$ 1 0,000 and a nonprofit literacy program for disadvantaged youth received $25,000 as part of 
a $275,000 Medicaid fraud settlement against a Newton psychologist. In a four-count 
complaint filed against the psychologist and his business, the Attorney General alleged that the 
psychologist and his business falsely billed Medicaid for psychological testing services 
performed to evaluate public school children in Everett, Lynn, Revere, and Waltham. The 
complaint also alleged the psychologist billed both Medicaid and the school systems for the 
same service. As part of the settlement of the charges, the psychologist also agreed to 
withdraw permanently as a Medicaid provider. 

• Genentech. Inc. The Medicaid program recovered more than $500,000 as part of a $50 
million settlement of charges of illegal marketing practices by a pharmaceutical manufacturer 
The manufacturer pleaded guilty to federal charges that the company had actively promoted the 
human growth hormone Protropin for uses that had not been approved by the FDA. The 
restitution agreements between the pharmaceutical manufacturer and the state Medicaid 
programs across the country were facilitated by the National Association of Medicaid Fraud 
Control Units, in which the Massachusetts MFCU actively participates. 

• Family Dental Care A Fall River dental group agreed to pay a civil penalty and to resign 
from participation in the state's Medicaid program to settle allegations of fraud in their billing 
practices. MFCU alleged that the provider billed Medicaid for services not approved or 
reimbursable by Medicaid. The settlement, filed with a consent judgment in Suffolk Superior 
Court, required the dental group to pay $86,500. 



23 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

• Pondview Nursing Home A Jamaica Plain nursing home and its director agreed to settle 
charges that the facility overcharged the state's Medicaid program, rewrote patient records, and 
misrepresented the level of care provided to patients. Under the agreement filed in Suffolk 
Superior Court, the nursing home paid $ 1 94, 1 00 to the state's Medicaid program. 

• Goldstar Medical Services A Connecticut oxygen and respiratory equipment supply 
company paid $ 160,000 in restitution for improperly billing Medicaid nursing home patients. 
The settlement, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, resolved charges that the provider had 
committed fraud and breach of contract. 

• Jewish Memorial Hospital A Roxbury hospital agreed to pay more than $250,000 in 
restitution to the state's Medicaid program, perform community service, and adhere to tough 
compUance standards to resolve past billing problems. A 1998 internal audit by the hospital's 
new administration found that previous employees had improperly altered certain Medicaid 
hilling forms that allowed the hospital to receive payments for psychiatric services. Under the 
settlement, which followed the new administration's voluntary disclosure, the hospital also 
agreed to employ an independent certified pubhc accountant to audit its Medicaid billing 
practices and to submit an annual report for review by MFCU. 

• Nicholas Franco An East Boston dentist agreed to pay $38,000 in civil penalties to settle 
allegations of fraud in his billings to the Medicaid program. MFCU alleged that from August 
1995 through December 1998, the dentist billed Medicaid for canceled appointments, services 
not reimbursable through the Medicaid program, and more expensive services than he actually 
performed. 

• Knoll Pharmaceutical Company MFCU participated in a multi-state settlement with a 
New Jersey pharmaceutical company that allegedly tried to dominate the market with its own 
brand of a prescription drug to treat hypothyroidism. The company's misrepresentations caused 
the Medicaid program to pay more than it would have paid for a less expensive generic 
equivalent. Massachusetts received more than $ 1 miUion in the settiement. 

PATIENT ABUSE 



• Thia Koroma. CNA A former nurse's aide from Dorchester was convicted in Dedham 
District Court for assault and battery on a nursing home patient. While assisting the victim into 
bed, the aide slapped and kicked a 92-year-old patient under her care. The aide was 



24 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

sentenced to a 60-day suspended sentence with one year probation. As a condition of 
probation, she is prohibited from working in a nursing facihty. 

• Rita Nambi, CNA A former certified nurse's aide from Holliston pleaded guilty in 
Dedham District Court to patient abuse and assault and battery on an elderly Alzheimer's patient 
living in a nursing home. The aide punched and dragged the woman, who had resisted being 
placed in a whirlpool bath. The aide was sentenced to eleven months supervised probation. 

• Pedro Rivera, CNA A former certified nurse's aide from Worcester was found guilty by 
a Worcester District Court jury on one count of assault and battery on an Alzheimer's patient 
living in a nursing home. On two separate occasions, the aide assaulted and physically abused 
the 72-year-old man. The aide was sentenced to ten days in the House of Correction, 
suspended for one year. 

OUTREACH 



MFCU works closely with other state offices involved in the administration and supervision of health 
care services in Massachusetts. This cooperative approach helps maximize resources and assure the 
benefits of intra-govemmental efforts to the citizens of the Commonwealth. Some of the more significant 
associations between MFCU and other state offices are as follows: 

• Division of Medical Assistance (DMA) MFCU meets monthly with the Division of Medical 
Assistance (DMA) to discuss provider fraud referrals and prosecution. Both MFCU and the 
DMA have worked to enhance their professional working relationship in an effort to maximize 
their effectiveness in detecting fraudulent providers within the Medicaid system. Part and parcel of 
MFCLTs cooperative effort is its work with DMA to implement a fraud detection system scheduled 
to go online during the next fiscal year. This new computer system will increase the capacity for 
detection of aberrant billing and potential fraud. 

• Department of Public Health (DPH) The Department ofPublic Health's patient abuse staff and 
MFCU's patient abuse investigators meet regularly to discuss case referrals and issues affecting 
the investigation and prosecution of caretakers who mistreat patients of long-term care facilities. 
Together, DPH and MFCU have implemented a nursing home investigators' training program for 
investigators from each agency. 



25 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

• Commonwealth Bureau of Special Investigations (BSI) MFCU meets regularly with the 
Massachusetts Bureau of Special Investigations officials to coordinate investigations that affect 
welfare fraud. Medicaid recipient fraud, and drug diversion activities. 

• Commonwealth Board Of Registration In Medicine (BORIM) MFCU meets with the 
Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine's director of enforcement and investigators to 
share investigative findings pertaining to physicians who engage in fraudulent practices. These 
discussions promote both thorough and appropriate dispositions including medical license 
suspensions and revocations. 

• Division of Registration (DIR) MFCU meets regularly with the Division of Registration's chief 
prosecutor to share investigative information. These meetings promote health care fraud prosecution 
and assist the Division's efforts to suspend or revoke the Ucenses of health care providers who 
commit fraud. 

MFCU also continues to forge associations with other law enforcement offices to increase its health 
care fraud and elder protection enforcement initiatives. Some of these important associations are: 

• National Association of Medical Fraud Control Units (N AMFCU) Attorney General Tom 
Reilly's MFCU is a leader in the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units and meets 
regularly with its counterparts across the nation to share the latest learning on enforcement 
approaches, promote training programs, and recommend legislation. In conjunction with the 
N AMFCU and United States Department of Justice, in Fiscal Year 2000, MFCU participated in 
several significant multi- state enforcement initiatives. MFCU expects its participation in large- 
scale, multi- state actions to increase in the next fiscal year. 

• New England Healthcare Law Enforcement Working Group This organization consists of all 
chief investigators from MFCUs from the New England states and New York and New Jersey, as 
well as investigators from several federal law enforcement agencies. This regional working group 
develops joint state/federal investigations throughout the Northeast and training programs for 
healthcare fraud investigators and prosecutors. 

• Massachusetts Working Group on Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect The United States 
Department of Justice requested state health care fraud prosecutors to estabhsh joint state federal 
working groups that would continue to meet and collaborate on local issues of nursing home abuse 
and neglect. MFCU, along with Division of Medical Assistance, Department of Public Health, the 
Elder Affairs Ombudsman, HCFA, Department of Health and Human Services, and lawyers from 



26 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

the United States' Attorney's Office, meet monthly to review and examine current issues regarding 
the quality of care in Massachusetts nursing homes. 

The Unit includes the following staff members: Nicholas Messuri; Steven McCarthy; Steven Devlin; 
Ann Ackil; Kristine Barrett; Alvin Brown; James Caruso, Jr.; Eileen Casey; Peter Clark; Tanya Clement; 
John Comerford; John Curley; Day Devine-O'Toole; Elaine Duffy; Verdell Elder-Hayes; Catherine Fielding; 
Ehzabeth Ann Foley; Caryn Gordon; Teresa Liu; Anthony MegathUn; Mark Mellberg; Mark Muldoon; 
Janice Patema; Robert Patten; Shirley Rokosz; Michael Russo; Robert Russo; Vanessa Sanchez-Gasparro; 
Susanne Snow; Christine Soloperto; and Bernard Vivolo. 



27 



COMMUNITY-BASED 
JUSTICE BUREAU 

Victim Compensation and Assistance Division 
Safe Neighborhood Initiative Division 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



Community-Based Justice Bureau 



The mission of the Community-Based Justice Bureau (CBJB) is to develop strategies, structure poUcies 
and offer recommendations that prevent crime and promote the safety, health and welfare of Massachusetts 
residents and those who Live and work in the Commonwealth. The Bureau focuses particular attention on 
the needs of children, crime victims and victims of domestic violence. The Bureau also administers the 
Victim Compensation and Assistance Division and the Safe Neighborhood Initiative Division. Formerly 
called the Family and Community Crimes Bureau, the name of the bureau was changed in January 2000 to 
better reflect the core functions of the bureau and to emphasize the community-based justice approach of 
Attorney General Tom ReUly. Beth Merachnik was named Bureau Chief on April 13, 1999, after having 
served as an Assistant District Attorney in the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office for eleven 
years. During her tenure there, she also served as Director of the Office's Domestic Violence Unit. 
Cheryl Watson was named Division Chief of the Victim Compensation and Assistance Division and Marcia 
Jackson was named Division Chief of the Safe Neighborhood Initiative Division. 

The Bureau develops and coordinates initiatives through training and education, publications and 
guidelines, programs, community outreach and legislation. Working closely with law enforcement, agencies 
and community programs, CBJB concentrates its efforts in the areas of child protection, including juvenile 
justice, education and school safety, family violence, community safety, victim rights, and criminal justice 
poUcy. CBJB advises Attorney General Tom Reilly on pohcy and legislative matters in these areas. 

The Bureau included the following staff members: Beth Merachnik, Chief; Barbara Berenson; Michelle 
Booth; Jill Foley Butler; Janine Gannon; Elizsabeth Medvedow; Emily Paradise; and Maria Vega. 



HIGHLIGHTED EFFORTS & SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES 



SCHOOL SAFETY 



National Association of Attorneys General Listening Conference on School Safety CBJB 

staff organized and executed "A Massachusetts Approach to Supporting Safe Schools," the first 
in a series of national Listening Conferences, which was hosted by Attorney General Tom Reilly at 
the October 1999 meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG). During the 
conference, students from six high schools across the state, including Boston High School in Boston, 
the Log School in Dorchester, Somerville High School in Somerville, Northeast Metro Regional 

28 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



Vocational School in Wakefield, Burncoat Senior High School in Worcester and William Dean 
Technical High School in Holyoke, participated and discussed issues pertaining to school safety, 
school-based violence, and their own personal experiences. School-based professionals also 
offered views on these same issues. Seventeen Attorneys General or their representatives attended 
this major conference, including those from Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maine, 
Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, 
Vermont, Washington and West Virginia, and were able to ask questions of the participating students, 
school-based professionals and other invited guests. 

Bureau staff produced a conference manual outlining Attorney General Tom Reilly 's initiatives on 
safe schools and distributed it to conference participants. District Attomeys, and the NAAG audience 
at a subsequent Listening Conference. The Bureau also produced and distributed an Executive 
Summary of the Boston Listening Conference. 

• Safe Schools Newsletter Bureau staff produced and distributed the Safe Schools Newsletter 
to school administrators, police chiefs and District Attomeys throughout the state. Topics included 
truancy prevention, crisis management guidelines, physical security in schools, violence prevention, 
conflict resolution, student discipline, and legal updates concerning issues ^pUcable to schools. 

• Crisis Management Plan Guidelines Bureau staff developed guidelines for schools for a crisis 
management plan and an accompanying curriculum. The guidelines addressed critical elements of 
a comprehensive crisis management plan, including: developing a Memorandum Of Understanding 
(MOU) with outside agencies; designating school leadership during a crisis; estabUshing a crisis 
response team; designing crisis response procedures; developing specialized procedures for events 
such as bomb threats; planning for building access by pubUc safety responders; planning for internal 
and external communication; training staff in crisis procedures; designing evacuation strategies; 
designating a family reunification center; and providing support services for students, staff, and 
parents. 

CHILD PROTECTION 



Children's Protection Project Attorney General Tom Reilly inaugurated the Children's Protection 
Project, which reflects his commitment to addressing the needs of the children of the Commonwealth. 
The initiative, which draws on the expertise of staff in all bureaus, is housed in the Community- 
Based Justice Bureau. The cross-bureau initiative addresses issues concerning children - including 
violence prevention strategies, health care, legislation, education, juvenile justice and gang violence. 



29 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



child labor, tobacco prevention efforts, gun safety, and other topics that impact children. In addition, 
the Children's Protection Project serves as an avenue for bureaus within the Attorney General's 
Office to focus their resources and consider the issues that affect children. 

During the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2000, GPP formed a number of legislative subcommittees to 
review current statiites and pending bills and to recommend new legislative initiatives to Attorney 
General Tom Reilly. CB JB staff developed a priority list, procedure, and time line for the development 
of a legislative package for children, to be presented to the Attorney General in the Fall of 2000. 
Among oUier topics, the initiatives addressed issues of child abuse, child enticement and child 
pomography. 

In December 1999, GPP sponsored a highly- successful toy drive which provided approximately 
300 toys to children at the Colonel Daniel Marr Boys & Girls Club for hoUday celebrations. 

Violence Prevention Month Art Contest With otiier GPP members, CBJB organized and 
implemented a statewide art contest for students in schools that participate in the Stiident Conflict 
Resolution Experts (SCORE )program. Titled By Children for Adults: What Kids Can Do to 
Prevent Violence, the students' art work was displayed in the lobby of One Ashburton Place for 
the montii of May 2000. Students attended a reception on May 3 1 , 2000, with Attorney General 
Tom Reilly and a poster was developed, selected from among the submissions, for distribution to 
schools throughout Massachusetts. 

Prevention Resource Guide Bureau staff developed and disseminated Volume I of the Prevention 
Resource Guide. 

Youth Empowering SkiUs (YES) In December 1999, CBJB and Safe Neighborhood Initiative 
(SNI) staff began planning and developing an after-school, life skills curriculum for teens. The 
YES Project, funded by a $ 100,000 Byrne Memorial Grant awarded by the Executive Office of 
Public Safety and $33,000 in matching funds from the Office of the Attorney General, was established 
in October 2000 in response to a need for after-school and violence prevention programming 
identified by the Dorchester SNI. The project is hosted by, and was created in partnership witii, 
the Daniel Marr Boys and Girls Club of Dorchester. Through the YES Project, Attorney General 
Tom Reilly seeks not only to provide teens with supervised, after-school activity, but also offer at 
risk youtii a meaningful life skills education tiiat helps them to avoid risky behavior which may lead 
to school failure, substance abuse, involvement in the criminal justice system, and victimization by 
crime. 



30 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



The goal of the YES Project is to provide extensive training and educational opportunities to both 
Attorney General's Office staff and youth at the Paul McLaughlin Center 

• Bureau staff developed and disseminated Volume I of the Prevention Resource Guide. 

• Citizen Schools Bureau staff spearheaded Attorney General Reilly 's Office participation in the 
Citizen Schools mock trial apprenticeship program. 

• Mayor's Tksk Force on After-School Time Bureau staff participated in monthly task force 
meetings sponsored by Mayor Thomas Menino. Meeting participants included Executive Office 
of Health and Human Services, foundations, colleges and Parents United for Child Care. The 
initiative focused on identifying funding sources and strategies for after-school programs in the City 
of Boston. The Task Force issued its report and recommendations to the Mayor in May 2000. 

• Juvenile Firesetters A bureau member attended monthly meetings of the Juvenile Firesetters 
Roundtable convened by the Department of Social Services and the Executive Office of Public 
Safety. The Roundtable engages in ongoing dialogue concerning the special concerns raised by 
juvenile firesetters. 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 



Child Witness to Domestic Violence Project The Child Witness to Domestic Violence Project, 
a collaboration of the Office of Attorney General Tom Reilly and the Child Witness to Violence 
Project at Boston Medical Center, continued the trainings that began in Fiscal Year 1999. Clinical 
trainings for social service providers, which addressed the impact of exposure to domestic violence 
on children, took place during the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2000. Over 100 social service 
providers attended the trainings. A bureau member served as project director and organized the 
training series along with Boston Medical Center staff. 

For the final phase of the project, which ended during the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2000, the 
project director developed, in collaboration with Boston Medical Center, curriculum and materials 
for three half-day trainings for law enforcement on child witness to violence issues. The trainings, 
titled Police Interventions with Children Exposed to Domestic Violence, took place in early 
2000. The trainings addressed the effects of witnessing domestic violence on children and how 
children perceive police officers. More than 250 police offiicers attended the trainings. 



31 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



Building Bridges of Support for Moms A new Violence Against Women Act ( VAWA) grant 
program initiative was also designed, submitted and awarded to the Office of the Attorney General 
during the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2000. The new grant award of approximately $96,000 was 
to develop and implement a training program for prosecutors, victim- witness advocates, police 
officers and battered women's programs on the special needs of battered women who have children. 
CBJB staff began developing this new initiative as a collaborative project and utihzed a multi- 
disciplinary steering committee to design training activities. The steering committee, comprised of 
members of the Victim Compensation and Assistance Division, the Child Witness to Violence 
Project at Boston Medical Center, the Violence Against Women Training and Policy Institute of 
the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, the Norfolk County District Attomey's Office, 
the Suffolk County District Attomey's Office, the Domestic Violence Unit of the Massachusetts 
Department of Social Services, Jane Doe, Inc. and the Medford Police Department, played a 
critical role in identifying training topic areas and speakers. 

Governor's Commission on Domestic Violence Legislative Subcommittee Bureau staff 
chaired regularly scheduled meetings of the subcommittee with a designee from Representative 
Francis Marini's office. The subcommittee reviewed pending domestic violence legislation and 
made written recommendations to the full Commission. 

Boston/Haifa Domestic Violence Training Program In November 1999, the Office of the 
Attorney General hosted approximately 22 IsraeU women and presented a half-day training on 
domestic violence. This program was a follow up to the 1998 domestic violence training program 
presented in Haifa, Israel by, among others, CBJB staff, the Jewish Community Relations Council 
and the Combined Jewish Philanthropies. CBJB staff organized the training and moderated a 
panel on which a bureau member served. The program included an evening presentation on 
domestic violence at Congregation Mishkan Tefila. 

Statewide Prosecutors and Advocates Domestic Violence Conference CBJB staff played 
an integral role in planning the Massachusetts District Attomeys Association's Fifth Annual Domestic 
Violence Conference, in November 1999. Staff members developed programs for the conference 
and moderated a panel presentation titled Assisting Victims Beyond Investigation and 
Prosecution. Staff were similarly involved in planning the 2000 conference. 

Domestic Violence Training in Volgograd, Russia A CBJB staff member planned and 
implemented 17 separate trainings for diverse audiences in Russia on domestic violence, including 
programs on identifying and intervening safely with women and children; safety planning; history of 
response and legal developments in the United States; the U.S. child protection system; and strategic 



32 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



planning for the Volgograd community. A report of the trip was submitted to the U.S. State 
Department. CBJB staff also conducted a domestic violence presentation for government officials 
and providers from Russia and the Ukraine on their visit to the United States. 

• MDAA Meetings A bureau attorney participated in monthly meetings of the Massachusetts 
District Attorneys Association Domestic Violence Subcommittee. 

INTERNET SAFETY 



• CBJB/Criminal Bureau Collaboration CBJB staff and the High Tech and Computer Crimes 
Division of the Criminal Bureau collaborated on the issue of Internet Safety and developed safety 
brochures and a curriculum for training parents. 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE 



Attorney General's Statewide College and University Coalition on Underage and Problem 
Drinking CBJB staff led the coalition on underage and problem drinking. The Coalition, comprised 
of representatives from approximately 25 colleges and universities throughout the state, focused 
on developing creative solutions to the problem of underage and binge drinking on college and 
university campuses throughout the state. The objective of the Coalition was to develop a 
cooperative agreement committing the colleges and universities to undertake specific prevention, 
intervention and enforcement efforts concerning alcohol abuse on campus. The Coalition worked 
on drafting a cooperative agreement modeled after The Boston Coalition's historic agreement 
signed by 24 college/university presidents committing their institutions to take certain actions to 
address alcohol-related problems. The Coalition met monthly at different schools throughout the 
Commonwealth. 

Governor's Advisory Council on Substance Abuse A bureau member attended monthly 
meetings of the Governor's Advisory Council on Substance Abuse. 

Mothers Against Drunk Driving A Bureau member participated in Mothers Against Drunk 
Driving public policy meetings and advised on developing legislation to strengthen laws on motor 
vehicle homicide, repeat offenders, and implied consent. 



33 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



HATE CRIMES 

• Attorney General's Hate Crimes Task Force CBJB staff actively participated in the Attorney 
General's Hate Crimes Task Force. Initiatives included developing and implementing a series of 
proposals focusing on education and training, publications and community involvement. One 
particular proposal consisted of model documents intended for use by schools, including model 
memorandum of understanding, a discipline code and protocol. CBJB staff served as co-chair of 
the Subcommittee on Training, Education and Prevention. 

• Massachusetts Hate Crimes Training Team A CBJB staff person served as a member of this 
U.S. Department of Justice Initiative. The team conducted a two-day training conference for 
police, prosecutors and advocates in November 1999. In addition, the CBJB representative, as 
part of the team, conducted hate crimes training for local area poUce departments at the Reading 
Police Academy. 

LEGISLATION 



Legislative Activity Bureau staff members drafted, reviewed and commented upon legislative 
proposals. Some examples include: 

• drafting and reviewing comments on proposed Child Enticement Legislation, which would 
criminalize the physical or electronic enticement of a child for the purpose of committing or 
facilitating the commission of any unlawful sexual act or any crime involving force; 

• examining newly-enacted Domestic Violence Confidentiality Legislation and drafting corrective 
legislation, in conjunction with the Trial Court, the District Court, the Massachusetts District Attorneys 
Association, the advocacy community, and the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance, which 
became effective August 10, 2000, mandating confidentiality of addresses of domestic violence 
victims'who obtain protective orders pursuant to G.L. c. 209A; 

• drafting, in conjunction with the Appeals Bureau, a letter in opposition to the proposed Parent- 
Child Privilege Legislation; 

• collaborating, with the Office of the Attomey General's Budget Office and the State Treasurer's 
Office, on the drafting of successful legislation which enables the Attomey General's Office to 
assume fiscal responsibihty for victim compensation funds; and 



34 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



• working on Internet Privacy Protection Legislation with the Public Protection Bureau. 

• MDAA Meetings A Bureau attorney participated in monthly meetings of the Massachusetts 
District Attorneys Association Legislative Subcommittee to review and prioritize pending or 
proposed Criminal Justice Legislation. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES & COURT ACTIVITY 

• Commonwealth v. Marshall Daughtry (Lawrence District Court) AAG Emily Paradise, 
in collaboration with AAG Ehsabeth Medvedow of the Criminal Bureau, prosecuted this 
domestic violence trial in Lawrence District Court in October 1999. The defendant was 
convicted in two of three cases on charges of assault and battery and assault and battery with a 
dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to 18 months in jciil. 

OUTREACH & EDUCATION INITIATIVES & TRAINING 

INTERNET SAFE IT 



Attorney General Tom Reilly has made Internet Safety one of his top priorities, with Bureaus throughout 
the Office focusing on the issue. 

• CBJB staff, in conjunction with the staff of the High Tech and Computer Crimes Division, conducted 
trainings for parents on Internet Safety. Staff presented The Internet: What Every Parent Should 
Know at Quabbin Regional High School in early 2000. CBJB also coordinated a CBJB/High 
Tech Internet Safety presentation to parents of Natick Public School students at the Morse 
Institute Library. 

SAFE SCHOOLS/SCHOOL VIOLENCE 



Bureau staff presented Developing a Crisis Management Plan and Recommendations for 
Safe School Programming to the Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials 
Conference and to the Joint Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Association of School 
Superintendents and the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. 

A bureau member staff served as a panelist at the Massachusetts School of Law Symposium on 
School Violence. 



35 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



• Staff facibtated workshop discussions with students at the Annual Peacemakers' Summit on school 
safety issues. 

HATE CRIMES 

• Bureau staff, in conjunction with the Civil Rights Division, began developing draft outreach materials 
and cost estimates for the proposed Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crimes 
training series, scheduled for 200 1 . 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 



• Task Force on Children Exposed to Domestic Violence - A staff member served as a consultant 
and editor on the task force, which developed a training curriculum for day care providers concerning 
children exposed to domestic violence. Trainings were conducted in Spring 2000. 

• Development of Support Groups for Victim- Witness Advocates - CB JB staff consulted with 
Beth Israel Hospital's Safe Transitions program to develop and implement support groups for 
victim- witness advocates who work on domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse cases. 
The groups, aimed at promoting professional longevity, addressed issues of secondary trauma and 
burnout and discussed coping strategies with participants. CBJB staff was involved in the initial 
pilot program. 

• Training for Guardian Ad Litems - Bureau staff planned and conducted training on the dynamics 
of domestic violence for volunteer Guardians Ad Litem through the Court Appointed Special 
Advocate Program (CAS A), based in Suffolk Juvenile Court. 

• Staff participated in planning Corporate Citizenship Initiative, sponsored by the Family Violence 
Prevention Fund, to reach out to employers across the state about domestic violence workplace 
policy and training programs. 

• CBJB members participated in a discussion on domestic violence with graduate students at the 
Kennedy School of Government. 

• Staff provided ti-aining on domestic violence issues to graduate and medical students at Boston 
University School of Public Health. 



36 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



TEEN DATING VIOLENCE 

• Staff developed and presented a teen dating violence workshop to high school students at Xaverian 
Brothers High School. 

• Staff provided informal assistance on a teen dating violence videotape at a Task Force meeting 
sponsored by a Department of Education consultant. 

ALCOHOL-RELATED ISSUES 



• A CB JB member conducted a presentation on alcohol-related legislation at Springfield Community 
Technical College. 

• Staff participated in planning and facilitated workshops at Preventing Alcohol Problems on 
College Campuses, a widely-attended conference sponsored by Attorney General Tom Reilly's 
Office, the Department of Public Health, the Governor's Advisory Council on Substance Abuse, 
and others. 

SEX OFFENDER LAW 



• A Staff attorney collaborated with the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association in planning a 
Fall 1 999 training on the newly-enacted civil commitment legislation for sex offenders. The staff 
attorney presented at the training. 

CRISIS RESPONSE TRAINING 



CBJB staff organized a Crisis Response Training, held for members of CBJB, Criminal Bureau 
victim-witness advocates, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the Massachusetts Office for Victim 
Assistance. 

A staff member served as members of the Cambridge Health Alliance Community Crisis Response 
Team, which provides crisis response in the aftermath of trauma to communities in crisis. 

A staff member served on the Department of Mental Health's Disaster Mental Health Services 
Committee, which works on identifying service providers and creating memorandum of 
understanding for providing mental health services in the event of a disaster. 



37 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



INTERNAL TRAININGS 

• Gang Awareness Training - CBJB staff, along with Criminal Bureau staff, planned a Gang 
Awareness training for presentation to Children's Protection Project members, SCORE 
coordinators, and Attorney General's office staff. 

INTERNAL WORKING GROUPS 



Attorney General Tom ReiUy places a high priority on creating a strong, cohesive workforce. In an 
effort to eliminate barriers and encourage collaboration among the several bureaus and divisions within the 
Office, the Attorney General created a number of internal working groups. CBJB staff participated in 
several of those groups, among them: 

• CBJB members participated in the Attorney General's Education Working Group. 

• Bureau members participated in developing a Racial Profiling cross-bureau initiative to develop 
policy and training. 

• A bureau attomey was involved in developing office pohcy on firearms correspondence, reviewing 
regulations, and addressing firearms issues as part of newly-established Interoffice Gun Task Force. 

• Bureau staff participated in the development of the Attomey General's "Kids" Page. When that 
section is fuUy operational, the page wiU allow youth to access information that supports their safe 
and healthy development as citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

PUBLICATIONS 



Law Enforcement Newsletter - A staff attomey produced the Spring 2000 edition of the Law 
Enforcement Newsletter, which was distributed to approximately 1 ,500 law enforcement officers, 
judges, prosecutors, and private citizens. Topics addressed matters of interest to the law enforcement 
community including, among other things, newly enacted laws, case law updates, domestic violence, 
high tech and computer crimes update and health care. Bureau attorneys also drafted the Domestic 
Violence Update for the Fall 1 999 and Spring 2000 editions of the Law Enforcement Newsletter. 

Safe Schools Newsletter - Staff coordinated and drafted articles for the Fall 1999 and Spring 
2000 editions of the newsletter. The newsletter was distributed to an audience of over three 
thousand, including school adminisd-ators (public and private), police chiefs and District Attomeys. 



38 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 



Guidelines for School Crisis Management Plan - As part of an initiative developed by Attorney 
General Tom Reilly, CBJB staff developed Guidelines for School Crisis Management Plan 
and distributed them to all school superintendents, principals of public and jjrivate high schools, 
police chiefs, and District Attorneys throughout the Commonwealth. 

Teen Dating Violence & Restraining Orders - Staff began developing a brochure on teen 
dating violence and restraining orders scheduled for a Fall 2000 publication. 

Employers Against Domestic Violence Newsletter - Staff attorney drafted the Legal Update 
for the Fall 1999 and Winter 2000 editions of the Employers Against Domestic Violence 
Newsletter, covering recent case law and legislation addressing issues of victim confidentiality, 
abuse prevention orders and probate court, firearms and stalking. 

Children's Protection Project Prevention Resource Guide - In the summer/fall of 1999, 
CBJB staff surveyed Massachusetts school superintendents, principals and police chiefs in an 
effort to gather information for the Prevention Resource Guide, which would address local 
programs for youth. The Prevention Resource Guide offers a brief description of over 100 
school, after-school and community-based programs, including initiatives addressing school safety, 
child protection, conflict resolution, dating violence prevention, substance abuse prevention, peer 
leadership, violence prevention, truancy, and gang prevention. The Resource Guide also specifies 
the program location, contact person and telephone number. In the spring of 2000, Attorney 
General Tom Reilly distributed the Prevention Resource Guide Volume I, to school superintendents 
and police chiefs across Massachusetts. 

In the last quarter of Fiscal Year 2000, the bureau initiated its outreach to schools and police 
departments in anticipation of Volume II of the Prevention Resource Guide. 

The Internet, Your Child and You: What Every Parent Should Know and Internet Safety: 
Advice from Kids WAo Have Faced Danger Online - Bureau staff developed both brochures 
which address Internet Safety and initially disseminated over 6,000 copies to school superintendents, 
principals (public and private schools), Distiict Attorneys, pobce chiefs, victim-witness advocate 
programs, and libraries. Throughout the remainder of the year, in response to requests from 
schools, police departments, and communities, the Bureau produced an additional 1 0,000 copies 
of the parent guides, and 20,000 copies of the children's guides. 



39 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE 
VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

The Victim Compensation and Assistance Division provides fmancial compensation, referrals and 
other assistance to victims of violent crime. Most significantly, it assists qualifying victims and their families 
in paying for out-of-pocket medical expenses, lost wages, funeral and burial and other crime-related 
expenses. Since 1994, the Division has assumed legal and administrative responsibility for receiving, 
investigating and determining all compensation claims in accordance with the requirements of G. L. c. 
258C. Previously, compensation claims were determined through a litigation-based process in the district 
courts. In addition, in an effort to centrahze reporting requirements and expedite payment of claims, the 
Office of the Attorney General and the State Treasurer's Office successfully sought passage of legislation 
which transferred responsibility for the payment of claims from the State Treasurer's Office to the Office of 
the Attorney General. 

HIGHLIGHTED EFFORTS &: SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITES 

CLAIMS ACTIVITY 



During the fiscal year, the Victim Compensation and Assistance Division undertook efforts to increase 
public awareness of the program through training, publications and new outreach materials. The Fii vision 
received 1 ,524 new claims in Fiscal Year 2000. This figure reflects a 35% increase over the previous fiscal 
year (1,125 claims). 

Under G. L. c. 258C, claimants who are not satisfied with decisions made on their claims, either to 
award or deny compensation, have the opportunity to request an administrative and/or judicial reconsideration 
of their claim. In Fiscal Year 2000, 53 claimants, approximately 3.5% of all claimants, requested 
administrafive review. Twenty-nine of those claims were reviewed and decisions were affirmed. The 
remaining 24 were modified or reversed. Only three claimants requested judicial review. 

The number of homicide claims increased from 1 16 last year to 140 this year. 

EXPENDITURES 



In Fiscal Year 2000, the Commonwealth paid a total of $2,875,000 in compensation claims to crime 
victims, with $ 1 ,405 ,000 coming from state funds and $ 1 ,470,000 from federal funds. This marks an 
increase of $628,046 from last year. FY 2000 represented the fifth consecutive year that the Division had 
adequate funding to support its expenditures. 



40 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE 

Although claimants are statutorily eligible to receive up to $25,000 for compensable expenses, only 20 
claimants received the maximum allowed during Fiscal Year 2000. Compensation for lost wages and loss 
of support continued to be the categories of expense with the highest expenditure (48%). Hospital, medical 
and dental was the second highest expenditure (27%), and mental health counseling expenses next ( 13%). 

PROGRAM EVALUATION 



An applicant survey is sent to each claimant with decisional letters. The Division received 562 completed 
surveys from claimants. Surveys were overwhelmingly positive, with more than 86% of claimants agreeing 
or strongly agreeing that appUcations are easy to complete, letters easy to understand, victim compensation 
staff treated them with courtesy and respect, their questions were answered, they were satisfied with the 
decision on their claim and the amount of time it took to process their claim. 

FEDERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

The Division submitted its annual Certification Report and Quarterly Reports to the GflTice for Victims 
of Crime during Fiscal Year 2000. The Division worked with the State Treasurer's Office to complete 
these reports. In addition, in an effort to centralize reporting requirements, the Office of the Attorney 
General and the State Treasurer's Office successfully sought passage of legislation which transferred 
responsibility for the payment of claims from the State Treasurer's Office to the Office of the Attorney 
General. 

VICTIM WITNESS DIRECTORS MEETING 



The Attomey General participated in the Division's luncheon meeting for statewide directors of victim 
service programs to foster enhanced collaboration and awareness of the Attomey General's Victim 
Compensation and Assistance Program. Approximately 1 5 directors attended the meeting. 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY 



A bill to further amend the Victim Compensation Law was filed jointly by the Office of the Attomey 
General and the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance (MOVA). This bill would expand certain 
benefits under G. L. c. 258C. The Division will continue to seek passage of this bill which would assist 
crime victims to pay for most requested crime-related costs. 



41 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE 

GRANT ACTIVITY 



The Division applied for and received an annual grant from the Department of Justice through the 
Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) for Fiscal Year 2000 in the amount of $959,000. These funds are used to 
supplement state payments of awards made directly to crime victims. A small portion of the grant is used 
for program administration. 



OUTREACH &c EDUCATION INITIATIVES & TRAININGS 

Outreach and training about the program and its benefits remained a primary focus for Fiscal Year 
2000, and was extensive. Victim compensation training was provided to: 

• Bristol, Hampden, Norfolk and Northwestern District Attorney's Offices; 

• Middlesex District Attorney's Office Domestic Violence Roundtable and Domestic Violence and 
Elder Abuse Units; 

• Executive Office of Public Safety and Department of Public Health, for hospital and health center 
emergency room staff; 

• Annual Conference of New England States Police Information Network (NESPIN); 

• Roxbury Comprehensive Community Health Center, to victim service providers; 

• Enhanced Advocacy Subcommittee of the Dorchester Domestic Violence Roundtable, to court, 
police department and health center advocates; 

• Domestic violence programs at First Step in Arlington and at Independence House in Hyannis; 

• Boston Area Rape Crisis Center; 

• Mothers Against Drunk Driving; 

• Braintree Rehabilitation Hospital; 

• Worcester Youth Guidance Center; 



42 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE 

Salem and Haverhill Department of Social Services staff and police domestic violence advocates; 

Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance (MOVA), for statewide victim-witness advocates; 

Living After Murder Program in Dorchester; 

Staff of Brockton and Community Resources, an agency providing mental health counseling; 

Raschner Institute Child Abuse and Neglect Conference; 

Cambridge Health Alliance Community Crisis Response Team; 

Women's Resource Center in Lawrence; 

Women's Place in Brockton; 

Survivor Assistance Program in Fall River; and 

Our Sister's Place in Fall River. 

In addition, staff attended the annual Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Victim Assistance and Victim 
Compensation Conference. The conference, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice and the National 
Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards, focused on, among other topics, outreach, claims 
processing and automation. Division staff also received in-service training throughout the year. 

With VOCA funding, additional outreach materials were produced including: 20,000 applications in 
English and 8,000 in Spanish, 5,000 pens, 2,500 post-its and 5,000 notepads. 

Victim compensation materials were distributed to all VOCA-funded homicide and child witness to 
violence programs, as well as all Department of Transitional Assistance, Department of Social Services 
and police domestic violence advocates. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES & COURT ACTIVITY 

During Fiscal Year 2000, three cases proceeded to the judicial review stage. In one, the trial court 
upheld the Division's decision; in another, the court remanded the case to the Division for further investigation; 
and the third was still pending as of the end of the fiscal year. 



43 



COMMUNITY -BASED JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

The Division includes the following staff members: Judith Reals, Director; Sandra Clark; Diane Pepe 
Deangelis; Gael Decologero; AUce Femandes; Yvonne Lamoreaux; Frank Perry; Priscilla Russeli; James 
Sinagra; Cheryl Watson; and Jennifer Wilson. 



SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

In recognition of its focus on revitalizing urban centers and empowering communities, the Safe 
Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) moved from the Criminal Bureau to the Community-Based Justice Bureau 
in August 1999. Estabhshed initially in February 1993 by the Attorney General's Office, the Suffolk 
County District Attorney's Office, the Mayor's Office of the City of Boston and the Boston Police 
Department, the first SNI program, in Dorchester, celebrated its seventh anniversary this year. Over the 
course of the past seven years, the Office of the Attorney General has dedicated the services of eight 
Assistant Attorneys General and two community Uaisons to SNI communities across the Commonwealth. 
Successful SNI models have been subsequently established in Grove Hall, Brockton, Taunton and the 
Turner Falls Village of Montague. At present, the SNI has programs in five locations — Dorchester, 
Grove Hall, Brockton, Taunton and Montague, with prosecutors located in Dorchester, Grove Hall, 
Brockton, and Montague. 

The SNI has developed into an effective coalition, among community residents, state and local 
government officials, law enforcement personnel and human service providers, to solve a variety of 
community problems. Through SNI, communities and law enforcement work together to improve the 
quality of life for community residents throughout the Commonwealth. Based on the premise that no single 
group can solve all the problems faced by urban neighborhoods, the SNI model works to stem violence 
and improve the quality of life by developing multi-disciplinary approaches to community issues. 

Since those who live in a community know best what problems neighborhoods face and how they can 
be addressed, residents are vital members of SNI partnerships. Each SNI has a different approach to 
problems - some are law enforcement driven while others are community driven, but all of the programs 
are infused with the three core principles: neighborhood revitalization, coordinated law enforcement and 
prevention, and intervention and treatment. 



44 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

HIGHLIGHTED EFFORTS & SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITES 



SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE (SNI) JOBS FOR YOUTH PROGRAM 

One of the major efforts aimed at prevention and intervention is the SNI Jobs for Youth Program. The 
program, which started in 1996, has grown from employing 23 youth in five communities to employing 
more than 75 young people in nine communities throughout the state. The JOBS FOR YOUTH sites offer 
job opportunities throughout the year, and are not limited to summer employment. There are JOBS FOR 
YOUTH programs at the following sites: 

• Boston - Forty-six youth from SNI target areas in Grove Hall. Fields Comer and Uphams Comer 
were employed through the City of Boston's Community Centers (BCC) program during this 
fiscal year. Partnering with local businesses and agencies, BCC placed young people in a variety 
of capacities allowing them to leara skills including entrepreneurship, leadership and civic duty. 
The goal is to provide employment opportunities, hands-on training, safe havens and adult supporL 
Placements included local community centers, police stations, middle schools, local restaurants 
and neighborhood social service agencies. 

• Holyoke - Holyoke's JOBS FOR YOUTH program is administered by the Holyoke Youth 
Alliance, which serves youth from low-income neighborhoods, particularly in downtovra Holyoke. 
This program reinforces literacy skills, education and responsible work behavior and placed 12 
youth ages 15-18 during the year. Youth assisted as readers and mentors, and read to young 
children at sites including youth centers, family shelters, YMCAs and day care centers. 

• Worcester -The JOBS FOR YOUTH program in Worcester, run by the YMCA of Greater 
Worcester, serves at-risk youth in the Lakeside Public Housing community. Twenty-five youth, 
ages 14-18, participated during the year and were employed as YMCA camp counselors, office 
assistants and in other positions. 

• Brockton -The Old Colony YMCA in Brockton just completed its fourth year of JOBS FOR 
YOUTH funding. The program serves teens in the Brockton area who are enrolled in school or 
another educational program. The program's goal is to provide job opportunities, educational 
trainings, and recreational activities. This year the program employed 8 teens ages 1 4 - 1 6 in local 
after-school community centers and day care centers. 



45 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

• Lynn -Lynn's program is administered by the Community Minority Cultural Center and serves 
disadvantaged and at-risk youth. During this fiscal year, the program employed six teens who 
worked in various positions, including after school programs and arts programs. 

• Taunton -Seven youth ages 16-17 were placed through the Taunton Department of Human 
Services diuing this fiscal year. The youth were assigned to the Boys and Girls Club, the Taunton 
Public Schools, Taunton Public Library, Head Start and the City Engineer's Office. The program's 
goal is to provide employment and educational opportunities to youth for skill-building and future 
employment capability. 

• Springfield -The Springfield SNI JOBS FOR YOUTH program is administered through the 
Springfield Southwest Community Health Center and serves youth from low-income families. 
Eight youth ages 13-17 participated this fiscal year. The program provides youth with opportunities 
to increase their employability, self-esteem, and knowledge and skills in the area of health promotion. 
The youth were employed as peer health educators. Youth participated in delivering health education, 
including violence prevention, to other youth at local community centers, the Salvation Aitny and 
other human service providers. 

• New Bedford -Fourteen at-risk youth in New Bedford received training through the University of 
Massachusetts/Dartmouth Division of Continuing Education. The goal of the program is to provide 
training and support for youth to become employed or to continue their education. Internship 
placements included local businesses, courthouses, colleges, social service agencies and the City 
of New Bedford. 

• Chelsea -This year marked the fifth year of funding for the Chelsea JOBS FOR YOUTH program. 
The City of Chelsea administered the program and provided positions for seven Chelsea teens at 
several area businesses and city agencies, including Chelsea City Hall, Chelsea Public Library, 
Chelsea Housing Authority and Chelsea Cable TV. In addition to employment, the program 
offered opportunities for recreational team building and for helping the youth develop skills to 
choose challenging careers. 

DORCHESTER SNI 



The Dorchester SNI continued to focus on issues that have consistently plagued the area — truancy, 
youth violence, and a lack of job placements and training. The Boston PoUce Department targeted truancy 
while other subcontracted programs provided opportunities for young people to effectively use the time 
when they are not in school by offering recreational, educational and job training programs. Additionally, 



46 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

community workers were actively involved with the Cape Verdean and Vietnamese communities, working 
to address their needs. Through the work of a Cape Verdean Youth Outreach worker, funded by SNl and 
contracted through the Bowdoin Street Health Center, the SNI has been able to address issues facing 
Cape Verdean youth. Issues of violence, family, education, health and job opportunities are regularly 
addressed in tiie Cape Verdean youth groups which meet weekly. The Dorchester SNI has also created 
a strong network of support for other emerging immigrant groups, children who witness violence, and the 
local business community. 

The Dorchester SNI Advisory Council continued to meet regularly to identify the most pressing needs 
of the Dorchester SNI community. The Office of the Attomey General completed its sixth year of funding 
for subcontracted programs in the Dorchester SNI, offering assistance to law enforcement efforts as well 
as enrichment, educational and recreational programming for children, youth and adults. Offered through 
direct service providers in the community, programming includes youth safe haven activities at the Dorchester 
Youth Collaborative, education and training programs for local small business owners, police training, and 
clinical assistance for children who witness violence. 

• Funding RFP -The Dorchester SNI conducted its Fu-st Request for Proposal (RFP) process and 
awarded approximately $50,000 for FY2000 to fund six additional local organizations for programs 
aimed at youth violence prevention, including counseling, safe haven opportunities, art programs 
for young girls, and after-school tijtoring. 

• Legislative Breakfast -The Dorchester SNI held a legislative breakfast at tiie Log School's 
BIG DIG DINER, attended by three state representatives and senators representing the SNI 
area. The goal of the breakfast was to showcase the achievements of the SNI and to urge local 
legislators to support the development and continuation of SNI collaboratives statewide. 

• Proposal for Jobs Training Program - The SNI Division Director, along with other Dorchester 
SNI representatives, served on a community- wide committee to assist in the development of a 
proposal to the Rockefeller Foundation for the development of a jobs training program for Dorchester 
youth. 

GROVE HALL SNI 



During Fiscal Year 2000. the Grove Hall Safe Neighborhood Initiative received $225,000 in its fifth 
year of funding from the Department of Justice. Executive Office for Weed and Seed. The money funded 
several communify-based programs that helped address needs and concerns identified by the community. 



^1 



COMMUNITY-BASE D JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

In addition, the Grove Hall SNT AVeed & Seed Coordinating Council Members began work on the Weed 
& Seed Re-Designation Application due in Fiscal Year 2001 . 

• Weed and Seed Grant -This year, as a part of \he Weed and Seed grant, the Grove Hall SNI 
funded several programs through both the Seed Mini-Grant and the Special Emphasis Initiative 
grant funds. Seed Mini-Grants were awarded to We're Educators - A Touch of Class CWEATOC), 
the Grove Hall Residents' Association's Youth Development and Early Intervention Program, the 
Roxbury Multi-Service Center's Community Program Against Sexual Assault, Quincy-Geneva 
Housing Corporation's Creative Learning After-School Program, Women of Color AIDS Council's 
Women Connecting Affecting Change, Children's Services of Roxbury, the Roxbury Community 
Comprehensive Health Center's WAR Project, and the Jewish Memorial Hospital and Rehabilitation 
Center's Violence Prevention Program for Seniors. Special Emphasis Initiative grant funds were 
provided to Quincy-Geneva Housing Corporation's GIRLS on the Move! and the Roxbury Multi- 
Service Center's Teens Networking Teens Project. 

• Youth Re-Entry Program - SNI staff participated in planning sessions with representatives from 

the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office to discuss possible collaboration on a youth re-entry 
program for DYS-committed youth returning to the Grove Hall neighborhood. 

• Grove Hall SNI Senior Information Fair - This day-long event featured information and 
services for seniors in the Grove Hall Community. Approximately 200 people attended the program. 
A Senior Empowerment Resoiu:ce Directory was also pubhshed. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES &: COURT ACTIVITY 

• SNI Community Prosecution - SNI's Community Prosecution Program is critical to its 
coordinated law enforcement component. SNI lawyers at the Superior and District Court levels 
continued to serve in non-traditional roles, acting as prosecutors and working with the community. 
SNI prosecutors attended community meetings, participated in special events, and responded to 
inquiries from law enforcement, residents, and social service agencies. As a result of their direct 
community involvement, the SNI lawyers were able to determine which issues were of most 
importance to the neighborhood and how resources from Attorney General Tom Reilly's office 
could best be used to address those concerns. In addition, the assigned Assistant Attorneys General 
developed joint initiatives with other law enforcement agencies, and utilized sentencing and probation 
options so as not only to punish offenders but also to rehabihtate them. SNI prosecutors also 
worked closely with federal law enforcement authorities for enhanced federal prosecutions. 



48 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

DORCHESTER 



The Assistant Attorney General assigned to Dorchester prosecuted major felonies in Superior Court, 
consisting primarily of repeat drug offenders, large-scale drug seizures, armed robberies, and firearm 
offenses. Some examples include: 

• Commonwealth v. Derek Belcher Following the denial ofa motion to suppress, the 
defendant pled guilty to distribution of cocaine and received a three year to three years and one 
day sentence to MCI Cedar Junction; 

• Commonwealth v. Edward Nug ent The defendant pled guilty to breaking and entering a 
building and a safe located therein. He was sentenced to three consecutive 2 y^ year House of 
Correction commitments; and 

• Commonwealth v. Corey Sullivan The defendant was charged with possession ofa 
firearm and based on his record, further charged with being an armed career criminal. The 
defendant was arrested after he was observed attempting to discard a loaded .357 magnum 
firearm. His prior record included two armed robbery convictions. As a result of the new 
armed career criminal statute, which allows for enhanced sentencing of repeat offenders, the 
defendant faced a 1 5 year mandatory minimum incarceration instead of the mandatory one year 
for possession of a firearm. This case illustrates the efforts being made by SNI prosecutors to 
use the new statute to charge repeat offenders who continue to victimize individuals and the 
community as a whole. 

• Community Involvement - In addition to prosecutorial responsibiUties, the Assistant Attorney 
General assigned to Dorchester attended monthly SNI Advisory Council meetings; met regularly 
with the Detective staff from Area C- 1 1 ; and taught three "Legal Lives" classes at the John Marshall 
Elementary School in Dorchester, in conjunction with the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office. 

GROVE HALL 



The Assistant Attorneys General assigned to Grove Hall as part of the SNI team prosecuted cases in 
Suffolk Superior Court and Roxbury District Court. The Superior Court caseload included trafficking in 
cocaine, armed robbery, breaking and entering, and firearm offenses. The SNI Assistant Attorney General 



49 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

successfully prosecuted several Superior Court cases. SNI prosecutors routinely consolidate prosecutions 
involving the same defendant in order to enhance their effectiveness in advocating for an appropriate 
disposition. In Commonwealth v. Mathison . the SNI prosecutor targeted a string of incidents being 
prosecuted in different district courts across the city and consoUdated those cases into one Superior Court 
case. This action helped prevent the possibihty of any of the defendant's cases "falling through the cracks" 
and increased the likelihood that the defendant would receive a disposition commensurate with his criminal 
activity. Consolidating cases also allows the SNI prosecutor to tailor the disposition to fit the particular 
needs of the community, including the use of stay away orders, community service or other appropriate 
sanctions. 

• Community Involvement - The SNI AAG regularly attended all Grove Hall SNI community 
and Coordinating Council meetings and maintained direct community contact 

BROCKTON 



The Assistant Attorney General assigned to Brockton continued to focus on serious felonies, including 
major drug trafficking offenses, rape, armed assault with intent to murder, and breaking and entering/ 
burglary. The AAG worked extensively with the Massachusetts State Police Crime Prevention and Control 
Unit (CPAC) assigned to the Plymouth District Attorney's Office to investigate and prosecute major drug- 
trafficking cases. Case highlights included: 

• Commonwealth v. Armando Quinones A three-month investigation yielded the arrest of 
two individuals for trafficking in cocaine over 1 00 grams. A motion to suppress was 
successfully argued and a trial before a jury resulted in guilty verdicts and a sentence of 1 years 
in state prison. 

• Commonwealth v. Yero. Pimental & Lopez The SNI AAG assisted State Police 
assigned to the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office in a month- long investigation into 
cocaine distribution in the Brockton area. The investigation resulted in the arrest of three 
defendants, both of whom were charged with trafficking in over 200 grams of cocaine. 

• Commonwealth v. Pagan Following a jury-waived trial, the defendant was found guilty of 
trafficking in over 200 grams of cocaine. The defendant was sentenced to 15 years to 15 years 
and one day in MCl-Cedar Junction. 



50 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

• Community Involvement - The A AG attended and reported on case activity at all SNI Advisory 
Council meetings. The AAG also regularly attended all Brockton Weed & Seed Coordinating 
Council meetings. 

MONTAGUE 



Attorney General Tom Reilly recognizes that issues of crime and neighborhood revitalization are not 
confined to the largest urban centers. Cities and towns across the Commonwealth confront similar issues 
regarding community disintegration and each location raises concerns particular to that region. The Montague 
SNI illusti-ates how tiie Attorney General is addressing these issues in Western Massachusetts. The SNT 
Assistant Attorney General assigned to Montague handled criminal prosecutions from Turners Falls in the 
Greenfield District Court, including narcotics and domestic violence violations. The AAG also worked 
closely witii the local police department to target repeat offenders as well as quaMty-of-life prosecutions. 
A proposal to conduct training sessions for officers to improve handUng and investigation of domestic 
violence cases was also undertaken. 

TAUNTON 



• Community Involvement - The Taunton SNI continued to focus on law enforcement and crime 
prevention. The Taunton SNI partners include a broad base of representatives, among them, law 
enforcement, prosecutors, probation, and direct service providers. The City of Taunton continued 
to play a major role in coordinating die efforts of the Taunton SNI partners. Representatives from 
Attorney General Tom Reilly 's Office regularly attended SNI Advisory Council Meetings in Taunton 
and assisted tiie Taunton SNI in programmatic resources, including the Attorney General's JOBS 
FOR YOUTH program, which hired, trained and employed Taunton youth. 

COMMUNITY POLICING 



Another key element of the SNI's coordinated law enforcement component is community policing. 
High-ranking police officials were actively involved in SNI Advisory Councils and met regularly with 
community groups and individual residents to address concerns. Community policing projects of SNI 
target areas have demonsfrated a sQ-ong impact on crime statistics in target communities. In addition to 
falling crime rates, an unprecedented level of cooperation and collaboration with the poUce is reported by 
residents, merchants and social service agencies. 



51 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

Joint investigations with federal agencies were also a part of our coordinated law enforcement 
component The Boston Police Department, Area B2, utilized the combined resources of state and federal 
agencies including the state police, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms to target the most serious offenders or high level drug distribution participants in the Grove 
Hall neighborhood. 

NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION 



Abandoned Property Project - A major component of Attorney General Tom Reilly 's urban 
focus is to promote neighborhood revitalization. The Abandoned Property project targets the 
revitalization of urban areas where the housing stock is often left abandoned or in a state of disrepair. 
The project seeks to use a receivership statute to undertake and oversee the rehabilitation of 
residential properties with persistent, unremedied code violations which are frequently used for 
illicit activities, such as dmg dealing or prostitution. The legislation was originally intended to permit 
tenants and other occupants of residential properties to seek the appointment of a receiver who 
would have the independent authority to authorize repairs, after notice and an opportunity to cure 
was provided to the landlord and creditors of record. The most significant features of the statute 
are twofold: 1 ) it provides a limited scope of receivership liability related solely to the work actually 
undertaken at the property; and 2) the costs and expenses incurred by the receiver become a 
priority lien, recoverable against both the landlord and the property prior to any pre-existing liabilities 
other than outstanding real estate taxes. This project has been implemented throughout the state, 
in Dorchester, New Bedford, Roxbury (Grove Hall), Worcester, Orange, Chelsea, Montague, 
Taunton, Springfield, Brockton and Melrose. Individuals ft-om throughout the Office of the Attorney 
General participated in these efforts in various cities and towns. Teams consisting of Assistant 
Attorneys General, civil investigators, paralegals and staff were assigned to specific communities in 
order to become familiar with the housing stock, local officials and neighborhood residents. 



CONCLUSION 

The Safe Neighborhood Initiative is an example of the importance of collaboration among government 
officials, law enforcement and community representatives. The SNI has successfully addressed the issues 
of crime, crime prevention and treatment and neighborhood revitalization in communities across the state. 
These partnerships have helped improve the quality of life for all residents of the Commonwealth. 



52 



COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE 

The Safe Neighborhood Initiative includes the following staff members: Marcia Jackson, Director; 
Susan Spurlock; Linda DelCastilho; Qiristina Dilorio-Sterling; Katherine Hatch; Shelley Richmond Joseph; 
Glenn MacKinlay; Sandra McCroom; Lori Parris; and Neil Tassel. 



53 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 

Appellate Division 

High Tech and Computer Crime Division 

Public Integrity Division 

Victim / Witness Assistance Division 

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division 

Economic Crimes Division 

Environmental Crimes Strike Force 

Financl\l Investigation Division 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 



Criminal Bureau 



The primary mission of the Criminal Bureau is to prosecute violations of state criminal laws resulting in 
or involving significant economic loss or injury, harm to the environment, misconduct by public employees 
or elected officials, crimes against public agencies, organized crime, drug trafficking, crimes involving 
computers and other forms of technology, and cross-jurisdictional criminal organizations. The Criminal 
Bureau also prosecutes criminal cases referred to it by district attorneys offices and cases which further 
priorities of the Attorney General, such as crimes against children, the elderly and other particularly vulnerable 
groups. 

The majority of criminal cases prosecuted by the Criminal Bureau result from investigations conducted 
by police officers and investigators assigned to the Criminal Bureau. During Fiscal Year 2000, approximately 
thirty State Police Officers, four officers of the Environmental Police, and seven civilian criminal investigators 
were assigned to the Criminal Bureau. Additionally, in some instances, law enforcement officers from 
other local, state, and federal agencies participated in investigations conducted by the Criminal Bureau. 

Another mission of the Criminal Bureau is to promote effective law enforcement and criminal justice in 
the state. The Criminal Bureau accomplishes this mission by maintaining partnerships with the Massachusetts 
District Attorneys Association, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Pohce Association, the Executive Office of 
Public Safety, and other law enforcement agencies and associations; developing criminal justice pohcy; 
proposing legislation; and participating in training programs for prosecutors, poUce officers, judges and 
others involved in the criminal justice system. 

Assistant Attorneys General assigned to the Criminal Bureau represent the Commonwealth in criminal 
prosecutions throughout the state, handle proceedings in state and federal courts challenging criminal 
convictions, and represent prosecutors, judges and other state criminal justice employees who are sued in 
the performance of their duties. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, the Criminal Bureau received more than 1 ,500 inquiries and complaints from 
citizens, and reviewed 132 rendition and extradition requests forwarded to it by the Executive Office of 
the Governor. 

The Chief of the Criminal Bureau was Gerard T. Leone, Jr. The Deputy Chief of the Bureau w as Kurt 
N. Schwartz. 



54 



CRIMINAL BUREAU APPELLATE 

The Criminal Bureau is organized into the following nine divisions, each of which reflects an area of 
specialization and expertise: Appellate, Criminal Investigations, Economic Crimes, Environmental Crimes 
Strike Force, Financial Investigations, High-Tech & Computer Crimes, Public Integrity, Special Investigations 
& Narcotics, and VictimAVitness Assistance. 

The Division Chiefs within the Criminal Bureau during Fiscal Year 2000 were: Appellate Division, 
Pamela L. Hunt; Criminal Investigations Division, Detective Lieutenant Mark Delaney; Economic Crimes 
Division, Carol A. Starkey ; Environmental Crimes Strike Force, Martin E. Levin; Financial Investigations 
Division, Paul Stewart; High-Tech and Computer Crimes Division, Gregory Motta, followed by John A. 
Grossman; Public Integrity Division, James H. O'Brien; Special Investigations and Narcotics Division, 
William T Bloomer; and VictimAVitness Assistance Division, Kathleen Morrissey. 

The Criminal Bureau also had two Bureau Attorneys during Fiscal Year 2000. Mary A. Phillips, 
Bureau Attorney for Training and Administration, coordinated the Attorney General's Grand Jury process 
throughout the Commonwealth, developed training programs for the criminal Bureau, served as the Chair 
of the Training Committee for the Office of Attorney General Tom Reilly, and advised the Bureau Chief on 
administrative and budgetary matters. Elisabeth J. Medvedow, Bureau Attorney for policy and legislation, 
developed and coordinated criminal justice initiatives, reviewed and drafted legislation affecting the criminal 
justice system, produced the Law Enforcement Newsletter, and served as Co-Chair of the Diversity 
Committee for the Office of the Attorney General. 

Duiing Fiscal Year 2000, the staff of the Criminal Bureau included the following: Gerard Leone, Jr., 
Chief; Kurt Schwartz; Jennifer Austin; Sandra Ciancarelli; Sabrina Davis; Rhonda Matthews; Joanne 
Quigley ; Mark Smith; and Nancy Tavilla. 



APPELLATE DIVISION 

The Appellate Division handles a wide variety of criminal, federal habeas corpus, state habeas corpus 
and other civil cases which impact criminal prosecutions and the criminal justice system. The Division's 
caseload includes appeals and post-convictions matters in criminal cases prosecuted at the trial level by the 
Attorney General's Criminal Bureau and from convictions of criminal contempt throughout the 
Commonwealth, all habeas corpus petitions filed in federal court that challenge Massachusetts convictions, 
parole surrenders, civil commitments, and renditions, and appeals in the First Circuit Court of Appeals 
from the denial or granting of habeas corpus relief The Division also engages in civil htigation defending 
judges, clerks, probation officers and other court personnel. District Attorneys, Assistant District Attorneys 



55 



CRIMINAL BUREAU APPELLATE 



CRIMINAL BUREAU APPELLATE 

and other prosecutorial personnel sued civilly in state or federal court for actions taken during the criminal 
justice process. The Assistant Attorneys General in the Division defend the constitutionality of criminal 
statutes, as well as other statutes, court rules, practices and procedures that concern all aspects of the 
criminal justice system; represent the interests of prosecutors when subpoenaed to testify or provide 
documents in federal civil cases; supervise agency staff attorneys handling litigation involving the Department 
of Correction, the Parole Board, and the Commission of Probation; and handle appeals and federal court 
litigation concerning the Parole Board. 

In addition to their case work. Division attorneys participate in and present training programs both for 
the Criminal Bureau and office- wide, provide assistance to other Criminal Bureau attorneys on investigations, 
motions, trials, post conviction proceedings, and single justice actions and consult with or assist other 
bureaus in matters where the criminal justice expertise or perspective is important The Division also works 
closely with the District Attorneys' Offices, especially their Appellate Divisions, in identifying and acting as 
a clearinghouse on criminal law issues of statewide importance and interest. 

The Appellate Division files approximately 60 appellate briefs per year in the United States Supreme 
Court, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Supreme Judicial Court and Massachusetts Appeals Court. 
The Division also filed amicus briefs on behalf of Attorney General Reilly in cases having broad impact and 
importance to the criminal justice system, consistent with the Attorney General's statutory responsibility as 
the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth. By way of example: 

• Commonwealth v. Bruno 432 Mass. 489 (2000). The division filed an amicus brief in the 
Supreme Judicial Court in support of the position that the civil commitment provisions of G.L. c. 
123 A for sexually dangerous persons applies to persons who were convicted prior to the laws' 
enactment. The SJC adopted this position and rejected the defendant's claims that his 
commitment violated the Due Process and Ex post Facto Clauses of the Constitution. 

• Jake J. V. Commonwealth 433 Mass. 70 (2000). The division filed an amicus brief in the 
Supreme Judicial Court in support of the position that a juvenile judge may release a juvenile on 
bail and at the same time set conditions for pre-trial probation, and that the judge may revoke 
the bail for violating those conditions. The SJC adopted this position and rejected the juvenile's 
claim that he was not on probation and that the judge lacked the authority to set conditions for 
his release. 

• Commonwealth v. Brown 43 1 Mass. 772 (20(X)). The division filed an amicus brief in the 
Supreme Judicial Court in support of the position that one cannot be sentenced under G.L. c. 



56 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 



APPELLATE 



265, § 1 8C to less than 20 years for his conviction of armed home invasion. We maintained that 
the plain language of § 1 8C, i.e., the defendant is to be "punished by imprisonment in the state 
prison for life or for any term of not less than twenty years." established a mandatory minimum 
sentence. The SJC adopted this position, reversed the Appeals Court's decision, and rejected 
the defendant's claim that § 1 8C merely set a range of punishment with 20 years being at the 
maximum end of the range. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 





Cases Opened 


Cases Disposed 


Total Cases Handled 


A. Federal Habeas 


110 


114 


298 


B. Federal Civil 


17 


22 


39 


estate Civil 


41 


36 


136 


D. State Habeas 


19 


16 


31 


E. Criminal 


37 


34 


73 


F. 211 §3 and Other 


9 


8 


18 


Single Justice Cases 









G. Other 



TOTALS 



234 



239 



596 



CASE HIGHLIGHTS 

• Charles Vieux v. Peter Pepe (First Circuit No. 98- 1 864). Appeal from district court's 
denial of a federal habeas corpus petition which challenged rape conviction based on a claim of 



57 



CRI MINAL BUREAU APPELLATE 

ineffective assistance of counsel. On July 19, 1999, the First Circuit affirmed the denial of 
habeas relief 

• Walter Palmer v. Tom ReiMv (USDC No. 99- 1 1978-RWZ). Federal civil rights action 
against the Attorney General to enjoin the plaintiff's criminal prosecution by the Economic 
Crimes Division. On September 28,1 999, District Judge Zobel dismissed the complaint. 

• Commonwealth v. Cheryl Amirault LeFave (SJC No. 07529). Commonwealth's 
appeal from allowance of defendant's second and third motion for new trial on the grounds of 
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On August 18, 1999 the Supreme Judicial Court vacated 
the orders of the Superior Court and reinstated the defendant's convictions. 

• Kemieth P. Phoenix v. James Matesanz (USDC No. 98-10171-RCL). Federal 
habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's 1 99 1 conviction for first degree murder. On 
December 9,1999, after aremand from the First Circuit, Lindsay, D.J., denied the petition on 
the merits, and granted a certificate of appealability. 

• Matthew Healv v. Town of Hull, et al . (USDC No. 97- 1 1257-GAO). Federal civil 
rights action (§1983 and other tort claims) by the plaintiff who had been convicted of making 
annoying phone calls and staUdng. We represented former ADA GeUne Williams. On January 
13, 2000 District Judge O'Toole entered summary judgment for all the defendants. 

• Albert Moore v. Joseph Ponte (First Circuit No. 98-1292). Appeal from denial of 
federal habeas corpus relief challenging petitioner's 1976 first degree murder conviction based 
on a claimed due process violation resulting from petitioner placement in the "dock" during his 
trial. On August 2, 1999, the First Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas relief. 

• Commonwealth v. Perez (Appeals Court No. 98-P-780). Appeal from AGO conviction 
for narcotics trafficking which alleged improper closing argument and prosecutorial misconduct. 
On July 16,1 999, the Appeals Court affirmed the petitioner's conviction. 

NONCASE HIGHLIGHTS 

• Ongoing advice to State Police and laboratory re: DNA database, including assistance and advice 
to Suffolk County District Attorney's Office. 

• Supreme Judicial Court Standing Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules. 



58 



CRIMINAL BUREAU HIGH TECH AND COMPUTER CRIMES 

• The Apjpellate Division hosted a quarterly meeting of Commonwealth's Appellate Attorneys Action 
Project (CAAAP), at which the creation of the Jean M . Kennett Scholarship for continuing legal 
education was announced. 

• Lecture to District Court Judges. Invitation to address Region III District Court Judges on contempt 
procedures and options. 

• Massachusetts District Attorneys Association Training for New Prosecutors, January 10-13, 2000. 

• Massachusetts District Attorneys Association Conference, Springfield, MA, March 2-3, 2000. 

• Massachusetts Bar Association; Massachusetts Law Review ; Editorial Board 

• Rendition training and lecture at Middlesex District Attorney's Office. 

The Appellate Division includes the following staff members: Pamela Hunt, Chief; Daneka Barbour; 
Annette Benedetto; Steve Ehrenberg; Elizabeth Frumkin; Maureen Giacoppo; Bonny Gilbert; William 
Meade; Kelli Murray; Cathryn Neaves; Susanne Levsen Reardon; Kenneth Steinfield; Catherine Sullivan; 
Joseph Thai; and Linda Wagner. 



THE HIGH TECH AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION 

The High Tech and Computer Crime Division ( HTCC) is a priority of Attorney General Tom ReUly. 
The Attorney General devoted significant resources of the office to developing a cutting edge division for 
an ever changing world. The mission of the High Tech and Computer Crime Division is to provide high 
tech law enforcement expertise to the Commonwealth. In doing so, we serve three constituencies: 

1 . The individual citizens of the Commonwealth, particularly the children, who are increasingly 
communicating, buying and selling, and just passing time on the Internet; 

2 . The businesses and universities of the Commonwealth who drive our knowledge-based economy 
and who are dependent on computers and the Internet; and 

3 . Other law enforcement agencies (as well as other divisions within the Office of the Attorney General ) 
which rely on our expertise to support them in the full range of crimes that they investigate and 
prosecute, from homicide to narcotics trafficking. 



59 



CRIMINAL BUREAU HIGH TECH AND COMPUTER CRIMES 

We serve these three constituencies in three interrelated ways: 

1 . Investigation and prosecution of cases in which computers or the Internet play a crucial role ; 

2. Investigative, legal and computer forensics support to other law enforcement agencies; and 

3 . Education, outreach and poUcy development. 

Fiscal Year 2000 was a year of transition for HTCC. The commanding officer of the investigative team 
that is assigned to the division left in August and the Chief of the Division, who was at the time also the only 
prosecutor, left in October. Both positions immediately were filled but there was a period of several 
months during which the new Chief also had a nearly full time commitment to a major narcotics investigation. 
Fortunately, over the course of the year, the Division was able to increase its staffing from what amounted 
to 50% of the time of one prosecutor to three full time prosecutors. We also devoted substantial energy to 
the creation of a secure computer forensics lab which is now fully operational. At the close of Fiscal Year 
2000, the HTCC was staffed by three Assistant Attorney Generals - Karen Kleiman, JuUe Ross and John 
Grossman, the Division Chief - three members of the Massachusetts State Pohce - Sergeant Dermot 
Quinn, and Troopers Matthew Murphy, and David McSweeney - and a computer forensics expert, Eric 
Lundberg. 

The HTCC handles a wide variety of cases in which computer technology or the Internet play a crucial 
role. The two areas that we focus on are preserving the integrity of the Commonwealth's knowledge 
based economy and protecting the well being of our children. The first category of cases involves intrusions 
to computer systems, related extortion attempts, theft of trade secrets and other intellectual property, such 
as trademarks and domain names, and the most egregious attempts to undermine the nascent Internet 
economy by defi-auding consumers. The second category involves targeting child sexual predators on the 
Internet, dissemination and possession of child pornography and Internet threats to schools. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 



Following is a chart summarizing the case referrals that HTCC screened for possible investigation and 
prosecution in FY 2000. 



60 



CRIMINAL BUREAU HIGH TECH AND COMPUTER CRIMES 



Case Description 




Number of Cases Screened 


Theft of Trade Secrets 




6 


and Other Intellectual 


Property 




Computer Intrusions 




18 


Consumer Fraud 




59 


Child Exploitation 




28 


Threats/Cyberstalking 




22 


Other 




9 



Total 142 



Of the 142 cases HTCC screened, approximately 30% matured into formal investigations. 

Notably, towards the end of the fiscal year, HTCC received an extraordinarily high number of consumer 
fraud complaints; this in part reflects the severity of the problem and in part the success of the Internet 
Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC), a joint project of the National White Collar Crime Center (of which the 
Attorney General's Office is a member) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to consolidate all such 
complaints in one database. IFCC began referring every complaint about a Massachusetts target or filed 
by a Massachusetts victim to HTCC in the last quarter of the year. HTCC screens all of the cases and 
targets the most compelling; these are typically those with targets in the Commonwealth who have defrauded 
a substantial number of pjeople. The remaining IFCC cases are referred for review to the Attorney General's 
PubUc Protection Bureau's Consumer Protection Division. Another important trend is the growth over the 
course of the year in the number of referrals involving complex technical issues, such as computer intrusions; 
this, we believe, is the direct result of the growing reputation of HTCC within the business community and 
law enforcement 

During Fiscal Year 2000, HTCC charged 6 individuals with various crimes including unauthorized 
access (computer hacking), threats to commit a crime, larceny, and disseminating child pornography. 



61 



CRIMINAL BUREAU HIGH TECH AND COMPUTER CRIMES 

During Fiscal Year 2000, six individuals pled guilty or otherwise admitted to sufficient facts in Superior, 
District and Juvenile courts across the Commonwealth.' Additionally, HTCC prosecutors obtained guilty 
pleas against three narcotics defendants and against a former Taunton police captain in a public corruption 
case. 

CASE HIGHLIGHTS 



Highlights of the cases handled by HTCC in Fiscal Year 2000 are the following. 

• Commonwealth v. Christian Hunold (Aver District Court). Hunold, a Missouri resident, 
allegedly used the Internet to disguise himself as a student at Townsend's Hawthorne Brook 
Middle School and then allegedly proceeded to send the students of that school child 
pornography and to create a website that contained apparently credible threats to blow up the 
school and a "hit list" naming specific students and teachers. The hit Ust threatened to send 
those named "home with more holes than they came to school with." Hunold was tracked 
down as the result of a joint effort between Massachusetts and Missouri law enforcement 
authorities and faces charges in both jurisdictions. 

• Commonwealth v. Christopher DeHaven (Middlesex Superior Court). DeHaven of 
Pennsylvania allegedly solicited sex from three Belmont teenagers whom he met on the Internet 
and sent them various sexually graphic images. After the activity was dis-covered. an 
undercover Massachusetts State Trooper assumed the on-line identity of the girls and arranged 
to meet DeHaven. DeHaven was arrested when he arrived in South Station on a train from 
Philadelphia allegedly on his way to meet his victims at a local hotel. 

• Commonwealth v. Sud (Middlesex Superior Court). This defendant used the perceived 
anonymity of the Internet to attempt to blackmail a colleague at a high tech company into 
engaging in a sexual encounter with him. State Pohce assigned to HTCC took over the identity 
of the victim and arranged a meeting for the requested sexual encounter When the defendant 
arrived, he was arrested and shortly thereafter was charged with extortion. The defendant pled 
guilty and after spending nearly two months in jail, received a suspended sentence. 

• Commonwealth v. Aherrera (Boston Municipal Court). The defendant was an employee 
of Massachusetts Lawyers' Weekly's information technology department. After his termination. 



' Some of the cases charged during Fiscal Year 2000 are still pending, just as some of the cases 
resolved during this fiscal year were charged during previous fiscal years. 



62 



CRIMINAL BUREAU HIGH TECH AND COMPUTER CRIMES 

he hacked into his former employer's computer system and destroyed thousands of dollars 
worth of data. He admitted to sufficient facts to accessing a computer system without 
authorization and received a continuance without a finding for two years. 

In addition to the cases that we investigated and prosecuted within HTCC, the Division assisted other 
Divisions within the Attorney General's Office, or District Attorneys' Offices, in over 49 separate matters. 
In some cases, this assistance consisted of legal advice and reviewing search warrants; in others it was 
performing computer forensics. Notably, the expertise of HTCC has been called on in several of the most 
high profile cases of the last year from around the Commonwealth. Three such cases are summarized 



• Commonwealth v. Arrighi, et al. (Suffolk Superior Court). The High Tech and Computer 
Crime Division played an important role in the Criminal Bureau's investigation of a $9.4 million 
larceny from the Commonwealth's Treasury. State Police and other investigators assigned to 
HTCC assisted in searches at 8 locations and the seizure of 1 8 computer systems, and 
forensically examined all seized systems through the use of keyword searches. These keyword 
searches produced hundreds of thousands of "hits" which were then, m conjunction with 
investigators assigned to the Economic Crimes Division, analyzed to determine if they were 
located within relevant documents. 

• Commonwealth v. Greineder (Norfolk Superior Court). At the request of the Norfolk 
County District Attorney's Office, a State Trooper assigned to HTCC worked closely with the 
team from the District Attorney's Office in the investigation of this defendant who eventually was 
convicted of murdering his wife. Asa team, the investigators analyzed the contents of the 
defendant's computers and located key evidence of his motive to commit the murder. HTCC 
lawyers also assisted the District Attorney's Office in sucessfully defending the lawfulness of the 
computer seizures and searches. 

• Commonwealth v. Reardon (Essex Superior Court). At the request of the Essex County 
District Attorney's Office, two HTCC investigators worked with a team from that office in 
preparing the case against Christopher Reardon, a church youth worker who eventually was 
convicted of sexually assaulting over 1 5 children. HTCC's role in this case involved recovering 
sexually graphic material and a list of his victims that were stored on Reardon's computers. 



63 



CRIMINAL BUREAU PUBLIC INTEGRITY 

NON-CASE HIGHLIGHTS 



Finally, HTCC devoted a substantial amount of energy and resources to training and outreach. These 
efforts allow us to leverage our relatively limited resources to (a) teach people and institutions how to avoid 
becoming victims of high tech crimes and (b) where we cannot prevent the crimes from happening, assure 
that law enforcement has the capacity to respond. 

Highlights in this area during Fiscal Year 2000 were: a conference with the high tech industry sponsored 
by Attorney General Tom Reilly's Office, the Office of tiie United States Attorney for the District of 
Massachusetts and the Boston Bar Association to discuss the growing problem of computer crime; the 
publication of Internet safety brochures for parents and children; participation in a number of law enforcement 
training conferences including the Massachusetts District Attorneys' Association (MD AA) annual meeting, 
a two day cybercrime seminar sponsored by Attorney General ReiUy's Office, the Bristol County District 
Attorney's Office and the MDAA, and a meeting of the Greater Boston Police Council; and presentations 
at a number of schools. 

The High Tech and Computer Crime Division included the following staff members: John Grossman, 
Chief; Eric Lundberg; T Gregory Motta; and Julie Ross. 



PUBLIC INTEGRITY DIVISION 

The primary mission of tiie Public Integrity Division (PID) is to investigate and prosecute crimes 
committed by and against pubUc employees and agencies that either compromise the public's confidence in 
government or harm public agencies. In Fiscal Year 2000, prosecutions included crimes committed against 
state and local public agencies and government-funded organizations as well as crimes committed by 
government employees, agents, and contractors. 

Members of the Public Integrity Division investigate cases with the assistance of Massachusetts State 
Troopers and forensic fmancial investigators assigned to tiie Criminal Bureau. In addition, PID attorneys 
often work with local police departments, other State Police officers, federal law enforcement officers, and 
investigators assigned to other government agencies. 

The Public Integrity Division maintains close working relationships with other state and federal agencies 
involved in either investigating crimes by and against public employees and agencies, or enforcing laws 
concerning the conduct of public employees and agencies. These agencies include the State Etiiics 



64 



CRIMINAL BUREAU PUBLIC INTEGRITY 

Commission, the Department of Revenue, the Office of the State Auditor, the Office of the Inspector 
General, the United States Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Department 
of Transportation, local district attorneys' offices, various retirement boards and local town counsels and 
city solicitor's offices. 

During all or part of Fiscal Year 2000, the members of the Public Integrity Division were A AG Jim 
O' Brien, AAG Pam Wechsler, AAG Eugenia Carris, AAG James O'Connell, AAG Stephen Prunier, and 
AAG Andy Lawlor During the fiscal year, Sandra Ciancarelli replaced Sheila Connolly as the Division 

secretary. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2000, the Public Integrity Division reviewed 143 new allegations of criminal conduct 
and disposed of 147 cases (some of which were received in prior fiscal years). During the fiscal year, six 
people were indicted by PID and 12 criminal cases resulted in guilty pleas. Of the 12 pleas, 7 were 
handled in superior courts and 5 in district courts. Crimes investigated and prosecuted by PID during 
Fiscal Year 2000 included: Obstruction of Justice, Perjury; Tax Evasion; Larceny; Bribery; Accepting 
Unlawful Gratuities; Identity Fraud; Conspiracy, and Embezzlement. 

CASE HIGHLIGHTS 



• Commonwealth v. Robert Federico (Suffolk Superior Court) Robert Federico, a former 
Boston Police officer, pled guilty to 5 counts of perjury for illegally receiving $67,000 of 
disability pension benefits from 1992 through 1996. Federico was sentenced to 2 years 
probation, full restitution, and 250 hours of community service. This case represented the first 
prosecution of a case from PERAC's Pension Fraud Unit since the Legislature created that Unit 
in 1996. 

• Commonwealth v. Kevin Hayes (Suffolk Superior Court) Kevin Hayes, a former 
employee of the City of Boston's Election Department, pled guilty to tax evasion and filing a 
false tax return in connection with unreported income from a ticket agency that he owned and 
helped operate during hours that he should have been working at his city job. Hayes was 
sentenced to two years probation, 250 hours of community service, a $10,000 fine, and a $60 
victim/witness fee. 



65 



CRIMINAL BUREAU PUBLIC INTEGRITY 

• Commonwealth v. William Watson (Norfolk Superior Court) William Watson was an 
employee of the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency who stole confidential client 
information which he used to fraudulently obtain cellular phones and phone service. Watson 
pled guilty to larceny over $250 and was sentenced to two years in the House of Correction, 
one year committed, the balance suspended for 3 years; $3,000 restitution; and drug 
counseling. 

• Commonwealth v. Alita Bynoe (West Roxbury District Court) Alita Bynoe, another 
employee of the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), along with two co- 
conspirators, Frantz Cazeau and Marcus Hunt, also stole confidential identiiying information of 
various MHFA clients to fraudulendy obtain cellular phone service. Bynoe and Cazeau 
admitted to two counts of larceny over $250, one count of conspiracy to commit larceny, and 
two counts of identity fraud. Hunt admitted to one count of larceny over $250, one count of 
larceny under $250, one count of conspiracy to commit larceny, and two counts of identity 
fraud. The defendants received a continuance without finding (CWOF) with 2 years probation, 
100 hours of community service, and restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Cynthia .T. Mcllo (New Bedford Superior Court) Cynthia J. Mello, a 
New Bedford elementary school principal, pled guilty to charges of forgery and larceny in 
connection with the embezzlement of over $20,000 of funds that elementary school students had 
raised. MeUo was sentenced to two years probation, gambling addiction counseling, a stay 
away order from the interior of the Taylor School, $20,000 restitution, and a $60 victim/witness 
fee. A scholarship fund was set up with the restitution money. 

• Commonwealth V. Richard Pimental (New Bedford Superior Court) Richard Pimenlal, 
a former Captain of the Taunton Pohce Department, pled guilty to two counts of obstruction of 
justice in connection with his role in fixing a criminal case against his nephew that stemmed from 
a barroom brawl. Pimental was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in the House of Correction, 
six months to serve of home confinement on an electronic bracelet, the balance suspended for 
two years, and 500 hours of community service. 

• Commonwealth v. Erica Johnson (Suffolk County Grand Jury) Erica Johnson, a former 
administrative assistant with the Division of Registration, was indicted for ten counts of bribery 
and eleven counts of making false written reports for her role in accepting bribes and selling 
cosmetology licenses to unqualified individuals. 



66 



CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE 

• Commonwealth v. Trina Woods. Michael Wilcox, Latayna Jones. Doreen Hoey. 
and Charles Belim (Suffolk County Grand Jury) These defendants were indicted in connection 
with a fraudulent check cashing operation that victimized elderly women. The defendants were 
charged with multiple counts of larceny, forgery, uttering, and receiving stolen property. The 
case, which was investigated by the Boston Police Department and is being prosecuted by this 
Office, was still pending in Superior Court at the end of the fiscal year. 

NON-CASE HIGHLIGHTS & TRAINING 

During Fiscal Year 2000, the Division joined with the State Ethics Commission and established a task 
force that met quarterly for the purpose of improving the coordination and cooperation of the law enforcement 
agencies who enforce the public integrity laws. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, members of the Division both attended and taught training classes inside and 
outside the Office of the Attorney General, including: 

• leading an in-house training on cross examination of expert witnesses; 

• teaching an MCLE course on trial advocacy; 

• participating in an MCLE panel which discussed trial tactics; 

• participating in an educational seminar for the Massachusetts Chiefs of PoUce Association; 

• attending an MCLE trial advocacy course; 

• attending the AGO's two day trial advocacy program held at Boston College; and 

• serving as members of the Attorney General Reilly 's Child Protection Project, which is involved in 
developing legislative proposals on school safety issues, and on the Attorney General's office- 
wide Diversity Committee. 

The Public Integrity Division included the following staff members: James O'Brien, Chief; Eugenia 
Carris; Sheila Connolly; Andrew Lawlor; Jonathan Mitchell; James O'Connell; Jeremy Silverfine; and 
Pamela Wechsler. 



VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

The VictimAVitness Assistance Division of the Attorney General's Criminal Bureau was developed to 
meet the following goals: ( 1 ) to provide crisis assessment and intervention to crime victims and witnesses to 
facilitate their emotional, psychological, physical and financial recovery from victimization; (2) to reduce 



67 



CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE 

the level of secondary victimization associated with victims' and witnesses' involvement in the criminal 
justice system and other collateral systems; and (3) to aid in the prosecution of criminal cases by ensuring 
that crime victims and witnesses are provided with the rights and services mandated by the Victim Rights 
Law (G.L. c. 258B). A second Victim/Witness Advocate position was added to the Criminal Bureau in 
FY99 due to the high volume of cases requiring victim/witness assistance. Advocates in the Criminal 
Bureau provide victim advocacy and witness management services to all of the Bureau's divisions: 1) 
Appellate; 2) Criminal Investigations; 3) Economic Crimes; 4) Environmental Crimes Strike Force; 5) 
Financial Investigations; 6) High Tech and Computer Crimes; 7) Public Integrity; and 8) Special Investigations 
and Narcotics. Advocates are occasionally assigned to prosecutions in otiier bureaus of the office when 
the need for victim/witness services is identified by the prosecutor. The nature of these cases varies 
depending on Uie referral soiu-ce. Categories include Medicaid fraud, patient abuse, home repair fraud 
and insurance fraud. Advocates also provide victim/witness coverage on conflict cases referred to the 
Office of the Attomey General by the eleven district attorneys' offices across the Commonwealth. These 
referrals typically involve cases of violent crime. The VictimAVitness Assistance Division, in an effort to 
build community partnerships and to address victim issues identified as mandated priorities of Attomey 
General Tom Reilly, participates in a number of initiatives relating to children, safety in our schools, elders, 
health care, high tech and computer crime, domestic violence, diversity and curative legislation. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 



Fiscal Year 2000 ushered in a banner year for the VictimAVitness Assistance Division which responded 
to significant challenges to provide services to a high volume of victims and witnesses. Victim advocacy 
and witness management services were provided by the victim/witness advocates on 50 cases across the 
Commonwealth. The case breakdown is as follows: 



68 



CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE 

REFERRAL SOURCE NUMBER OF CASES 

Economic Crimes Division 15 

Publiclntegrity Division 14 

Environmental Crimes Strike Force 5 

High Tech & Computer Crimes Division 4 

Appellate Division 3 

Public Protection Bureau, Chief Prosecutor 4 

Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, 1 

Business Labor & Protection Bureau 

Civil Rights Division, 1 

Public Protection Bureau 

Conflict Cases 3 

TOTAL 50 

CASE HIGHLIGHTS 

Five cases of particular note illustrate work in priority areas set by Attorney General Tom Reilly : ( 1 ) 
high tech and computer crime; (2) children and schools; (3) elders and fraud; (4) consumers and identity 
fraud; and (5) consumers and the environment. 

• Commonwealth v. Rajesh Sud (Middlesex Superior Court) (High Tech and Computer 
Crimes) The defendant. Rajesh Sud, pled guilty on August 12,1999 before Judge Linda Giles 
in Middlesex Superior Court to one count of attempted extortion (sexual favors via e-mail). 
The victim was a colleague of the defendant at Digital (now Compaq). The victim transferred to 
Polaroidasaresultof the victimization. On October 27, 1999, the defendant was sentenced in 
Fall River Superior Court before Judge Giles to 364 days, suspended, two years' probation, 
with significant probation conditions. AAGs Motta and Parks, VWA Morrissey and Trp. 
Bibeau handled this case. 



69 



CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE 

• Commonwealth v. J. Cynthia Mello (Bristol Superior Court) (Public Integrity Division) 
The defendant pled guilty on January 12, 2(XX) in Bristol Superior Court to larceny over $250. 
Disposition - 2 years probation, $20,0(X) restitution, stay away order, and counseling (gambling 
addiction). This case was significant from a child protection perspective because the defendant 
was a former elementary school principal who coerced numbers of children to fundraise and 
then spent the money to feed her gambling addiction. Kathy Morrissey worked closely with the 
parents, teachers and students who were inflamed about the situation. AAGs Wechsler, Canis, 
and VWA K. Morrissey handled this case. 

• Commonwealth v. Walter Pahner (Suffolk Superior Court) (Economic Crimes Division) 
The Palmer trial was heard before a jury at Suffolk Superior Court before Judge Joseph Grasso 
from October 1 8, 1999-November 1,1999. OnNovember4,1999 the jury found the 
defendant guilty of embezzlement, perjury, and larceny over $250. The defendant was 
sentenced on November 5, 1999. Judge Grasso adjudicated the defendant to be a "common 
and notorious thief and sentenced him to state prison for a term of 1 6- 1 8 years. 

This case was particularly challenging from a victim/wimess advocate's perspective due to 
the volume of victims, witnesses and other collateral parties involved. Prior to trial, Kelly Payne 
assisted with trial preparation interviews, including many home visits with elder victims, provided 
notification and status updates by telephone and mail, recorded confirmation calls regarding the 
receipt of subpoenas from over 85 witnesses, arranged travel plans for several out-of-state 
witnesses, and contacted all victims and witnesses regarding tentative line-up for trial. Following 
disposition, Kelly Payne sent out a disposition letter to over 20 victims and 70 witnesses and 
assisted in the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) certification ^plication process. 
Kelly Payne also worked closely with a representative from the CUent Security Board in helping 
the victims recover their losses. AAGs Brekka, McGovem, VictimAVitness Advocate Payne, 
and Financial Investigators McFadden and Baker worked on this case. 

• Commonwealth v. Alita Bynoe. Marcus Hunt & Frantz Cazeau (Massachusetts 
Housing Finance Agency) (West Roxbury District Court) (Essex Superior Court) (Public 
Integrity Division); Cnmmnn wealth v. William Watson (Massachusetts Housing Finance 
Agency) 

On January 10, 2000, defendants Bynoe, Hunt and Cazeau pled to sufficient facts before 
Judge Mary Ann Driscoll in West Roxbury District Court to the following charges: ( 1 ) larceny 
over $250 (2 counts); (2) identity fraud (2 counts); and (3) conspiracy to commit larceny (I 
count). Judge Driscoll continued each defendant's case without a finding for two years and 



70 



CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE 

placed each defendant on probation for two years to be supervised by the West Roxbury 
District Court Probation Department. Each defendant was also ordered to perform 1 00 hours 
of community service, pay a $60 VictimAVimess Assessment Fee and pay restitution to Cellular 
One in the amount of $3,247, and Radio Shack in the amount of $380. 

A status date has been scheduled by the West Roxbury District Court for January 10, 
2002. At that time, if the defendants have not further violated the law and have met the 
conditions of the continuance, the charges will be dismissed. 

The defendant, Watson, a former Massachusetts Housing Finance Association employee, 
pled guilty to larceny over $250 on December 23, 1 999 before Judge Fremont-Smith in Norfolk 
Superior Court. Judge Fremont-Smith sentenced the defendant to two years in the House of 
Correction, one year to be served and the balance suspended for three years with probationary 
conditions. The terms of the defendant's probation are full restitution to Cellular One in the 
amount of $3,000 and drug counseling as deemed appropriate by the Norfolk Superior Court 
Probation Department. The defendant was also ordered to pay a statutory $60 VictimAVimess 
Assessment Fee. One victrni attended the sentencing and submitted a Victim Impact Statement 
to the court. 

The Bynoe, Cazeau, Hunt and Watson cases involved the theft of the good credit and 
identities of approximately 1 5-20 people, most of whom applied for loans that were insured by 
and otherwise processed by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). The victims 
required guidance as to how to restore their credit histories and assistance with completing 
victim impact statements. The cases are significant because it was the first time the Criminal 
Bureau had sufficient facts to charge identity fraud. While identity fraud is one of the fastest 
growing white-collar crimes in the country, it is often difficult to bring charges in these cases 
because, by definition, we do not always know the name of the target or the jurisdiction 
involved. Identity theft and related fraud have become focal areas of Attorney General Tom 
ReiUy's Public Protection Bureau and the Economic Crimes and High Tech and Computer 
Crimes Divisions of the Criminal Bureau. AAG J. O'Connell. VictimAVitness Advocate Payne 
and Trooper Donoghue worked on this case. 

• Commonwealth v. .lames M. Harrity d/b/a Stepp in g Stones Realty. Inc. (Worcester 
District Court). (Environmental Crimes Strike Force) On October 12, 1999 the defendant pled 
guilty before Judge Eliot Zide in Worcester District Court to the charges of Violation of the 
Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Act and Violation of the Massachusetts Solid Waste Act. 



71 



CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE 

Judge Elliott Zide sentenced the defendant to six months probation. As a condition of 
probation, Stepping Stones Realty, Inc. was ordered to pay for the lawful removal and disposal 
of asbestos containing material buried beneath the basement floor at 3 Crown Street, 
Worcester, Massachusetts (a primary residence) and for the repairs to the basement floor. 
Clean-up and repair of the damaged area in the victim's house took place on November 
29, 1999 under the supervision of Greg Levins, Department of Environmental Protection. This 
case was handled by AAG Talbot, VWA Payne and Environmental Police Officers Moore and 
Levins, with the assistance of the DEP 



NON-CASE HIGHLIGHTS 

In addition to victim/witness services rendered on cases in the Criminal Bureau and throughout the 
Office of the Attorney General, the VictimAVitness Assistance Division also provided ongoing 
consultation to prosecutors, investigators and state troopers by screening and responding to duty 
calls and correspondence on 68 occasions from the public when victim/witness issues were identified. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, the VictimAVitness Assistance Division continued its momentum to build 
a statewide presence and to enhance training and development by attending 27 conferences across 
the Commonwealth relating to the following victim/witness issues: post-conviction victim services; 
the Sex Offender Registry; elder abuse; domestic violence; community crisis; check/credit card 
fraud; witness preparation; preparing for a lengthy trial; three-day Massachusetts Citizens for 
Children Summit; gangs; cybercrime; demonstrative evidence at trials; cross-examination of defense 
experts; motor vehicle homicide; anti-discrimination and sexual harassment; and closing arguments. 

The Director of the Division participated as a presenter in two trainings: ( 1 ) The Victim Rights Law 
(c. 258B), a training for new prosecutors in the Criminal Bureau; and (2) Gang Identification, 
Intervention and Prosecution, victim/witness issues relating to working with gang prosecutions. 

The Director of the Division attends bi-monthly meetings of the Victim and Witness Assistance 
Board which oversees the implementation of victim rights across the Commonwealth. 

The Division attended the Annual Victim Rights Conference in April, 2000 chaired by Attorney 
General Tom Reilly and the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance (MOVA). 



72 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS 

• The Director of the Division is a member of MOVA's State of the State Working Group organized 
to assess the current delivery of victim services in the state. 

• The Director of the Division is also a member of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association's 
Domestic Violence Subgroup and the Boston Area Sexual Assault Coalition, a hospital-based 
forensic network. 

• On a national note, in August, 1999, Kelly Payne represented the Attorney General at the 25th 
Annual National Organization for Victim Assistance Conference and International Summit. Topics 
discussed at the conference included identity theft and fraud, needs of elder crime victims, responding 
to multi-victim crimes, and violence prevention and intervention in schools. 

The Division included the following staff members: Kathleen Morrissey, Director; and Kelly Payne. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

The Special Investigations and Narcotics (SI&N) Division coordinates and prosecutes a variety of 
complex, multi-jurisdictional criminal cases. The division also proactively investigates traditional criminal 
enterprises — including so-called organized crime families and large-scale drug trafficking organizations 
— as well as non-traditional criminal organizations such as local and national street gangs. A priority of the 
division is to identify and prosecute individuals and groups involved in the illegal sale or possession of 
firearms. SI&N prosecutors are also responsible for providing assistance in the drafting of legislation 
pertaining to narcotics, firearms, gangs, and child protection. Division members are encouraged to participate 
in the conception and implementation of community education and outreach programs. 

The SI&N Division, through its Asset Forfeiture Unit, initiates and pursues civil and criminal forfeiture 
and nuisance actions of property related to the sale, distribution, and facilitation of drug related offenses. 
Funds recovered by the Unit are disbursed in accordance with the Commonwealth's forfeiture laws. 

Among the general categories of crimes the SI&N Division investigated and/or prosecuted during 
Fiscal Year 2000 were the following: narcotics trafficking and related offenses, gaming, extortion and 
loansharking, firearms trafficking and related offenses, armed career criminal violations, identity fraud, 
organized larceny rings, arson, counterfeit currency possession, solicitation to commit murder, habitual 
criminal offenders, and a variety of conflict cases from district attorneys' offices across the state. 



73 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS 

Attorneys and State Police Officers assigned to the SI&N Division, as well as investigators assigned 
to the Criminal Bureau, also continue to work with and provide technical, legal, and other forms of 
investigative support and assistance to numerous federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. These 
agencies include the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of hivestigation, the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, United States Customs Service, Internal Revenue Service, United States 
Postal Service, Department of Corrections, district attorneys' offices, court house security personnel and 
various state and local poUce departments and task forces throughout the Commonwealth and in some 
circumstances across the country. These joint undertakings included investigations of major money laundering 
and drug distribution organizations, identification fraud enterprises, and counterfeit currency or check 
producers. 

A significant weapon that the division utilizes to penetrate and dismantie complex illegal enterprises is 
electronic surveillance. Over the past year, troopers assigned to this division have on numerous occasions 
equipped themselves with electronic body wires, pursuant to so-called Blood warrants, to intercept and 
record criminal conversations with unsuspecting targets. Additionally, from July of 1 999 through June of 
2000, the SI&N Division executed forty court-authorized wiretap warrants on eight cellular telephones, 
two paging devices, and one facsimile machine. The warrants autiiorized law enforcement officers to 
intercept, monitor, and record criminal communications occurring over these electronic devices. These 
electronic surveillance measures, coupled with traditional investigative techniques, have proven mvaluable 
in securing the convictions of narcotics and firearms traffickers. Because of their considerable expertise in 
this area, attorneys in the division are frequently recruited to train poUce officers and fellow prosecutors in 
the law of search and seizure and electronic surveillance. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 



From July 1, 1999, tiirough June 30, 2000, State Police assigned to tiie SI&N Division made 
approximately ninety (90) arrests. Prosecutors in the division in turn initiated approximately sixty (60) new 
cases in Massachusetts Superior and District Courts while successfully disposing over fifty (50) pending 
prosecutions in those same courts. Of the number of drug cases initiated by the division, over one-third of 
these involved two controlled substances rapidly growing in popularity among young adults: oxycodone, a 
highly addictive painkiller, and Methylenedioxy-N-Methylamphetamine (MDMA), otherwise known as 
the designer drug ecstasy. The remaining percentage of narcotics cases included the more common sQ-eet 
dmgs such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. The vast majority of these cases involved trafficking quantities 
of these drugs. 



74 



CRIMINAL B UREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS 

From July 1 , 1999, through June 30, 2000, State Police seized twelve (12) guns ranging from .38 
caliber handguns to a "Tec 9" semi-automatic firearm to an easily concealed two-shot Derringer pistol. 
Based upon these seizures and undercover purchases, prosecutors in SI&N charged six individuals with a 
variety of firearms offenses including armed career criminal violations, possession of large capacity weapons, 
and receiving firearms with obliterated serial numbers. 

During this same time period, the Asset Forfeiture Unit successfully concluded several pending civil 
actions that resulted in the forfeiture of a number of vehicles used to facilitate the distribution of drugs, 
including a 1995 Infmiti, a 1988 Mercedes Benz, a 1990 Honda Civic, and a 1996 Harley Davidson 
"Fatboy" motorcycle. Following the completion of a wiretap investigation in 1999, the Asset Forfeiture 
Unit filed in excess of one dozen civil complaints seeking the forfeiture of assets ranging from $250,000 in 
cash to one Sea Ray Power Boat. The Unit also filed forfeiture suits against seven vehicles including a 
1999 CMC Denali. a 1999 Lexus, a 1999 Toyota 4-Runner, a 1998 Dodge Ram Pick Up Truck, a 1997 
Nissan Pathfinder, and more than one Mercedes Benz. 

At any given time, the division generally has in excess of sixty (60) prosecutions pending in various 
courts throughout the Commonwealth, over 1 5 ongoing investigations, and a handftil of post trial motions 
that require written responses and court appearances. 

CASE HIGHLIGHTS 

• Commonwealth v. Keith Van Johnson & Tina Nixon (Springfield Superior Court). In 
June of 2000, Sgt. John Gibbons from the Massachusetts State Police m the Attorney General's 
Springfield Office made three undercover buys of handguns and crack cocaine from two 
individuals named Keith Van Johnson and Tina Nixon. The buys were recorded by body wires 
following the issuance of Blood warrants. The investigation cuhninated in the execution of a 
search warrant at Van Johnson's and Nixon's Springfield residence. That dwelling was 
equipped with counter surveillance video equipment and several Rottweilers. Inside the 
dwelling police found three more firearms: a two-shot Derringer pistol, a shotgun, and a .38 
caliber handgun. The defendants were arrested and charged with Q-afficking in firearms and 
crack cocaine as well as numerous other offenses. These two individuals literally held an entire 
neighborhood hostage widi their illegal activities. On the day of the defendants' arrests, 
residents in the area actually stood outside their homes and applauded investigators. Through 
the efforts of AAG Matthew Shea, Van Johnson and Nixon would later plead guilty in 
Springfield Superior Court to more than 20 indictments, including gun and crack cocaine 
trafficking, school zone violations, possession of firearms with obhterated serial numbers, and 



75 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS 

unlawful storage of firearms. Van Johnson will serve a nine-year mandatory minimum state 
prison sentence, while Nixon will serve no less than four years in jail. 

• United States v. Carlos Bello & Miraldo Lizardo (U.S. District Court, Boston) From 
September 27, 1999 through January 10, 2000, forty wiretap warrants were issued by a 
Massachusetts Superior Coiut judge pursuant to the state wiretap statute. These warrants 
authorized members of the Massachusetts State Police and other law enforcement officers to 
secretly intercept, monitor, and record certain wire communications occurring over a variety of 
electronic devices attributable to an alleged major cocaine dealer and his drug distribution 
network in the Greater Lawrence area. The wiretap investigation was supervised by AAG John 
Grossman and AAG William Bloomer 

In the course of monitoring telephones, investigators learned that an Essex County Deputy 
Sheriff, who was assigned to the warrant apprehension unit, assisted the target of that 
investigation in his cocaine distribution enterprise by advising the target on certain courses of 
conduct, alerting him to the presence of undercover surveillance officers, and attempting to 
gather information from an unwitting police source regarding the existence of any investigation 
into the target for drug distribution. At the conclusion of the wiretap investigation, a federal 
grand jury indicted the target and the deputy sheriff for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. AAG 
William Bloomer, who is also cross-designated as a Special Assistant United States Attorney, is 
heading the prosecution against the defendants in federal court. 

• Commonwealth v. Richard Gaudet & Philip Kortesmacki (Middlesex, Essex, Bristol, 
and Worcester Superior Courts). Starting in 1997, the SI&N Division initiated an 
investigation into a series of breaks into commercial estabUshments across Massachusetts as 
well as in Southern New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The ring, which was 
masterminded by an individual named Richard Gaudet, had committed in excess of forty thefts 
of hi-tech computer equipment and software as well as precious metals valued at over two 
million dollars. These breaks spanned Essex, Middlesex, Bristol, and Worcester counties. In 
October of 1 999, after two years of investigation. State Police assigned to the Attorney 
General's Office arrested Richard Gaudet and an associate in the act of breaking into a 
commercial establishment in Billerica, Massachusetts. Through the combined efforts of 
Assistant Attorneys General Kimberly Brooks and Peter Paulousky, Gaudet would later plead 
guHty in Middlesex Superior Court to over 1 (X) consolidated indictments, including charges of 
larceny, possession of burglarious tools, breaking and entering, and being a common and 
notorious thief. Gaudet was sentenced to a term of five years in state prison with five years 



IG 



CRIMI NAL BUREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS 

supervised probation upon his release from incarceration. He was also ordered to pay 
restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Robert Crowe (Chelsea District Court). Commonwealth v. Anthony 
Comita (Maiden District Court), Commonwealth v. Edward Demars (Maiden District 
Court), Commonwealth v. Paul Kinder (Maiden District Court), Commonwealth v. Richard 
Maynard (Maiden District Court). Commonwealth v. Stephen Mwiion (Maiden District 
Court), Commonwealth v. Richard Pezzulo (Maiden District Court), Commonwealth v. 
Marava Pierro (Maiden District Court). Commonwealth v. Arthur Tkmasi (Maiden District 
Court), Commonwealth v. Deborah Tello (Maiden District Court), Commonwealth v. 
Phillip Watson (Maiden District Court). Commencing in April of 1999, the SI&N Division 
executed court-authorized wiretap warrants on four cellular telephones. Individuals from two 
separate, but related organizations utilized these telephones to further extortion activities and to 
distribute vast quantities of percocet pills, designer "ecstasy" pills, and hundreds of pounds of 
marijuana, in and around the Greater Boston area. At the conclusion of an investigation in June 
of 1999, State Police assigned to the SI&N division executed over twenty search warrants in 
the Greater Boston area. An additional five search warrants were executed in New Hampshire 
and Arizona with the assistance of die respective state and local police departments in those 
states. The participation of law enforcement in this collaborative effort resulted in the seizure of 
the following contraband and assets: approximately 1,000 pounds of marijuana; thousands of 
percocet pills; over 1 ,000 ecstasy pills; several handguns, with at least one bearing obliterated 
serial numbers; hundreds of steroid pills and needles; approximately $250,000.00 in U.S. 
currency; approximately $2,7(X).00 in counterfeit currency; one dozen motor vehicles; and one 
powerboat. 

As a result, seventeen individuals were charged with a variety of offenses including 
trafficking in marijuana and percocets, possession of firearms and ammunition, conspiracy, and 
possession of counterfeit currency. During fiscal year 2000, ten of these individuals pled guilty to 
a variety of drug, firearm and counterfeit currency offenses. Assistant Attorney General Karen 
Wells spearheaded this prosecution. 

• Commonwealth v. Angel Class (West Roxbury District Court). In February of 2000, 
after making several undercover purchases of fake Massachusetts Ucenses from an individual 
named Angel Class, State Police assigned to the Attorney General's Office, witii the assistance 
of Boston Police and the State PoHce Compliance Unit of the Registry of Motor Vehicles, 
executed search warrants at the defendant's residence and a second location in Roslindale. 



77 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS 

During the course of these searches, police discovered specially adapted computer 
equipment with software designed specifically for producing fraudulent identifications. Police 
seized high-end computer systems, scanning devices, printers, a digital camera, and hundreds of 
blank plastic cards that were consistent in appearance with Massachusetts licenses. Class was 
arrested and charged in West Roxbury District Court. AAG Aloke Chakravarty later secured 
guilty pleas from Class, who also agreed to forfeit his computer equipment. 

• Commonwealth v. Arthur Hinnant (Suffolk Superior Civil Session). In this case, North 
Carolina prosecutors sought rendition of Hinnant to answer on three counts of felony 
manslaughter following an automobile collision in which three women were killed and Hinnant 
himself suffered serious head injuries. A rendition order was entered and the defendant 
appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the defendant was entitled to 
a competency hearing to determine whether Hinnant was sufficiently competent to comprehend 
the rendition proceedings and consult with his attorney in connection with these proceedings. 
After protracted litigation, the defendant was found competent and extradited to North Carolina 
to answer on felony manslaughter charges. 

• Commonwealth v. Pablo Cruz (Brockton Superior Court). After a one-week trial, a 
Plymouth County jury convicted the defendant of trafficking in over 200 grams of cocaine. 
Cruz was then sentenced to a mandatory term of 15 years in state prison. This case involved 
two purchases of substantial quantities of cocaine from the defendant by an undercover trooper 
assigned to the Attorney General 's Office. It is indicative of the type of outstanding everyday 
work generated by investigators and prosecutors assigned to the SI&N Division. 

NON-CASE HIGHLIGHTS 



Assistant Attorneys General assigned to SI&N Division continue to provide service and assistance 
both in and out of the Office that exceed the scope of traditional prosecutorial responsibilities. During 
Fiscal Year 20(X), training law enforcement personnel on a variety of topics either through presentations or 
the media was a priority of SI&N. In January of 2000, at the request of the Massachusetts Criminal 
Justice Training Council, AAG Bloomer published an article entitled Search and Seizure: Controlled 
Substance Search Warrants in the Controlled Substance Field Manual (2000 Edition). The publication 
discussed basic principles associated with search warrant preparation in narcotics cases. 

In March and May of 2000, attorneys in SI&N conducted a statewide two-day search and seizure 
training program for police officers sponsored in the fu-st instance by the Massachusetts Criminal Justice 
Training Council in Reading, and in the second instance by the Greenfield Police Department. The training 



78 



CRI MINAL BUREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS 

covered a wide variety of issues ranging from the law of threshold inquiry to the preparation of traditional 
search warrants to the complexities of electronic surveillance. The program proved such a success that 
p)olice agencies have requested supplemental training from SI&N attorneys. 

In November of 1 999, AAG Bloomer conducted a training on Gang Awareness, Prevention and 
Prosecution for attorneys, investigators, and support staff within die Office of the Attorney General. The 
training feattired three seasoned investigators: Sergeant John Gibbons, formerly with the Massachusetts 
State PoUce Gang Unit, and Detectives Phil Conroy and Stephen Beland of the Lowell Police Criminal 
Investigations Division. Attendees were exposed to the realities of gang existence through video tapes and 
photographic slides that depicted gang graffiti and members demonstrating identifying hand signs. The 
audience also had the opportunity to examine actual paraphernalia seized from gangs throughout 
Massachusetts, including make- shift weapons, articles of clothing and jewelry demonsQ-ating different 
"colors", and official documentation belonging to the more prominent national street gangs. 

In January of 2000, AAG Bloomer lectured on Prosecuting Drug and Gang Cases at a training 
program for new prosecutors conducted by the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association. The 
presentation covered the basics of prosecuting drug cases, including a demonstration of a direct examination 
of an expert in narcotics investigations, and dealing with informant issues. 

Attorneys in SI&N are also sttt)ngly encouraged to participate in furthering Attorney General Reilly's 
priorities. To this end several members of the division joined Legislative Subcommittees formed by this 
Office to study the desirability and feasibility of introducing legislation on child protection. For example, 
AAG Eileen O' Brien served as chairperson of the Committee on Juvenile Justice. AAG Aloke Chakravarty 
is a member on both the Child Abuse and Gang Violence Committees, and AAG Bloomer chaired the 
Committee on Gang Violence. 

In addition to performing their traditional duties as prosecutors. Assistant Attorneys General assigned 
to SI&N Division also act as point persons for the office on a variety of topics that require specialized 
knowledge in certain areas of law. For instance. Assistant Attorneys General Peter Paulousky and Karen 
Wells provide advice and assistance to attorneys and police officers across the state in rendition matters. 
In addition, Assistant Attorney General Aloke Chakravarty fields public record inquiries directed to the 
division on matters conceming the Criminal Offender Records Information (CORI) Act Assistant Attorneys 
General Eileen O'Brien and Peter Paulousky also serve as the Division's Intern Coordinators. In that 
capacity, they supervise and monitor the progress of law student interns assigned to SI&N Division. 



79 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ECONOMIC CRIMES 

The Division included the following staff members: William Bloomer, Chief; David Breen; Kimberly 
Brooks; Aloke Chakravarty ; Carole Conley; Joanna Kennefick; Karen Kleiman; Eileen O'Brien; Peter 
Paulousky; and Karen Wells. 



ECONOMIC CRIMES DIVISION 

The Economic Crimes Division investigates and prosecutes all types of private sector, white collar and 
economic crime in state courts across the Commonwealth. The cases handled by the Division vary in size, 
from the $50,000 theft from a single elderly victim, to the multi-million dollar theft from a large corporation. 
The seriousness of the cases prosecuted by the Division demonstrates the crippling impact of economic 
crime. The victims of these crimes take many shapes, from the vulnerable elderly individual, to the small 
business or large corporation. During Fiscal Year 2000, an emphasis was placed on cases involving 
financial crimes against the elderly or which directly or indirectly affected child welfare and protection. 

The Division is charged with stemming the serious and egregious effects of private sector white collar 
crime within the state through pro-active prevention and aggressive prosecution. Goals of the Division 
include indicting and convicting people guilty of stripping their victims of their assets and assisting the pubUc 
and private sectors in creating systemic change to prevent fraud. 

The Economic Crimes Division consists of criminal prosecutors and one legal secretary. The prosecutors 
assigned to the Division have expertise in the following areas of criminal law: ( 1 ) fiduciary embezzlement, 
(2) complex financial organizational frauds, (3) securities violations, and (4) tax offenses. Each of these 
broad areas of financial crimes victimize vulnerable individuals and large corporations. 

The Economic Crimes Division receives referrals from citizens; state and federal agencies; judges; 
attorneys; and local, state and federal law enforcement agencies throughout the Commonwealth. The 
Division's cases are investigated by civilian financial investigators and State Police officers assigned to the 
Criminal Bureau of the Attorney General's Office, and the Bureau's victim/witness advocates provide 
critical support to victims. 

The Division maintains close working relationships with a number of state and federal agencies including 
the Board of Bar Overseers (BBO), the Client Security Board (CSB), the Criminal Investigations Bureau 
of the Department of Revenue (CIB of DOR), the FDIC, the Secretary of the Commonwealth (SOS), the 
United States Attorney's Office (USAO), and district attorneys' offices across the state. 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ECONOMIC CRIMES 

The Division's cases tend to be difficult, complex white collar cases that involve the analysis and 
review of prolific documentation, tracing an economic crime by exposing the "paper trail" of evidence left 
by the white collar criminal. In order to conduct a thorough investigation of an economic fraud, extensive 
interviews and testimony must be obtained from people involved in, or affected by the theft. In addition, 
many cases require the use of an expert witness to evaluate the perpetrator's handwriting, the financial 
formula he employed, or the mental state which enabled him to perpetrate his crime. Most of the Division's 
cases fall within six specific categories of white collar crime: Organizational Fraud, Fiduciary Fraud, 
Investment/Securities Fraud, Health Care Fraud, Identity Fraud and Tax Fraud. 

Organizational fraud refers to crimes committed by an employee, agent, representative or contractor 
of an organization. The victim of these schemes is the organization, whether it be a pubhc, private, profit, 
or non-profit organization or business. Most often, the organization is a corporation. The crimes most 
commonly involved in these cases are larceny or embezzlement, false entry in corporate books, forgery 
and uttering, and identity fraud. The fraudulent conduct frequently appears in the form of a false billing 
scheme where the perpetrator uses his or her access to a payroll system or to the corporate payment 
documents, such as purchase orders, to cause payments for services not provided or to create unauthorized 
checks for his or her own personal use. 

Fiduciary fraud refers to crimes committed by individuals in positions of trust, such as attorneys, 
trustees, executors and guardians. Typically, the victims in these cases either entrusted their assets to the 
fiduciary or were the beneficiaries of trusts or estates handled by the fiduciary. The crimes most often 
involved in these cases are larceny, embezzlement, forgery, uttering and perjury. These crimes are especially 
egregious because the perpetrator will often be a fiiend of the family or someone who has had a relationship 
with the victim for many years. 

Investment and securitie fraud cases involve crimes committed by individuals serving as financial advisers 
and organizations set up as fraudulent investment houses. The victims in these cases are individuals who 
have handed over money to the financial advisers based on the understanding that the money will be 
invested on their behalf. This type of financial fraud often involves a ponzie scheme where the perpetrator 
returns just enough money to his victims to persuade them that their investments are profitable, all the while 
depleting the majority of the equity for his own use. The fraudulent investment house conspirators accomplish 
their thefts by persuading the victims that they can be trained to make money through securities trading, all 
the while engaging the victim in a fixed market. This scheme also uses its victims to lure in others, such as 
friends and associates, by requiring them to recruit other investors, much like a pyramid scheme. The 
crimes charged in these cases include larceny, embezzlement, securities fraud, false statement of corporate 
assets, conspiracy, forgery and uttering. 



81 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ECONOMIC CRIMES 

Health care fraud cases involve crimes committed by individuals working on behalf of health and 
science foundations or health care providers who, through their position of authority, are able to convert 
monies for their own use. The perpetrator of these crimes generally is an individual in a position of high 
authority in the organization, such as a department chief, a member of the board of trustees or chairman of 
a foundation. The schemes include converting institutions' fiinds through false billing schemes, embezzling 
funds received for research purposes, or converting premiums paid for insurance coverage. The victims in 
these matters are the institutions and service providers such as physicians. 

Identity fraud refers to crimes where the initial object of theft is the identity of the victim — their name, 
credit card number, social security number, bank account number, cell phone number or date of birth. 
Once the identity is usurped, it then becomes the instmment through which money is stolen or other crimes 
are committed. 

Many of the tax fraud cases are referred to the Office of the Attorney General by the Criminal 
Investigations Bureau of the Department of Revenue, and investigators of that agency actively assist in the 
investigations and prosecutions. Tax fraud cases generally focus on the failure to file tax rettims or pay 
taxes, and filing false returns. 

While these categories of cases overlap in a number of ways, they are distinguishable by the position of 
the perpetrator within the criminal scheme, the type of victim and/or the manner in which the fraud is 
perpetrated. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2000, the Economic Crimes Division commenced 34 criminal investigations, brought 
49 indictments, and obtained convictions against 22 white collar criminals and corporations. 

The table below shows a breakdown of the 49 indictments returned by grand juries during Fiscal Year 
2000. 

CRIME COURT # OF INDICTMENTS 



Attempted Larceny 


Suffolk Superior 


2 


Bribery 


Suffolk Superior 


2 


Concealing Stolen Property 


Suffolk Superior 


2 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 



ECONOMIC CRIMES 



Conspiracy 


Suffolk Superior 


5 


Conspiracy to Commit Larceny 


Suffolk Superior 


2 


Embezzlement by a 
Treasury Employee 


Suffolk Superior 


3 


False Pretense 


Essex Superior 


1 


Forgery 


Middlesex Superior 


3 


Forgery 


Suffolk Superior 


2 


Identity Fraud 


Middlesex Superior 


1 


Larceny 


Barnstable Superior 
Essex Superior 

Middlesex Superior 
Suffolk Superior 

Worcester Superior 


1 
3 
3 
5 
2 


Receiving Stolen Property 


Suffolk Superior 


1 


Securities Fraud 


Middlesex Superior 


1 


Solicitation 


Suffolk Superior 


1 


Tax 


Boston Municipal 

Middlesex Superior 

Suffolk Superior 


2 
1 
-2 


Uttering 


Essex Superior 
Suffolk Superior 


2 

1 


Uttering Forged Documents 


Essex Superior 


1 



83 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 



ECONOMIC CRIMES 



The table below shows a breakdown of the convictions obtained by the Economic Crimes Division 
during Fiscal Year 2000. 



CASE DISPOSITIONS 


COURT 


TOTAL CASES 


Conspiracy to Commit Larceny 


Suffolk Superior 


1 


Embezzlement 


Suffolk Superior 


1 


Embezzlement/Perjury 


Suffolk Superior 


1 


Forgery 


Suffolk Superior 


2 


Larceny 


Bristol Superior 

Norfolk/Brockton Superior 

Suffolk Superior 


2 
1 
5 


Receiving Stolen Property 


Suffolk Superior 


1 


Securities Fraud 


Norfolk/Brockton Superior 


1 


Tax 


Boston Municipal 
Suffolk Superior 


1 
12 


Unregistered Broker/Dealer 


Bristol Superior 
Norfolk/Brockton Superior 


1 
1 


Uttering 


Bristol Superior 
Norfolk/Brockton Superior 


1 

1 



CASE HIGHLIGHTS 

• Commonwealth v. Jack Trischitta. Robert E. Foley. Scot Butcher. Thomas 
Ciliberto. Martin Robbins. Richard C. Arrighi. Ronald A. Borino (Suffolk Superior 
Court). On September 28, 1999, a Special Suffolk County Grand Jury returned 30 indictments 
against seven people alleging eight different criminal schemes involving thefts from the 



84 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ECONOMIC CRIMES 

Treasurer's Office between May of 1992 and February of 1998. The total amount of money 
stolen as a result of these alleged schemes was approximately $9.4 million dollars. This was the 
largest theft of state funds in the history of the Commonwealth. The majority of the eight 
schemes involved thefts from the Treasury's Unpaid Check Fund (UPCF) through the filing of 
phoney heirfmder claims, or through alleged kickback arrangements involving employees of the 
Treasurer's Office and outside individuals operating as heirfmders. Money also was stolen from 
the Teller's Cage or vault area of the Treasurer's Office located at One Ashburton Place in 
Boston. 

Three of the defendants in this case were high-level employees of the Treasury at the time of 
their alleged thefts. Robert Foley was hired by the State Treasurer as Director of Cash 
Management in 1 99 1 . Shortly after he was hired, he made John Trischitta solely responsible for 
handling all of the daily activity of the UPCF. Foley and Trischitta were indicted for stealing 
from the UPCF. A third person, Scot Butcher, was indicted for stealing from the Tellers Cage 
area of the Treasury while he was employed by the Treasury in a supervisory. 

Indictments returned by the grand jury also alleged that Foley and Trischitta entered into 
unlawful agreements with heirfmders whereby they received a percentage of the income 
received by the heirfmders as a result of claims filed with the Treasurer's Office. 

• Commonwealth v. Frank Ardag na (Suffolk Superior Court). Between August 27,1997 
and December 3 1 , 1 998, the defendant, Frank Ardagna was alleged to have stolen a total of 
$60,935.17 from the Vietnam Veterans Workshop, Inc., d.b.a. The New England Shelter 
for Homeless Veterans, where he was employed in the position of Chief Financial Officer. The 
Shelter is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to help rehabihtate and reintegrate veterans 
who are homeless, unemployed or underemployed by providing support services including 
housing, counseling, vocational training, living skills and health-related programs. Funding for the 
Shelter comes from government agencies and private sources including foundations, 
corporations and individual donors. The shelter also accepts in-kind contributions such as food, 
clothing and furniture. The alleged thefts by the defendant involved three separate schemes in 
which he negotiated unauthorized checks or made fraudulent withdrawals from the corporate 
account, and fraudulently leased a car for his own personal use. The February 2000 sitting of 
the Suffolk County Grand Jury indicted the defendant on charges of larceny over $250 (3 
counts) and forgery (two counts). 



85 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ECONOMIC CRIMES 

• Commonwealth v. Vincent Stolo (Middlesex Superior Court). The defendant was 
charged in thirteen indictments with Larceny Over $250 (5 counts), False Entry In Corporate 
Books (5 counts), Fraudulent Use of a Corporate Credit Card (2 counts), and Making a False 
Report to a Police Officer ( 1 count), in connection with his alleged larceny and embezzlement of 
over $1,400,000 from his former employer, Fieldwork Boston, Inc., during his employment as 
the President of the Boston based company. 

The evidence demonstrated that the defendant committed those thefts through seven 
different schemes involving writing unauthorized corporate checks to himself, making corporate 
checks payable to his corporate credit card for unauthorized expenses, obtaining credit at 
casinos around the country for his own personal use and gambling debt, and stealing cash. The 
investigation also uncovered that Stolo made a false police report to the Waltham Police 
Department alleging that $ 10,000 of company money had been stolen from the office, knowing 
full well that he had taken the money himself. 

• Commonwealth v. Dermot O'Brien (Suffolk Superior Court). The defendant was 
indicted for stealing over $250,0(X) from a non-profit charitable organization, Morgan Memorial 
Goodwill Industries, while operating as a Payroll Specialist, and then using the money to pay off 
his gambling debt. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to house arrest for the first 6 
months of his 3 year term of probation. He also was ordered to pay restitution to the victims, 
complete 25(X) hours of community service, and submit to counseling for gambling and alcohol 
abuse. 

• Commonwealth v. Walter Palmer (Suffolk Superior Court). The Defendant, Walter 
Palmer, a disbarred attorney, allegedly stole a total of over $1.8 million dollars from six clients 
who had entrusted him with their life savmgs. The aUeged victims were elderly individuals who 
entrusted their money to Palmer in his capacity as an attorney, guardian, trustee and/or an 
executor. Following a jury trial that lasted several weeks in Suffolk Superior Court, the 
defendant was convicted of being a Common & Notorious Thief under G.L. c. 266, section 40, 
and sentenced to state prison for 1 6 to 1 8 years. 

• Commonwealth v. Sean Murphy (Essex & Middlesex Superior Courts). The defendant, 
Sean Murphy, is a disbarred North Shore attorney who allegedly embezzled clients' funds 
before and after being temporarily suspended from the practice of law. Sean Murphy, who 
specialized in bankruptcy cases, was indicted for stealing from ten people, nine of whom were 



86 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ECONOMIC CRIMES 

clients. The amounts stolen were quite significant given the financial straits of the victims. Two 
victims lost their homes to foreclosure, and the Commonwealth alleges that Murphy's thefts 
were either the direct cause or a substantial contributing factor to these losses. 

The defendant is further alleged to have lied to a mortgage lender so that he could buy a 
half-million dollar home far beyond his own means, and then to have stolen funds entrusted to 
him by his clients to make payments on and furnish that home. 

• Commonwealth v. Charles Christy (Worcester Superior Court). The defendant is a 
disbarred attorney who embezzled $ 1 00,000 which he was supposed to hold in escrow for a 
client 

• Commonwealth v. Douglas Schwartz (Essex Superior Court). This matter involved a 
registered representative of Royal Alliance, acting as a broker/dealer for the firm, who is alleged 
to have stolen joint owner interests in corporate stock by forging securities documents, 
exceeded the scope of his trading license, and inappropriately influenced an elderly woman to 
sell approximately $ 150,000 in securities. The proceeds of the stock sale were allegedly used 
to fund a fraudulent 20 year mortgage loan to the defendant's wife. 

• Commonwealth v. Leo BumsH'homas J. Rlbag a (Plymouth Superior Court). Co- 
defendants Bums and Ribaga, who ran a financial services business called Pilgrim Financial 
Group, Inc., are alleged to have solicited funds from mostly elderly clients, purportedly to invest 
them, and instead used the money to defray business and personal expenses totaling well over 
$560,000. 

• Commonwealth v. Jeffrey Gruber (Norfolk & Brockton Superior Courts). Jeffrey 
Gruber pleaded guilty on February 21,1 997, to several counts of larceny, forgery, and uttering 
for activities dating back to 1990-1992. In this case, the defendant was sentenced to a forty 
month term in the House of Corrections and ordered to pay approximately $ 194,000.00 in 
restitution. While these charges were pending, the defendant was again indicted for crimes 
committed against four of his former clients. The defendant, as the sole operator of Gruber 
Financial Services, was alleged to have stolen over $350,000 which had been entrusted to him 
by the four victims. Several of the victims were elderly and the money which the defendant stole 
from them represented their life savings. 

In this case, the defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 5 years probation and 
ordered to pay full restitution including paying $200,000 within six months. The defendant also 



87 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ECONOMIC CRIMES 

was ordered to have no contact with the four victims and prohibited from working as a financial 
advisor or securities broker. 

• Commonwealth v. Bernardo Nadal-Ginard (Suffolk Superior Court). Dr. Nadal-Ginard 
was the Chief of Cardiology at Boston Children's Hospital, the President of the non-profit 
corporation known as the Boston Children's Heart Foundation, a tenured professor at Harvard 
Medical School and a Howard Hughes Investigator. In his various positions of authority. Dr. 
Nadal-Ginard was entrusted with hundreds of thousands of dollars to be used for the research 
and treatment of children with heart disease and defects. At the conclusion of a month- long jury 
trial in Suffolk Superior Court, Dr. Nadal-Ginard was convicted of twelve counts of larceny and 
adjudicated a Common & Notorious Thief. The defendant was sentenced to a year in the 
House of Correction with three years of probation and was ordered to complete two full years 
of community service, working full-time for free, and to pay full restitution to the foundation. 

• Commonwealth v. Kerrin Alfonso (Suffolk & Norfolk Superior Courts). The defendant 
in this case, Kerrin Alfonso, was indicted for using the identities of family members, friends, 
former employers and acquaintances to create counterfeit checks and to open fraudulent credit 
accounts. Between October 30, 1998and January 8, 1999 the defendant stole $195 ,029. 3 9 
using three separate schemes all of which involved the use of identity fraud. The first scheme 
involved the theft and negotiation of corporate checks belonging to her former employer. A 
second scheme involved the fraudulent use of credit cards obtained in the names of others 
whom she impersonated. The third scheme involved the fraudulent leasing of 3 luxury 
automobiles by impersonating others. 

• Commonwealth v. China Wok/Shin Wong (Suffolk Superior Court). China Wok was 
indicted for substantially understating its sales to the Department of Revenue and concealing the 
fraud by making up a false set of register tapes which were presented to the taxing authorities 
upon a visit to the restaurant. The Commonwealth's investigation indicated that sales were 
understated by $450,000 on the restaurant books, resulting in a $22,500 underpayment of 
taxes. 

• Commonwealth v. Arnold Brandyberry (Suffolk Superior Court). As the President and 
CEO of Berkshire Paper Company in Western Massachusetts, the defendant failed to file non- 
resident income tax returns from 1993 through 1996. During this period of time he earned 
between $ 1 45 ,000 and $ 1 90,000 in salary which he failed to report as Massachusetts income. 
The defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to 1 year of probation and a $ 1 0,000 fine. 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ECONOMIC CRIMES 

• Commonwealth v. Neil McCrystal/Jose Silva (Bristol Superior Court). The defendant 
was a property manager for the Hamilton Company, who allegedly stole approximately 
$ 104,000 by ( 1 ) creating a fictitious company and approving payment by Hamilton clients of the 
invoices for work never performed or for work actually performed by employees on the 
company payroll, and (2) stealing various checks payable to Hamilton clients and depositing 
them directly to his personal bank account. The defendant pleaded guilty to failing to report the 
stolen money as income and was sentenced to 10 years of probation with special conditions. 
The special conditions of probation dictated that the defendant make restitution, file accurate 
amended tax returns and cooperate with DOR assessment and collection efforts, and continue 
psychological and alcohol abuse treatment. 



NON-CASE HIGHLIGHTS 



AAG Carol Starkey was appointed to the Mass Bar Association's Criminal Justice - Section 
Council as a Council Member for 1999/2000, and to the Boston Bar Association's Criminal Law 
Section Steering Committee for 2000. 

Television Guest on the Boston community cable television show entitled, "Legal Lines, " in October, 
1999. 

Speaker for The Attorney General's Office Trial Training Program on the topic of "Pretrial 
Discovery, " held at The Attorney General's Office on November 16, 1999. 

Speaker at Harvard Law School for the course entitled, "The Government Lawyer, " on the 
topic of "State Investigative Powers: White Collar Crime & High Tech Crime, " on November 
22, 1999. 

Panelist Speaker for The New England School of Law Symposium entitled, "Crimes for Economic 
Gain in the New Millennium, " held at New England Law School on February 7, 2000. 

The ECD has developed a cooperative relationship with the Office of Bar Counsel and the Client 
Security Board (CSB). To enhance communication, a financial investigator from the Criminal 
Bureau meets each month with the Bar Counsel's lead investigator and the Security Board's General 
Counsel. Purposes of these meetings include sharing information about pending investigation of 
attorney misconduct and the possibility of jointly-conducted community education initiatives directed 



89 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE 

at prevention of attorney embezzlement and fraud, updated information on indicted cases, and (3) 
the ECD attorneys now notify the CSB of sentencing dates, so that the CSB may appearand 
address questions of restitution. 

• AAGs Kevin Brekka and Mary Ruppert were involved in drafting and reviewing proposed 
legislation that affects the investigation and prosecution of economic crime. Two such legislative 
proposals dealt with electronic signatures and money laundering. 

• AAG Carol Starkey has been meeting with these two industry associations for the purpose of 
developing an Organized Theft Task Force. The purpose of the task force would be to bring 
industry and the law enforcement community together to address the growing and significant issue 
of organized retail theft through education, proposed legislation, and enforcement activity. The 
Task Force has met regularly since its inception and has set proposed goals for each of these three 
enumerated focus areas. 

• AAG Molly Parks submitted a detailed written brief responding to proposals by a committee 
appointed by the Supreme Judicial Court to changes to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

The Division includes the following staff members: Carol Starkey, Chief; Olivia Blanchette; Kevin 
Brekka; Sarah Hartry; James Mcfadden; Philip Mcgovem; Mark Mulligan; Patrick Ormond; Margaret 
Parks; Stephen Prunier; and Mary Ruppert. 



ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE 

The Massachusetts Environmental Crimes Strike Force (ECSF) is a unique interagency 
enforcement tool used in the investigation and prosecution of violations of the Commonwealth's environmental 
laws. Through the cooperation of the Attorney General, Uie Secretary of Environmental Affairs, the 
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental 
Law Enforcement and the Massachusetts State Police, the ECSF brings attorney, technical and police 
resources under a single umbrella. The ECSF provides the legal, scientific and investigative expertise 
necessary to identiily environmental violations, evaluate their impact on public safety and the environment, 
and develop the evidence necessary to prosecute the environmental crimes. The types of cases prosecuted 
by the ECSF include illegal treatment and disposal of hazardous waste, failure to notify of hazardous 
material releases, air pollution cases resulting from burning of wastes and illegal removal of asbestos, illegal 
dumping, abandoned drums, tire piles, etc. 



90 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE 

The staff of the ECSF Division is composed of three prosecutors, one secretary, four environmental 
pohce officers from the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement and a State 
Police Officer. DEP scientists working out of the DEP's Boston office, as well as its four regional offices 
located in Wilmington, Worcester, Springfield and Lakeville, make up the ECSF technical staff. These 
scientists span the gamut of environmental specialties and programs (e.g., air, water wetlands). 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 



Between July 1 999 and June 2000, the ECSF received 50 complaints of environmental crimes. Most 
of these referrals originated from the DEP. Other referrals came from Environmental Police in the field, 
local police departments, boards of health and conservation commissions. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, four defendants were charged with environmental crimes in Superior Court: 

• Efrain Ayala (Clean Air Act/Asbestos) 

• Modem Aluminum Anodizing (Illegal Treatment/Disposal of Hazardous Waste) 

• Antonio Bairos (Clean Air Act/Asbestos) 

• Sanders Corbitt (Forgery of 2 1 E Reports). 

During Fiscal Year 2000, there were seven defendants charged in district courts with environmental 
crimes: 

• Holland Company (Failure to Notify Hazardous Material Release/Sulfuric Acid); 

• Craig Sigel (Pesticide Regulations ) 

• Derek Cavanaugh (Clean Air Act/Asbestos) 

• McCoy Stevens (Clean Air Act/Asbestos) 

• Dr. Elias Dow (Disposal of Infectious Waste) 

• James Jordan (Clean Air Act/Asbestos) 

• Stepping Stone Realty (Clean Air Act/Asbestos). 

During Fiscal Year 2000, five cases were disposed of in district court (Craig Sigel; Derek Cavanaugh; 
McCoy Stevens, Holland Company and Stepping Stone Realty) and three cases were disposed of in 
Superior Court (General Electric, Schott Fiber Optics and Elite Chemical Co.). 

During Fiscal Year 2000, dispositions of cases prosecuted by the Environmental Crimes Strike Force 
resulted in civil and criminal fines, penalties and restitution in excess of two million dollars. 



91 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE 

CASE HIGHLIGHTS 

• General Electric (Suffolk Superior Court - Civil). This case involved allegations that 
General Electric failed to comply with environmental reporting requirements relating to 
properties that received fill containing PCBs. This case was resolved by the entry of a consent 
judgment. Under the judgement, the defendant agreed to create a $ 1 miUion fund establishing 
the Berkshire Environmental Fund to issue grants for environmental sampling, education and 
community improvements for the benefit of communities in Pittsfield and Berkshire County. The 
fund will be administered by appointees of the Mayor of Pittsfield, the Attorney General's Office 
and the State Department of Environmental Protection. GE also agreed to pay $50,000 to the 
state Envnonmental Law Enforcement Fund and to pay a civU penalty of $200,000. 

• Schott Fiber Optics (Suffolk Superior Court - Civil). This case involved allegations that 
Schott Fiber Optics did not follow state regulations in disposing of broken glass fibers and glass 
particles that contained lead and cadmium. In the settlement reached between Schott Fiber 
Optics, the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Environmental Affairs, Schott 
Fiber Optics agreed to pay $150,000 to the state and $50,000 to the town. This case was 
handled by AAG Martin Levin. 

• Elite Chemical Company (Suffolk Superior Court - Civil). In this case, a civil complaint 
filed by the ECSF alleged that EUte Chemical Company, which manufactures bleach and other 
chemical products for consumer use, twice during its bleach manufacturing process discharged 
approximately 50 gallons each of acid and caustic waste to the sewer. Ehte's unpermitted 
wastes caused corrosion of a sewer manhole and oil water separator, installed by Elite as part 
of its connection to the Springfield sewer system. While operating at its Springfield plant, Elite 
did not have a wastewater discharge permit for its acid and caustic waste, and did not neutralize 
the waste before discharging it to the sewer system. The Springfield wastewater treatment 
facihty that received Ehte's wastewater was not equipped to treat acid and caustic waste before 
discharging it to the Connecticut River. 

Under the final terms of a settlement. Elite agreed to comply with state environmental laws 
and to pay $425,000 in penalties and an additional $ 11 0,000 to fund a watershed protection 
plan for the Connecticut River Basin. 

• Commonwealth v. The Holland Company (North Adams District Court). This case 
involved allegations that this Adams company failed to notify state officials about a spill of more 



92 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION 

than 50 pounds of sulfuric acid. The spill occurred in May 1 994 during the transfer of sulfuric 
acid from a railroad car. The defendant pled guilty in District Court and received a $20,000 fine. 

• Commonwealth v. Derek Cavanaug h (Salem District Court). This case involved 
allegations that the defendant illegally removed and disposed of asbestos. The defendant pled 
guilty in district court and received a $ 1 0,000 fine. 

• Commonwealth v. Stepp in g Stone Realty Inc. (Worcester District Court). This 
Southbridge real estate company was charged with violations of the Clean Air Act and SoUd 
Waste Act as a result of illegally burying asbestos-contaminated soil. The defendant pled guilty 
in district court and was placed on probation for six months and ordered to pay $ 12,500 in 
restitution. 

NON-CASE HIGHLIGHTS 



Duiing Fiscal Year 2000, Assistant Attorney General Martin Levin, Chief of the ECSF, participated in 
a Boston Bar Association panel regarding General Electric and 2 IE issues and attended the Northeast 
Environmental Enforcement Project conference. He also participated in the selection process of a new 
DEP Strike Force Director. 

Assistant Attorney General Pamela Talbot represented the ECSF in meetings of the Multi- Agency 
Task Force on Schools, whose major undertaking during Fiscal Year 2000 was the preparation of and 
participation in the Waltham Public Schools Environmental Management Systems event in which Attorney 
General Tom Reilly was an active participant. 

The Division included the following staff members: Martin Levin, Chief; Laura Dicenso; Michael Dingle; 
Pamela Talbot; and Brenda Toland. 



FINANCL\L INVESTIGATION DIVISION 

The Financial Investigation Division provides the Criminal Bureau with eight experienced civilian 
investigative professionals who investigate and assist in the prosecution of white-collar criminal cases. The 
crimes investigated by the division include larceny, public cormption, campaign finance violations, securities 
ftaud, tax fraud and all other white collar frauds which are referred to the Division. The investigators bring 



93 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION 

to the Division many years of experience from investigating cases in local, state and federal government as 
well as private sector venues. 

Investigators assigned to the Financial Investigation Division work as part of the Bureau's team approach 
to criminal investigative work. Division members become involved in matters at the start of investigation 
and work closely with Criminal Bureau prosecutors and also Massachusetts State Pohce assigned to the 
Bureau's Criminal Investigation Division during the course of each investigation. 

Investigators may also be asked to work on a case by case basis with investigative or audit personnel 
from referring agencies such as the Securities Division of the Secretary of State's Office (SOS), Board of 
Bar Overseers (BBO), Criminal Investigations Bureau of the Department of Revenue (CIB), and the 
Office of the State Auditor (OS A). 

As part of the investigation and prosecution team. Division investigators assist in the design and 
implementation of an investigative plan for each investigation. The planning requires that each member of 
the division understand the nature of the allegation, elements of the crime and evidence required to prove 
the matter at trial. 

Criminal Bureau investigations require Division investigators to perform extensive examination and 
analysis of business, personal and financial records to document the illegal activities of the white collar 
criminal. Additionally, Division investigators conduct interviews of victims, witnesses and targets, and 
provide summary witness testimony before special grand juries and in trial settings. 

Further, utilizing modem computerized technology, investigators are able to scan a wide array of 
informational databases as well as the Intemet to track and profile potential subjects of criminal investigations. 

The majority of the Division's investigative assignments come from tlie Bureau's Economic Crimes 
Division. The Division works closely with the Economic Crimes Division Chief during the screening process 
and then with the assigned AAG when a matter has been accepted for formal investigation. 

Another source of investigative assignments for the Division is from the Public Integrity Division. Our 
primary involvement in PubUc Integrity Division matters is in the screening and investigation of matters 
referred from the Office of the State Auditor 

With the Fiscal Year 2000 expansion of the Bureau's High-Tech and Computer Crimes Division 
(HT&CC) the Division received an increasing number of investigative requests from the HT&CC Chief 



94 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION 

During Fiscal Year 2000 the Division also committed investigative resources to the Special Investigations 
& Narcotics Division and to the Bureau's investigative efforts of the Central Artery Third Harbor Tunnel 
Project. The Division has also performed investigative assignments for the Bureau's Environmental Crimes 
Strike Force and the Appellate Division. 

This fiscal year, the Division was comprised of three Certified Fraud Examiners, one Certified Public 
Accountant and four investigators with backgrounds from the banking industry, insurance industry, a private 
investigative firm and the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office. 

CASE HIGHLIGHTS 

Treasury Investigation rEconomic Crimes Division) During this fiscal year approximately one- 
third of the Division's investigative resources were devoted to assisting in the investigation of this matter 
which involved investigating the theft of approximately $9,500,000 from the Treasury of the Commonwealth. 
The investigation of this matter resulted in the indictments of seven individuals in September 1999. 

Following are a list of some of the other matters investigated by Division members during the fiscal year 
which resulted in indictments. As with the previously referenced matter, the division requesting Financial 
Investigation Division involvement is listed parenthetically and more specific information about each of 
these matters can be found by referring to that division's section in the Bureau's report. 

• Commonwealth v. Douglas Schwartz (Economic Crimes Division) 

• Commonwealth v. Pamela Lewis (Public Integrity Division) 

• Commonwealth v. Frank Ardagna (Economic Crimes Division) 

• Commonwealth v. Charles Christy (Economic Crimes Division) 

• Commonwealth v. Kerrin Alphonso (Economic Crimes Division ) 

• Commonwealth v. Vincent Stolo (Economic Crimes Division) 

• Commonwealth v. Leo Bums (Economic Crimes Division) 



NON-CASE HIGHLIGHTS 

In addition to our investigative tasks, the Division also performs many administi-ative duties for the 
Bureau with respect to Bureau cars, seized evidence and the spending of forfeited funds. We are responsible 
for the assignment, maintenance and reporting on the usage of all Bureau cars; the Division maintains a log 



95 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION 

of all money seized by the State Police in association with any arrest; and seized money is kept in safety 
deposit boxes and the contents are inventoried on a quarterly basis by Division staff. Additionally, we 
prepare an accounting of all forfeited funds of the Special Investigations & Narcotics Division wiiich are 
disbursed in accordance with the Commonwealth's forfeiture laws. 

OUTREACH 



The staff of the Division is an integral part of the Bureau's outreach to referral agencies. We maintain 
contact with the Chief Investigator at CIB and the BBO's Senior Financial Investigator to update them 
monthly on the status of all referrals from their respective agencies to the Bureau. CIB and BBO cases are 
referred through the Economic Crimes Division. Our outreach efforts are designed to complement those 
of the Chief of the Economic Crimes Division. 

TRAINING 



Division members have prepared and taught training sessions to their colleagues through office- wide 
training programs, personnel from outside referral agencies and also to groups such as. The Arson 
Investigators Association, Massachusetts Society of Certified Public Accountants, The Southeastern 
Massachusetts Fraud Investigators Association, Suffolk University, The Check Fraud Clearinghouse 
and local school districts. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, presentations included: 

• How to Perform Title Searches of Registered and Recorded Land, and Review Probate Court 
Records 

• Interview and Report Writing Techniques 

• Financial Investigative Techniques 

• Investigative Resources for the Financial Investigator 



96 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION 



INTERN PROGRAM 



The Division's intern program seeks to provide a valuable one semester training experience for interested 
students who have a background in accounting, finance, business law or criminal justice. Through the 
efforts of our intern coordinator, the Division has been provided with a steady stream of talented interns 
from Boston area schools. 

The Division included the following staff members: Paul Stewart, Director; David Baker; William 
Fmgoli; Brendan Kelleher; Jim McFadden; Jon Murphy; Sally Ann Nelligan; and Mary Phillips . 



97 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 



Administrative Law Division 

Trial Division 

Environmental Protection Division 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 



Government Bureau 



The Government Bureau provides representation for the Commonwealth and its agencies and officials 
in all types of civil litigation, and for employees of the Commonwealth with respect to certain civil claims 
made against them resulting from the performance of their duties. The Bureau also provides general advice 
and consultation to officials with respect to legal issues arising in connection with their official functions, 
particularly in instances where such advance consultation may serve to prevent unnecessary htigation. The 
Bureau in Fiscal Year 2000 continued its efforts to develop and maintain close working relationships with 
agency counsel and to provide them with information and advice on matters of broad common interest. 
Meetings with all agency general counsel were held in December of 1999 and June of 2000. 

The Government Bureau consists of die Administrative Law Division, the Trial Division, and the 
Environmental Protection Division. During Fiscal Year 2000, several attorneys were assigned permanentiy 
to work in both the Administrative Law and Trial Divisions, and a sampling of cases from each division was 
assigned to attorneys in the other, so as to broaden the exposure of the attorneys to the full range of cases 
the divisions handle. In addition, a number of particularly complex and significant cases were handled by 
teams assigned to multiple divisions. All tiiree divisions initiate affirmative litigation on behalf of state 
agencies and the Commonwealth and submit briefs amicus curiae in cases presenting issues of law affecting 
the Commonwealth's interests. 

The Administrative Law Division defends suits concerning the legality of governmental operations, 
particularly those seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. The division is also responsible for tiie legal 
review of all newly enacted town by-laws; the preparation of legal opinions for constitutional officers, 
heads of agencies, and certain other officials concerning issues arising from the performance of their official 
duties; and the review of proposed statewide initiative and referendum questions under amendment article 
48 of the Massachusetts Constitution to determine whether such questions are of the type that may lawfully 
appear on the ballot. 

The Trial Division defends suits seeking damages or other relief for alleged wrongful acts of government 
officials or employees, particularly contract-related disputes, real estate matters, torts, civil rights violations, 
employment disputes and environmental damage claims. The Trial Division also reviews certain contracts, 
leases, bonds and various conveyancing documents submitted by state agencies for approval as to form. 

The Environmental Protection Division represents the Commonwealth's environmental agencies in 
affirmative litigation to enforce environmental laws and in defensive litigation challenging those agencies' 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 



regulatory and enforcement activities. The Environmental Protection Division also plays a key role under 
the Clean State Initiative to ensure that the Commonwealth's own agencies abide by state and federal 
environmental laws, and in doing so the Division may bring enforcement actions against those agencies 
where the Attorney General, in his enforcement discretion, deems such action necessary. 

The Government Bureau included the following staff members: Alice Moore, Chief; R. David Beck; 
Peter Sacks; Ernest Sarason; and Dawn Valchuis. 



AFFIRMATIVE LITIGATION 

In addition to afFirmative litigation undertaken by the Environmental Protection Division, which is 
separately described below, both the Administrative Law Division and the Trial Division initiate affirmative 
litigation on behalf of the Commonwealth, when such litigation is in the public interest, furthers Attorney 
General ReUly 's priorities, and has a significantly high monetary value or raises legal or policy issues of 
concern to the public and the Commonwealth. The Government Bureau maintained an active docket of 
affirmative htigation in Fiscal Year 2000 to protect the public interest and the interests of its state agency 



• Commonwealth v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care This case was filed in the Supreme 
Judicial Court to enforce a Massachusetts law requiring every Health Maintenance Organization 
(HMO) in the Commonwealth to provide free prescription services to any member who is 
enrolled under a Medicare plan, thereby providing valuable financial and medical assistance to 
thousands of Bay State seniors. The Attorney General filed the suit in response to federal 
regulators' threat to prohibit enforcement of the Massachusetts law. Subsequently, in related 
defensive htigation. Massachusetts Association of HMOs v. Commissioner of Insurance , the 
United States District Court ruled that the state law was no longer effective because of new 
federal laws, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld that ruling. 

• Commonwealth v. TLT Construction Corp. This matter was filed in Superior Court on 
behalf of the Trial Court and the Division of Capital Asset Management to recover damages for the 
poor indoor air quality arising from the renovation of the exterior of the Suffolk County Courthouse. 
The Commonwealth paid sick leave and workers compensation benefits to its courthouse employees 
who had suffered as a result of the poor air quality; it was also forced to relocate many of the court 
sessions to other places for several years. In Fiscal Year 2000, Attorney General Reilly negotiated 



99 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 



a settlement of nearly $2.5 million to help pay the Commonwealth's expenses. In a related lawsuit, 
the courthouse employees recovered $3 million in damages. 

• Attorney General v. Massachusetts Health Research Institute The Commonwealth 
sought to recover the ownership rights to and royalties from the sale of certain medical products 
developed at the state's biological laboratories. In May 2000, the parties reached a settlement 
in which the Commonwealth regained ownership of the patent and licensing rights to the medical 
products. In addition, the parties agreed to a division of the future royalties from the sale of the 
medical products by which the Commonwealth's share of the royalties could increase by as 
much as $ 1 8 million over the next ten years and $60 miUion over the next thirty years. The 
money received by the Commonwealth in increased royalties wiU be used by the 
Commonwealth's Biologies Laboratory to research, develop and produce childhood vaccines 
and biologic products. 

• Commonw Balth v. Phillips Attorney General Reilly filed suit in Superior Court on behalf 
of the state Teachers Retirement Board seeking to recover over $800,000 of unearned pension 
benefits from a retired teacher who had been mistakenly paid those benefits between 1990 and 
1999. The court allowed the Commonwealth's motion for a preUminary injunction and for real 
estate and trustee process. Less than three months later, the court, at the Attorney General 
Reilly's request, held that the teacher was in contempt for violating its previous order prohibiting 
her from transferring any of her funds or other assets, and the court appointed a receiver to take 
possession of all her assets. 

• Conmionwealth of Massachusetts v. Ruggles Center .Toint Venture The Attorney 
General filed suit in Superior Court against the owners of Ruggles Center, a brand new building 
in Roxbury to which the Registry of Motor Vehicles had moved its headquarters. Shortly after 
moving in, the Registry was forced to move out again because many of its employees apparently 
became ill from the poor quality of the air in the building. In Fiscal Year 2000, Attorney General 
Reilly participated in a settlement in which the Commonwealth received $4 million and its 
employees received $ 1 million in damages. 

• Waskievncz v. Processed Food Products Embargoed at 209 Mystic Avenue. 
Medford, Massachusetts The Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of Public 
Health, filed a petition for libel of condemnation in district court. Attomey General Reilly sought 
permission to destroy adulterated frozen ravioh and other food products prepared by a 



100 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 



company that had allegedly been operating under unsanitary conditions, including equipment 
contaminated by rodent infestation. The case was still pending at the close of the fiscal year 

• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. All Brands Redemption Center The Attorney 
General filed suit to enforce provisions of the state's Bottle Bill against a bottle redemption 
center in Wakefield and its owner who were allegedly redeeming ineUgible and fictitious 
containers. Under the Bottle Bill, botde redemption centers collect from bottlers and beverage 
distributors a $.05 refund plus a handling fee for every container "branded" for a Massachusetts 
refund. Every year more than 330 million bottle bill containers are not returned for redemption. 
The Commonwealth uses the unclaimed deposits of $ 16 million to help clean up the 
environment. The defendants' alleged redemption of non-Massachusetts containers directly and 
improperly reduced the amount available for such clean-ups. In Fiscal Year 2000, Attorney 
General Reilly entered into a consent judgment requiring the defendants to pay $30,000 to the 
Commonwealth if they returned to the business before July, 2002. 

• Commonwealth v. Boston Community Services, Inc. Attorney General Reilly obtained 
a Superior Court judgment of more than $200,000 against a Boston non-profit group that had 
overcharged on its state contracts to provide clinical and residential mental health services to 
clients of the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, Departments of Mental Health, Mental 
Retardation, Public Health, and Social Services. 

• Bureau of Special Investigations v. Coalition of Public Safety Attorney General Reilly 
brought suit to vacate, on public policy grounds, an arbitrator's award reinstating two 
employees who had been discharged for gaining unauthorized access to confidential tax records 
of sports celebrities. The Superior Court dechned to vacate the reinstatement order, holding 
that there was no sufficientiy well-defmed public policy requiring the discharge of employees for 
such actions, and on appeal the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed that decision. 

Following indictments of several former State Treasury employees and others for stealing money from 
the Commonwealth's Unpaid Check Fund, the Government Bureau obtained full restitution of more than 
$400,000 from one employee. Another employee defendant, who owes the Commonwealth more Uian 
$900,000, entered into an agreement under which the Commonwealth may receive fuU restitution once the 
defendant's property, part of which is now secured by a mortgage to the Commonwealth, is later sold as 
part of a development package. 

The Government Bureau provided assistance to the Division of Banks in preparing for possible 
emergency litigation against banks and other financial institutions that might encounter "Y2K" computer 



101 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

and related problems on or shortly after January 1 , 2000. Fortunately, no significant Y2K problems 
occurred, and thus such Utigation proved unnecessary. 

• Commonwealth v. International Resources, Ltd. The Attorney General filed an 
interpleader action in Superior Court on behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection 
to determine the rightful owner of trust funds earmarked for environmental remediation. 

Government Bureau attorneys also Utigated numerous cases through Attorney General Tom Reilly's 
Abandoned Housing Project The project is designed to assist community groups in choosing and appointing 
their own people to take over abandoned houses which, due to the absentee owners' indifference, have 
created a health, safety and crime hazard for the community. Attorney General Reilly assists the community 
groups by petitioning the appropriate court for an order permitting the community to appoint their receiver 
and take charge of the blighted property, for the benefit of the neighborhood. Once the receiver is appointed, 
the receiver and the community group work together on the actual repair and rehabiUtation of the property. 



ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

The Administrative Law Division has three principal functions: ( 1) defense of lawsuits against state 
officials and agencies concerning the legality of governmental operations, particularly those seeking injunctive 
or declaratory relief; (2) legal review of all newly enacted town by-laws; and (3) preparation of legal 
opinions for constitutional officers, heads of agencies, and certain other officials concerning issues arising 
from the performance of their official duties. During Fiscal Year 2000, significant events occurred in each 
of these areas. 

DEFENSIVE LITIGATION 



During Fiscal Year 2000, Uie Division opened 722 cases and closed 201 cases. At the close of the 
Fiscal Year, 1 ,400 cases were pending in the Division. Cases handled by Division attorneys resulted in 17 
reported decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, 19 reported decisions of the Massachusetts Appeals 
Court, 1 reported decision of the United States Supreme Court, 4 reported decisions of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 5 reported decisions of the United States District Court for the 
District of Massachusetts and 1 reported decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court. In addition. 
Division attorneys were involved in numerous cases in those courts and in state trial courts that resulted in 
unpublished decisions. Division attorneys also handled several cases pertaining to criminal justice and 
disciplinary actions against law enforcement officers. 



102 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

• Bums V. Commonwealth The Supreme Judicial Court remanded a Massachusetts State 
Police disciplinary case on the ground that the Department of State Police Trial Board's decision 
was based on an error of law, i.e., its mistaken belief that it was bound to find Bums guilty of 
charges to which he admitted to sufficient facts in a related criminal case. 

• Massachusetts Parole Board v. Civil Service Commission The Appeals Court ruled 
that the Parole Board properly discharged a parole officer for failing to appear at a disciplinary 
hearing, despite the fact that, in failing to appear, the employee relied upon the erroneous advise 
of counsel. 

• Bellin v. Kelley The Appeals Court held that a Criminal Offender Record Information 
(CORI) regulation authorizing the dissemination of CORI to the public in connection with an 
ongoing criminal investigation violates G.L. c. 6, § 172, the CORI statute. The Division assisted 
in filing an amicus brief defending the validity of the regulation. 

Duiing Fiscal Year 2000 the Division was also involved in cases involving election issues. 

• Walsh v. Secretary of the Commonwealth The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the 
constitutionality of G.L. c. 53, § 22A, which the court interpreted to require that initiative and 
referendum petition forms be originals or exact copies of the original provided by the Secretary 
of State. The court found that the state's interest in protecting the public from being misled by 
inexact petition forms outweighs the minimal burden on petition proponents to get an exact 
copy. 

• Fyntrilakis v. City of Springfield The Appeals Court vacated a Superior Court order 
which had invalidated a primary election without first hearing evidence relevant to whether the 
challenged voters met municipal residency requirements when they voted. Also, in other 
election-related work, the Division reviewed 33 initiative petitions submitted by citizens to 
Attorney General Reilly to propose new laws or constitutional amendments to be submitted to 
the voters on the statewide ballot. Of these petitions, 28 were certified as meeting constitutional 
requirements for the ballot, four were not certified, and one was withdrawn. 

The Division handled several civil rights related cases. 

• Kadlick v. Department of Mental Health The Supreme Judicial Court held that the 
Superior Court properly exercised its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing 
plaintiffs in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And, the Justices of the 



103 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

Supreme Judicial Court opined, in Opinion of the Justices to the Senate , that a bill establishing 
buffer zones outside reproductive health care facihties would not violate the First Amendment 
freedoms of speech or association. 

A number of civil rights cases were litigated by the Division in the United States District Court. 

• Comfort V. Lynn School Committee This case challenged G.L. c. 7 1 , § 37D, the Racial 
Imbalance Law, in which the court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding 
no likelihood of success, on the present record, and no irreparable harm. 

• Rolland v. Cellucci The court approved the settlement agreement in a Medicaid/AD A 
class action suit brought on behalf of mentally retarded nursing home patients against various 
state officials. 

• Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head v. Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination The court ruled that the tribe was immune from suit for violation of 
Massachusetts employment discrimination laws. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, Division attorneys handled several environment cases in both state and 
federal courts, including a federal environmental challenge to the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel 
Project. 

• Airport Impact Relief. Inc. v. Wylde The United States Court of Appeals for the First 
Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment that the Federal Highway Administration's 
approval of changes to the project without requiring a Supplemental Environmental Impact 
Statement was not arbitrary and capricious and that the changes did not violate a federal statute 
limiting transportation projects affecting pubUc parks. 

• United States v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority The United States 
District Coiut held that the Safe Drinking Water Act permits a court to fashion remedies for 
violations of the Safe Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). Nonetheless, the court ruled that an 
injunction ordering the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) to build a filtration 
plant after a single instance of non-compliance with the SWTR was not warranted, after 
considering the limited resources available for water treatment and the risk level to the MWRA's 
water supply. 



104 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

Two public health cases also resulted in reported decisions. 

• Massachusetts Rental Housing Association. Inc. v. Lead Poisoning Control 
Director The Appeals Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment for the Department of 
Public Health (DPH), upholding the validity of a DPH regulation concerning a chemical test for 
lead paint and of the Department's notices to the public concerning the hazards of lead paint. 

• Anderson Insulation Co.. Inc. v. Department of Public Health The Appeals Court 
reaffirmed the validity of DPH regulations banning Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI) 
and requiring installers to remove and repurchase UFFI previously installed. 

The Division continued to handle many cases involving children and families. 

• Adoption of Vito In this termination of parental rights case, the Appeals Court vacated the 
Probate Court's order denying the Department of Social Service's (DSS) petition to dispense 
with the need for the parent's consent to adoption and ordered that a decree enter allowing the 
petition. However, the court held that the Probate Court had authority to order revision of the 
Department's adoption plan to include post-adoption visitation, at least where the adoptive 
parents do not clearly oppose such a plan. 

• Cobble V. Commissioner of the Department of Social Services The Appeals Court 
held that a DSS decision, substantiating an abuse and neglect complaint against the plaintiff 
based on his spanking of his son, was not supported by substantial evidence. 

• Department of Revenue v. C.M..I. The Supreme Judicial Court held that a Probate 
Court Judge abused her discretion in ordering the payment of child support by a father who was 
not married to but living with the mother of his children. The court found that the child support 
order further impoverished the household instead of advancing the best interests of the children. 
Also, the court held that a parent living in the house with his minor children and supporting those 
children is a custodial parent, absent an adjudication of custody to the contrary. 

• Nollet V. .lustices of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts The 

United States District Court granted the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss a challenge brought 
by alleged perpetrators of domestic violence and a father's rights group to G.L. c. 209A, the 
domestic violence restraining order statute, holding that the ex parte procedure set forth in the 
statute satisfied federal due process requirements. 



105 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

Division attorneys also handled a substantial number of appeals from Appellate Tax Board decisions in 
the state appellate courts. 

• Bill DeLuca Enterprises. Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue The Supreme Judicial 
Court afFirmed the Appellate Tax Board's decision denying plaintiff an abatement of its 
corporate excise taxes. 

• Rosse V. Commissioner of Revenue The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed another 
Appellate Tax Board decision denying a tax abatement on the ground that the dividend income 
in question was not earned in the active conduct of a trade or business and was not "effectively 
connected" with the conduct of a trade or business, within the meaning of the applicable statute. 

• Sign of the Surf. Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue The Appeals Court affmned the 
Appellate Tax Board's decision not to abate, as excessive, penalties that were assessed against 
the plaintiff for tax delinquencies, even though payment of the penalties may force the plaintiff to 
go out of business. 

Other tax cases handled by the Division during Fiscal Year 2000 included: 

• Commissioner of Revenue v. .T.C. Penney Company. Inc. The Supreme Judicial Court 
held that the sending of merchandise catalogs from out-of-state locations through interstate maU 
to Massachusetts residents constitutes a taxable "use" within the meaning of G.L. c. 641, § 1 . 

• Commissioner of Revenue v. Outdoor World Corporation The Supreme Judicial 
Court found J.C. Penney controlling and thus held that promotional mailings, here promoting a 
campground membership business, from out-of-state locations to Commonwealth residents 
constitutes a taxable use. 

Cases in which Division attorneys represented the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission included: 

• Murray's Liquors. Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission TheApf)eals 
Court upheld the constitutionality of G.L. c. 138, § 34B, the state statute providing that a 
licensee who reasonably relies on a Massachusetts driver's license — but not an out-of-state 
license - for proof of age will not suffer any loss of Ucense or criminal liability for selling alcoholic 
beverages to a minor. 

• Massachusetts Food Association v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission The 

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the United States District Court's 



106 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

decision dismissing plaintiff's cliallenge, on Federal Sherman Act (antitrust) grounds, to the 
Massachusetts statute limiting package licenses to three stores per hcensee. The court found 
that the statutory limitation constitutes a state- imposed unilateral restraint to which the Sherman 
Act does not apply. 

Di\'ision attorneys handled several retirement benefits cases resulting hi reported decisions during the 
last year. 

• Madden v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board In a dispute over the calculation of 
teacher retirement benefits, the Supreme Judicial Court held that a public school teacher was 
entitled to full year credit for part-time work prior to the promulgation of 807 C.M.R. 

§ 3.04(2), which allows the retirement board to prorate the part-time service of teachers. 

• Flemings v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board The Supreme Judicial Court held 
that a teacher who wants credit in the teachers' retirement system for active military service 
must qualify as a "veteran," pursuant to G.L. c. 32, § 1 , and G.L. c. 4, § 7, forty-third clause, 
and must have completed ten or more years of membership service. Moreover, the court 
concluded that the definition of "veteran" does not include members of the National Guard and 
Active Reserves. 

• Hallett V. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board The Supreme Judicial Court upheld 
a Contributory Retirement Appeal Board decision holding that the plaintiff teacher was not 
entitled to have the hourly wages he earned as a driver's education teacher before and after 
school hours count as "regular compensation" for purposes of calculating the amount of his 
retirement benefits. 

Two employment-related cases handled by Division attorneys in Fiscal Year 2000 resulted in reported 
decisions. 

• Ducharme v. Commissioner of the Department of Employment and Training The 

Appeals Court, affirmed a decision of the Department of Employment and Training denying the 
plaintiff unemployment benefits notwithstanding his assertion that he was effectively forced to 
resign his position and thus that his separation was involuntary. 

• Police Department of Boston v. Fedorchuk The Appeals Court affirmed a ruling of the 
CivU Service Commission that the Boston Police Department lacked "just cause," within the 
meaning of G.L. c. 7, § 4H, to transfer a Boston Police Officer from the rank of detective. 



107 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

Division attorneys handled several insurance-related cases during Fiscal Year 2000. 

• Automobile Insurers Bureau of Massachusetts v. Commissioner of Insurance The 

Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Insurance Commissioner's auto insurance rate decision for 
1999. The court rejected four separate attacks made by the auto insurance industry, each 
arguing that the Commissioner had set the rate too low, and that retroactive increases for all 
Massachusetts policyholders were warranted. The coiut agreed that the Commissioner did not 
exceed her authority in applying a "rate sanction," i.e., an across-the-board reduction in 
premium prices against the industry as a sanction for the industry's failure to comply with the 
Commissioner's orders to compel compliance with discovery requests during rate proceedings. 

Last year. Trust Insurance Company brought before the Appeals Court multiple controversies with the 
Insurance Commissioner. 

• Trust Ins urance Company v. Commissioner of Insurance (No. 1) A challenge to the 
method by which Commonwealth Auto Reinsurers (CAR) distributes to insurers funds paid to 
CAR by insurers who withdrew from the Massachusetts market, the Appeals Court held that 
the case should not have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies but 
nevertheless remanded the case to the Commissioner for a statement of reasons as to why the 
existing distribution formula is fair. 

• Thist Insurance Company v. Commissioner of Insurance (No. 2) The court affirmed 
the Commissioner's decision upholding the appointment of two exclusive representative 
producers to Trust Insurance Company. 

In Fiscal Year 2000, most of the cases handled by Division attorneys involved review of agency 
decisions under G.L. c. 30A, the State Administrative Procedure Act. In addition to many of the above- 
described cases that fall into that category, these cases also mcluded: 

• R.V.H.. Third. Inc. v. State Lottery Commission The Appeals Court affirmed a Lottery 
Commission decision reversing its own earher decision "to grant" a Keno license to the plaintiff. 

• Worcester Redevelopment Authority v. Massachusetts Department of Housing 
and Community Development The Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the Department 
of Housing and Community Development that a tenant owned equipment contained in property 
taken by eminent domain and therefore was entitled to relocation compensation. 



108 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

• 285 Lynn Shore Drive Condominium Trust v. Automatic Sprinkler Appeals Board 

A case where the fire department ordered the condominium association to install sprinkler 
systems in individual units, as well as all common areas, the Appeals Court held that when a 
board reopens a proceeding and holds a rehearing, the thirty-day time limit to seek chapter 30A 
judicial review should mn from the date of the decision following the reconsideration hearing, 
because that is the "final decision" of the board. 

In addition, two actions for Judicial Review brought under G.L. c. 249, § 4, the certiorari statute, 
resulted in reported decisions. 

• Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Lookner The Appeals Court held that under 
G.L. c. 249, § 4, certiorari actions must be filed within sixty days of the "operative conclusion" 
of the proceeding sought to be reviewed, in this case either the date the final decision was issued 
or the date the appellant received notice of the decision. There, the court called the appellant's 
failure to file a certiorari action within the statute period a "serious misstep," requiring the 
dismissal of his complaint. 

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Auditor of the Commonwealth The 

Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Auditor's decision disapproving a proposed contract to 
privatize the cleaning and maintenance of bus shelters and held that the MBTA, as a state- 
created entity, lacks standing to challenge the constitutionahty of the privatization law, G.L. c. 7, 
§§ 52-55. 

Division attorneys handled several cases during Fiscal Year 2000 which challenged the validity of state 
laws and regulations. In one case resulting in a reported decision, the Division defended the sex offender 
registry statute. 

• Doe V. Attorney General The Supreme Judicial Court, held that an individualized hearing 
is required, as a condition of registration as a sex offender, for persons adjudicated delinquent 
or con victed of rape of a child. 

• Smith V. Commissioner of Transitional Assistance The Supreme Judicial Court 
affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court declaring invalid a Department of Transitional 
Assistance regulation, which established a financial eligibility criterion for granting extensions of 
TAFDC benefits beyond the usual 24- month limit, and issuing injunctive relief enforcing that 
declaration. 



109 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

• Shea V. Boston Edison Company The Supreme Judicial Court upheld the 
constitutionality of aportion of the electric utility restructuring act (St. 1997, c. 164), rejecting 
plaintiff's claims that the act imposes unreasonable excise taxes and violates plaintiff's equal 
protection rights. 

Several cases handled by Division attorneys this year in the federal courts were decided on federalism 
grounds. 

• Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (formerly Natsios v. NFTC ) The United 
States Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth's law governing state purchasing from 
companies doing business in Burma was preempted by a similar act of Congress, which 
delegated certain discretion to the President in controlling economic sanctions against Burma. 
Moreover, the Court concluded that the Massachusetts law was at odds with the President's 
authority to speak for the United States among the world's nations to develop a comprehensive, 
multilateral Burma strategy. 

• Massachusetts Association of Health Maintenance Organizations v. Ruthardt The 

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affumed the District Court's decision, 
holding that the Massachusetts prescription drug law was preempted by federal law on 
Medicare+Choice plans. 

• In re Zervoudis The United States Bankruptcy Court, abstained from interfering in the 
state court criminal prosecution of a plaintiff charged with larceny for having allegedly 
appropriated to his own use the proceeds of the sale of state lottery tickets. 

• Neo Gen Screening. Inc. v. New England Newborn Screening Program The United 
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision dismissing 
plaintiff's antitrust claims against state officials on Eleventh Amendment grounds. 

Finally, two other miscellaneous cases handled by the Division resulted in reported decisions during the 
last fiscal year. 

• Garland v. Beverly Hospital Corporation The Appeals Court affirmed the dismissal, for 
lack of standing, of a suit alleging the misuse of charitable assets, and also affirmed the denial, 
for lack of factual support, of plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment alleging conflict of 
interest on the part of the predecessor Attorney General. 



110 



GOVER NMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

• Kemble v. Metropolitan District Commission The Appeals Court ruled that an outdoor 
stairway leading to a pedestrian overpass is not a sidewalk for purposes of a statute immunizing 
the Commonwealth from liabihty for injuries sustained on the sidewalk of an MDC boulevard. 

The Administrative Law Division included the following staff members: Judith Yogman, Chief; Anthony 
Penski; Deborah Anderson; Lydia Badolato; Dena Barisano; Thomas Bamico; John Bowman; Romeo 
Camba; Judith Cassino; Juhe CoUins; Sherrie Costa; Pierce Cray; Edward Deangelo; Maureen Desmond; 
Wanda Devereaux; KeUi Doherty; Alexander Gray; Portia Hall; Daniel Hammond; John Hitt; Bemadette 
Lovell; Maria Makredes; Marianne Meacham; Pauline O'Brien; Kathryn Palmer; Susan Paulson; Eva 
Poole; Candies Pmitt; Christopher Quaye; Robert Quinan; William Reynolds; Juliana Rice; Robert Ritchie; 
Latisha Santos; Adam Simms; Ginny Sinkel; Amy Spector; Steven Thomas; Hung Tran; Peter Wechsler; 
and Jane Willoughby. 

MUNICIPAL LAW UNIT 



The division's Municipal Law Unit discharges the Attorney General's responsibility of reviewing and 
approving municipal by-laws and by-law amendments from the more than 300 towns throughout the 
Commonwealth. By statute, the Attorney General is charged with the review of town general by-laws 
(G.L. c. 40, § 32), town zoning by-laws (G.L. c. 40A, § 5), town historical district by-laws (G.L. c. 40C), 
and city and town Home Rule Charter amendments (G.L. c. 43B). 

With respect to town by-laws, the Attorney General exercises a limited power to disapprove local 
legislative action if the proposed amendment is found to be inconsistent with the laws and the Constitution 
of the Commonwealth. The Attorney General has 90 days from the date on which he receives by-law 
amendments from the Town Clerk in which to conduct his review. He will disapprove any amendment, or 
appropriate portion thereof, where the amendment is in facial conflict with substantive state law or where 
mandatory procedural requirements of adoption are not met. 

With respect to Home Rule Charter amendments, G.L. c. 43B prescribes that municipal charters and 
charter amendments from any of the 35 1 cities and towns in the Commonwealth must be reviewed by the 
Attorney General, who must render his opinion on consistency with state law within 28 days after receipt 
of a proposed charter amendment. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, the Municipal Law Unit reviewed 639 general by-laws, of which 566 (88.6%) 
were approved, 30 (4.7%) were approved with partial deletion, 16 (2.5%) were disapproved, and 27 
(4.2%) were returned with a finding that no action by the Attorney General was required by state law. The 



111 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

Unit reviewed 1,060 zoning by-laws, of which 925 (87.3%) were approved, 39 (3.7%) were approved 
with partial deletion, 70 (6.6%) were disapproved, and 26 (2.5%) were returned with a finding that no 
action by the Attorney General was required by state law. The Unit reviewed 1 1 1 zoning map amendments, 
of which 102 (91 .9%) were approved, 3 (2.7%) were approved with partial deletion, and 6 (5.4%) were 
disapproved. The Unit reviewed 3 historic district by-laws, of which 2 were approved, and 1 was returned 
with a finding that no action by the Attomey General was required by state law. Finally, the Unit reviewed 
27 charter amendments, of which 1 3 (48. 1 %) were found to be consistent with state law, 3(11.1%) were 
found to be inconsistent with state law, and 1 1 (40.7%) were returned with a fmding that no action by the 
Attomey General was required by state law. The Unit met all review deadlines, so that in no instance was 
a submission constructively approved for failure to act in a timely manner. 

The most prevalent subjects of local regulation during Fiscal Year 2000 were by-laws regulating 
telecommunications facilities, wetlands, open space, agricultural uses and structures, and sexually-oriented 
businesses. Similarly, the most prevalent basis for substantive disapproval of by-laws lay in these same 
general areas. 

Going beyond what is required by statute, Attomey General Tom Reilly has chosen to extend the 
services and resources of his Municipal Law Unit by providing, where time permits, voluntary informal 
review of proposed town by-law amendments, and — even though not subject to mandatory legal review 
by the Attomey General — proposed city ordinances. During Fiscal Year 2000, the Unit experienced a 
marked increase in the number of calls from local pubUc officials and members of the general pubhc, many 
of which related to anticipated changes in local laws and charters. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, the Unit experienced an increase in the number of cases in Utigation in which 
municipal law issues are involved. Even where the Attomey General has initially elected not to intervene or 
otherwise participate in such cases, the Unit monitors developments so that the Attomey General may 
become involved if warranted by developments in the case. At the close of Fiscal Year 2000, Unit 
attomeys were monitoring approximately 40 such matters. 

Over time Unit personnel have gradually increased outreach efforts by writing and speaking to groups 
all around the Commonwealth. Particular emphasis has been placed on working with town clerks and 
local planning boards, as both are intimately involved in the substance and procedure of local legislation. 
The Guidebook for Town Clerks and Planning Boards was revised several times during this period, as well 
as the forms required for the submission of by-laws, and both were presented and explained at tlie town 
clerks' conventions and meetings. 



112 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 



OPINIONS 

The Attorney General is authorized by G.L. c. 12, §§ 3, 6 and 9, to render formal opinions and legal 
advice to constitutional officers, agencies and departments, district attorneys, and branches and committees 
of the Legislature. Formal, published opinions are given primarily to the heads of state agencies and 
departments. In limited circumstances, less formal legal advice and consultation is also available from the 
Opinions Coordinator, as is information about the informal consultation process. The questions considered 
in legal opinions must have an immediate concrete relation to the official duties of the state agency or officer 
requesting the opinion. Hypothetical or abstract questions, or questions which ask generally about the 
meaning of a particular statute, lacking a factual underpinning, are not answered. 

Formal opinions are not offered on questions raising legal issues that are the subject of litigation or that 
concern ongoing collective bargaining. Questions relating to the wisdom of legislation or administrative or 
executive policies are not addressed. Generally, formal opinions will not be issued regaiding the interpretation 
of federal statutes or the constitutionality of enacted legislation. Formal opinion requests from state agencies 
that report to a cabinet or executive office must first be sent to the appropriate secretary for his or her 
consideration. If the secretary beUeves the question raised is one that requires resolution by the attorney 
general, the secretary then requests the opinion. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, Attorney General Tom Reilly did not issue any formal opinions. During the 
same time period, the Attorney General issued 32 letters providing informal advice or declining to give 
advice. 



TRIAL DIVISION 

The Trial Division handles civil cases brought against the Commonwealth and its departments, 
agencies and employees in a variety of actions primarily consisting of tort, contract, real estate, eminent 
domain, employment, and contract, civil rights actions, and land registration actions. Members of the 
Division analyze each case at the outset to see if the case can be disposed of in favor of the Commonwealth 
by dispositive motion. If not, the case proceeds through the discovery phase, and the attorneys then try to 
resolve the case by settling or by filing a summary judgment motion. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms 
are considered and utilized at all stages of the cases. Many cases are tried each year by members of the 
Division, most often with a result in favor of the Commonwealth. In any event, the Division aggressively 
defends the Commonwealth and its employees in an effort to protect the public while taking steps to see 
that those members of the pubUc who deserve compensation are treated fairly. Representative cases in 



113 



GOVE RNMENT BUREAU TRIAL 

each area handled by the Division are described below; all of these cases were in Superior Court except 
where otherwise noted. 

TORTS 



The Division opened 248 new tort cases in Fiscal Year 2000. The following cases are typical of those 
handled by the Division during the course of the year. 

• Atwood V. Metropolitan District Commission The plaintiff claimed that she fell on a 
bump on the ice while ice skating at the MDC's Quincy rink. She alleged that the MDC 
created the conditions that caused the bump and should have known of its existence. The 
plaintiff alleged further that her subsequent meningitis was caused by her fall on the ice. When 
plaintiff's settlement demand continued to be unrealistically high, the Division decided that the 
case should be tried. After trial, the jury returned a verdict for the Commonwealth. 

• Lamare v. Department of Social Services A mother and her two children alleged that 
DSS had negligentiy allowed the father to kidnap the children and take them to Greece. The 
Commonwealth asserted the defense that it was statutorily unmune to such claims under the 
Massachusetts Tort Claims Act because it did not originally cause the kidnaping. The jury 
ultimately agreed with this defense. The jury did find a local poUce department Uable and 
awarded damages, which were subsequently reduced by the court to the statutory $ 1 00,000- 
per-plaintiff maximum allowed under the Tort Claims Act. 

• Mackeil v. Lemuel Shattuck Hospital The plaintiff claimed that two unidentified 
employees of the Hospital assaulted him when he was a patient at that facility. Because the 
plamtiff was unable to produce evidence regarding the identity of the two alleged attackers, the 
Commonwealth moved for summary judgment, but the motion was denied. After trial, however, 
the court entered judgment for the Commonwealth on all of plaintiff's claims. 

• Brown v. Commonwealth The plaintiff claimed that she fell and inj ured herself as a result 
of defect on a stair at Roxbury Community College. The Commonwealth's defense was tiiat the 
stair was not defective and m any event the Commonwealth had no notice of any defect. At 
trial, the jury found for the Commonwealth. 

• Newell V. Department of Mental Retardation A mentally retarded man sought 
damages for an assault on him while he resided in a facility operated by DMR. The jury 



114 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL 

returned a verdict against DMR, but the court then allowed a motion for judgment 
notwithstanding the verdict, ruling that DMR was not responsible for any monetary damage 
claimed to have been suffered by plaintiff. 

• A&P Realty TVust v. Commonwealth TheplaintiflfassertedG.L.c. 2 IE, nuisance and 
trespass claims, alleging that the MDC or another abutting property owner had contaminated its 
land. The jury found that pollutants had migrated from MDC property onto plaintiff's property, 
requiring a clean-up; the jury awarded $240,000 in response costs and $2.4 million in property 
damages against the MDC. The Division then filed post-trial motions arguing that the award 
was excessive on several grounds, and the court reduced the award to approximately 
$680,000. The plaintiff appealed, and the Commonwealth cross-appealed on the question 
whether a G.L. c. 2 1 E claim is subject to the immunities and limitations of liabihty afforded the 
Commonwealth under the Tort Claims Act. The appeal was still pending at the close of the 
fiscal year. 

The Division also analyzes the tort cases with a view towards early resolution through the use of 
dispositive motions. The following cases are typical of those resolved through such processes. 

• .Tacome v. Commonwealth The plaintiff brought a wrongful death claim, alleging that the 
failure to guard a beach, to post signs, or otherwise to notify the decedent of the dangerous 
tides contributed to his death. The Commonwealth moved to dismiss on the basis that it did not 
originally cause the dangerous condition and therefore, under one of the immunities expressly 
provided by the Tort Claims Act, it could not be Uable for the death. The court agreed and 
dismissed the case. 

• Howard v. MacDonald An inmate claimed that an attack on him led to serious brain 
injury; he alleged that the harm resulted from state employees' dehberate indifference and 
inadequate medical treatment. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants because 
there was no evidence they were on notice that plaintiff was at any particular risk of attack. 

• Harris v. Commonwealth An inmate alleged harm ft-om inadequate medical care while 
incarcerated; the court granted the Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment on the 
ground that the Commonwealth did not breach any duty it may have owed to the plaintiff to 
provide him with medical services while he was an inmate. Medical care for inmates is provided 
by an independent contractor, which was also a defendant in the case. 



115 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL 



CONTRACTS 



The Division opened 31 contract cases during Fiscal Year 2000. The Division defends the 
Commonwealth and its agencies in a variety of contract actions consisting of construction disputes, breach 
of lease cases and bid protests. Often these cases are complex and involve interpretation of bidding 
regulations and a complicated statutory framework. Unlike in tort cases, there is no statutory cap on the 
potential exposure to the Commonwealth, so the Commonwealth's liability exposure can be quite large in 
any given case. The following are typical of the contract cases handled by the Division and the means of 
resolution. 

• ZBR Publications. Inc. v. Commonwealth The plaintiff sought to enjoin the performance 
of the Secretary of State's ballot printing contract, claiming that its bid was improperly rejected. 
Granting the plaintiff's request could have prevented the March 2000 multi-state presidential 
primary from going forward in the Commonwealth, as the Secretary of State would not have 
had time to print the ballot. After a hearing, the court denied the motion for a preliminary 
injunction, thereby allowing the primary to proceed. 

• The Luna Preservation Society v. Metropolitan District Commission The plaintiff 
asserted breach of contract and various statutory claims, seeking to recover from the MDC and 
others for damage suffered by the tugboat Luna for the period 1992-1995 when the plaintiff 
took possession of the tugboat. In 1984 the MDC had permitted the owners of the Luna, a 
National Historic and a Boston Landmark, to moor the tugboat in the Charles River Basin near 
the dam on the Boston side. The tugboat fell into disrepair and sank. Upon the failure of the 
owners to remove the tugboat, the MDC entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to have the 
tugboat removed from the Basin and possibly restored. Complications ensued, and the plaintiff 
did not obtain possession of the tugboat for three years, during which time salvage charges were 
incurred and the tugboat sank several times. The court agreed with the defendants that the 
plaintiff did not have title to the tugboat at the time of the events covered by this action, and the 
court therefore dismissed the complaint in its entirety. 

• Mastoran Restaurants. Inc. v. Commonwealth A Burger King franchise challenged the 
bidding process that led to a McDonald's franchise being selected for two locations along Route 
128. The court dechned to enjoin the Commonwealth from awarding the lease to McDonald's, 
thus allowing constmction to begin. 



116 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL 



REAL ESTATE 



The Division opened 77 real estate cases in Fiscal Year 2000. These cases consist primarily of 
eminent domain cases, along with miscellaneous other types of real property cases. Like contract cases, 
there is no statutory cap that limits the Commonwealth's exposure to damages in these types of cases, so 
the potential liability in any case can amount to millions of dollars. The following are typical of cases 
handled in this area and the manner in which they were resolved. 

• North Shore Realty Ttiist v. Metropolitan District Commission The owner of land 
along the Charles River that was taken as part of the Central Artery Project sought additional 
compensation from the Commonwealth. The jury returned a $7.2 million verdict for the plaintiff. 
The Commonwealth appealed, and at the close of the fiscal year the appeal was pending. 

• Novak V. Massachusetts Highway Department The plaintiff sued MHD seeking 
additional compensation for a total taking of a 2 1 ,960 square foot parcel in connection with the 
Route 146 project in Millbury. The pro tanto MHD paid at the time of taking was $90,000. 
Although the plaintiff valued his property in excess of $200,000, his own expert valued it at 

$ 155,000; the jury sided with MHD and returned a verdict exactly at the $90,000 pro tanto 
amount 

• Barletta v. Commonwealth The former owner of an over-300-acre parcel in Douglas, 
which was taken by the Commonwealth shortly before it was to become entitled to receive a 
permit to operate as a landfill, sued to obtain additional compensation for the taking. Due to the 
shortage of existing landfills in the state and the revenue that may be generated from their 
operation, the plaintiff claimed damages in the range of $70 to $ 100 million. After consulting 
with a variety of experts in this field and due to the enormous potential exposure, the 
Commonwealth settied this case along with a companion civil rights action for $34 million. 

• Ward V. Costello The Division filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Department of 
Environmental Management, arguing that the Town of Carlisle should have been given notice of 
the plaintiff's sale of his 57 acres of land (formeriy certified as forest land) to the defendant. The 
parties had entered several "option" contracts for the sale of the land which triggered the 
Town'srightof first refusal to purchase the property under G.L.c. 61, § 8. The Division asked 
the court to order the plaintiff to give the required notice to the Town and afford the Town and/ 
or ils assignees 120 days from such notice to determine if the Town would elect to purchase the 
property at the contract price. 



117 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL 



EMPLOYMENT 

The Division handled numerous employment cases in Fiscal Year 2000. The following cases are 
typical. 

• Moorman v. Department of Mental Retardation A former DMR employee alleged 
that ten former and present DMR officials, including the former commissioner, had violated 
plaintiff's civil rights by taking adverse employment action against him in retaliation for his 
speaking out pubhcly against DMR. After a seven- week trial, the court granted judgment for 
the defendants on all counts of the complaint. 

• McKenzie v. Commonwealth A correctional officer at Bridgewater State Hospital 
alleged tfiat she was sexually harassed by an inmate and claimed that the Department of 
Correction violated G.L. c. 1 5 1 B by allowing a sexually hostile environment to exist and by 
threatening to transfer her after she complained of the activity. The case was tried to a jury, 
which found for the Commonwealth. 

• Johns V. Department of Public Health The plaintiff alleged that he was forced to resign 
from his position at DPH after he told one of the defendants that he was HIV positive; plaintiff 
sued the Commissioner and various DPH employees, claiming handicap and disabihty 
discrimination in violation of G.L. c. 151B. Although the defendants maintained at trial that the 
plaintiff was let go due to inadequate job performance, the jury found for the plaintiff and 
awarded him $73,500 in damages. 

• Andrews v. Commonwealth (United States District Court) A state probation 
department employee claimed that her supervisor defamed her and interfered with her business 
relationships with her employer, the Commonwealth. The plaintiff also claimed that the 
Commonwealth and the supervisor violated her state and federal civil rights and retaliated 
against her once she brought her claim. The plaintiff based these claims on the fact that she had 
been accused of taking money that had been paid by a probationer towards his restitution after 
she allegedly complained of another employee's behavior. The plaintiff was suspended pending 
an investigation; although she was reinstated after the investigation found no intentional 
wrongdoing, the defendants asserted that the suspension had followed all established 
procedures. At trial, after the close of the plaintiff's case, the court directed a verdict for the 
defendants on the tort claims, and at the end of the trial the jury returned a verdict for the 
Commonwealth and the individual defendant on all remaining claims. 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL 

• Wing V. Commonwealth A former social worker for the Department of Transitional 
Assistance alleged that DTA's failure to rehire her constituted handicap discrimination. The 
court granted summary judgment to the Commonwealth, mling that plaintiff could not offer any 
evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the failure to rehire her was due to her 
handicaps rather than her demonstrated prior lack of dependability. 

• Erickson v. Department of Mental Health A former DMH psychologist at the 
Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons claimed that her lack of promotion, layoff 
and banning from the premises were due to sexual harassment and gender discrimination. The 
Commonwealth's second motion for summary judgment was allowed as to thirteen of fifteen 
counts against five defendants. The case settied for $ 1 2,500 on tiie remaining claims against a 
DMH doctor who had suggested that plaintiff was having sex with some of her cUents, 
notwithstanding ethical standards of the profession and the cUents having been adjudged 
"sexually dangerous persons." 

• Cardoza v. Department of Youth Services Current and former DYS employees brought 
a class action alleging violations of G.L. c. 149, § 30B, for non-payment of overtime wages for 
"shift change" meetings the employees were required to attend. Although DYS' financial 
exposure was large — due to the number of claimants, the nature of the practice, and the 
potential for a large fee award — a multi-day mediation led to a settiement for $275,000, which 
included damages for class members for the unpaid overtime wages as well as attorney's fees. 



CIVIL RIGHTS 



The Division handled numerous civil rights matters in Fiscal Year 2000. Civil rights claims can subject 
the Commonwealth to significant financial liabiUty because awards are not limited by statute and successful 
litigants can recover attorneys fees and costs. Civil rights claims are most often brought against individual 
defendants who also face unlimited exposure for damages and attorney fees. The following cases are 
typical of those handled by the Division during this period. 

• Carte V. Commonwealth The plaintiff asserted civil rights and negUgence claims arising out 
of the death of a client of the Department of Mental Health who had wandered off die grounds 
of a state hospital and was found dead forty days later The court granted defendants' motion 
to dismiss the civil rights claims against various DMH employees, ruling that because the 



119 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

decedent had been voluntarily committed to the hospital, no civil rights claims could property be 
asserted. 

• Hennessey v. Salem State College (United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) 
A former student in the college's schoolteacher certification program alleged that his removal 
from a student teaching program, on the ground that he had been proselytizing students, violated 
his First Amendment rights. The First Circuit affirmed the trial court's grant of summary 
judgment in favor of the coUege and several of its employees. 

• O'Neill V. Department of Social Services (United States Court of Appeals for the First 
Circuit) A former DSS employee claimed that DSS, its former commissioner and one other 
supervisor had violated her civU rights when they terminated her employment, allegedly for 
chronic absenteeism and lateness. The First Circuit affirmed the trial court's grant of summary 
judgment in favor of the defendants. 

The Trial Division included the following staff members: David Kerrigan, Chief; William Daggett; Dorothy 
Anderson; Steven Baddour; Jason Barshak; Mary EUzabeth Basile; Matthew Berge; Crispin Bimbaum; 
John Bowen; Ranjana Chand; Stephen Clark; Rosemary Connolly; Karen Craffey ; Irene Delbono; Stephen 
Dick; Thomas Digangi; Kristen Dionisi; Kristen Donald; Anne Edwards; F. Henry lii Ellis; Janet Elwell; 
Ange Exantus; Lisa Fauth; Susan Gaeta; Norine Gannon; Salvatore Giorlandino; R. Scott Hill-Whilton; 
Patrick Johnston; Michelle Kaczynski; Angela Lee; Kara Lucciola; Lucinda Macdonald; Beth McLaughlin; 
Howard Meshnick; Daniel Mulhem; Michelle O'Brien; Frances Riggio; Beveriy Roby; Neil Sherring; 
Mark Sutliff; James Sweeney; Marini Torres-Benson; Antonette Traniello; Teresa Walsh; Doris White; 
Jonathan White; and Charles Wyzanski. 



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) serves as litigation counsel on environmental issues for 
various state agencies, particularly those within the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. EPD handles 
the Commonwealth's civil litigation to enforce environmental protection programs established by state 
statutes and regulations, including laws governing air pollution, water pollution, water supply, waterways, 
wetlands, hazardous and sohd waste. EPD also plays a key role under the Clean State Initiative to ensure 
that the Commonwealth's own agencies abide by state and federal environmental agencies, and in doing so 
the Division may bring enforcement actions against those agencies m court where the Attorney General, in 
his enforcement discretion, deems action necessary. Based on the Attorney General's broad authority to 



120 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENfVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

protect the environment of the Commonwealth, EPD initiates and intervenes in state and federal litigation 
and also participates in administrative proceedings before federal agencies on significant environmental 
issues. EPD defends lawsuits challenging the actions of state environmental agencies and the legality of 
state environmental laws. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, EPD handled enforcement proceedings leading to judgments requiring payments 
to the Commonwealth of $3,406,500. These figures are for penalties, cost recovery, and other payments 
awarded in Fiscal Year 2000. They do not include millions of dollars that will be required through a 
settlement with the General Electric Co. this fiscal year, because that settlement was still under judicial 
review when the fiscal year ended. In Fiscal Year 2000, EPD received actual payments totaling 
$3,130,090.91 in penalties, cost recovery, and other payments. Other cases resulted in court judgments 
requiring private parties to undertake substantial cleanups -- a savings of millions of dollars for the 
Commonwealth. 

STATE ENFORCEMENT AND COST RECOVERY LITIGATION 

One of the most important functions of EPD is to bring litigation to enforce state and federal statutes. 
In the past fiscal year EPD handled numerous major enforcement cases in the Superior Court of 
Massachusetts, except as otherwise noted, including the following: 

AIR POLLUTION 



• Commonwealth v. HUB Fabric Leather Company A consentjudgment was obtained 
requiring payment of $382,000 in civil penalties and back fees. This action involved alleged 
violations of the state Clean Air Act and the Toxic Use Reduction Act. The defendant also 
agreed to spend an additional $ 120,000 to implement measures at its facilities that go beyond 
simple compliance with its legal obligations. Pursuant to the judgment, the company must 
correct the violations at all its faciUties, obtain all necessary permits for its operations, and 
implement new management systems to ensure that future violations are minimized. 

• Commonwealth v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology EPD alleged that in 
operating a small co-generation power plant, the university exceeded its emissions limits for 
certain pollutants and failed to provide accurate reporting. The case was settled by payment of 
a $25,000 civil penalty. 

EPD continues to be aggressive in asbestos removal, disposal and abatement cases. 



121 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

• Commonwealth v. Massachusetts Highway Department and Attorney General v. 
Aapex Environmental Services EPD alleged that, during the demolition of the Anelex 
Building as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) Project, the Highway Department and its 
contractors and subcontractors violated state law by improperly removing asbestos and sending 
it to a landfill in the town of Wendell that was not approved to receive such waste. The cases 
alleged improper asbestos removal and disposal, air quality, and solid waste violations and 
involved negotiations with nine parties. In Fiscal Year 2000, EPD executed a settlement through 
which the defendants will pay $493,000, to be allocated as follows: $2 1 0,000 for civil penalties 
to the Massachusetts Clean Air Act Compliance Fund, $ 1 68,000 for CA/T cost recovery (after 
escrow agent expenses), $ 100,000 for a supplemental environmental project for the City of 
Boston, and $ 1 5,000 for a supplemental environmental project for the Town of Wendell. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



EPD brings lawsuits against responsible parties to remediate conditions caused by oil or hazardous 
materials, including litigation to recover costs incurred by the Commonwealth when it undertakes cleanup 
actions. In addition, EPD brings enforcement actions to require proper management, storage and disposal 
of hazardous wastes and to collect penalties for violations. During Fiscal Year 2000, EPD initiated or 
resolved many cases involving hazardous materials, of which those described below are typical. 

• Commonwealth v. General Electric Co. In this case and two other consolidated cases 
(United States District Court), EPD worked with the federal Department of Justice, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the state Department of Environmental Protection, the City of 
Pittsfield and other agencies to seciu-e a major settlement with General Electric (G.E.) to 
address PCB contamination at the G.E. Pittsfield industrial site, in the Housatonic River and 
throughout the Greater Pittsfield area. The consent decree requires G.E. to clean up the 
contamination at a cost estimated between $350 and $750 million. It also requires G.E. to pay 
$ 1 5 million natural resources damages and to perform various natural resource enhancement 
projects, such as providing habitat and recreational improvements and public access at Silver 
Lake. Under a Brownfields agreement between G.E. and the City, which was made possible 
by the setdement, the Pittsfield Economic Development Authority will be able to redevelop a 
major portion of the G.E. plant area. The consent decree also requires G.E. to reimburse the state 
and federal governments for the millions of dollars they have spent, and will continue to spend, 
ovCTseeing the cleanup. 



122 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

• Commonwealth v. General Electric Co. The Commonwealth obtained a consent 
judgment requiring payment of $ 1 .25 million in penalties and other payments based on 
allegations that G.E. had failed properly to notify DEP of releases of hazardous materials to the 
environment and failed to make accurate, complete, and timely reports to DEP with respect to 
the releases. The judgment required G.E. to pay $ 1 milUon to the Berkshire Environmental 
Trust, $200,000 in civil penalties, and $50,000 to the state environmental law enforcement fund. 
EPD cooperated on this case with the state Environmental Crimes Strike Force. 

• United States of America and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Glynn (United 
States District Court) The court approved a consent decree resolving the liability of two 
landowner groups at the Nyanza Superfund Site, thus marking the completion of the 
enforcement case at this site. The settlement requires the defendants to pay $75,000 for 
reimbursement of past response costs and to place restrictive casements on certain parcels at 
the site. 

• Commonwealth v. Global Petroleum Corporation The court entered a consent 
judgment requiring the defendant to pay a $500,000 civil penalty and to pay the Massachusetts 
Environmental Trust $500,000 to aid in the remediation of wedand areas. EPD's complaint 
alleged that the defendant failed to report gasoline spills at its bulk fuel terminal in Revere, as 
required by G.L. c. 2 1 E and Department of Environmental Protection's regulations, and that the 
gasoline contributed to the contamination of the Chelsea River The company also allegedly 
violated its state and federal surface water discharge permit. Under the terms of the judgment, 
the company is required to audit its operations, complete cleanups at its terminals, and 
implement new management systems to ensure that future violations of law are minimized. 

• Commonwealth v. Hallmark Health Systems d/b/a Lawrence Memorial Hospital 

EPD alleged that Hallmark unreasonably denied liability for the cleanup of an oil spill into the 
Mystic River and was therefore liable for multiple costs and penalties. EPD entered into a 
consent judgment that required Hallmark to pay a total of $250,000, including multiple costs, 
penalties, and natural resource damages. 

• Commonwealth v. Modem Electroplating EPD had previously obtained injunctive 
relief involving a site that represented a significant environmental problem in Roxbury. In this 
fiscal year, the court approved a settlement agreement requiring the defendants and others to 
pay $8 1 ,000 and to transfer tide to the prop)erty to a developer chosen by the Boston 
Redevelopment Authority. The defendants also agreed to an injunction prohibiting them from 



123 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

engaging in any hazardous waste management activities. This litigation served as the catalyst for 
an intergovernmental Memorandum of Agreement to guide redevelopment efforts at the site, 
which is an important piece of the City of Boston's master plan for revitalizing Dudley Square. 

• Commonwealth v. Massachusetts Bay IVansportation Authority Under a prior 
consent decree, the MBTA had agreed to abate asbestos at the old South Boston Power Plant, 
and to demolish the plant by the end of 1 993. The MBTA missed an important deadline under 
that decree when it failed to remove oil and water from the building basement by April, 2000. 
In May, 2000, EPD filed an action for contempt, which was pending at the close of the fiscal 
year. 

WATER POLLUTION/WATER SUPPLY 



• Commonwealth of Ma ssachuset ts v. Blair EPD obtained summary judgment in the fu-st 
case to enforce the state Watershed Protection Act. The case involved the unapproved 
construction of a beach on Demond Pond. The court upheld the Metropolitan District 
Commission's appUcation of the act and ordered remediation. 

• Commonwealth v. Dracut Water Supply District EPD brought an enforcement action in 
response to the DEP's fmdings concerning the deteriorating state of the District's physical plant 
and management systems. The District entered into a consent judgment under which it will 
upgrade the pumps, piping, and storage tanks in its system, hire quaUfied operators to run the 
system, and make significant management and operations changes. The District will also pay a 
$75,000 penalty, $25,000 of which will be forgiven if the District timely and fully carries out its 
obligations under the judgment 

• Commonwealth v. Massachusetts Bay TVansportation Authority EPD alleged that 
the MBTA violated the Clean Waters Act and MWRA permit Umits at nine of its vehicle 
washing facilities. EPD obtained a consent judgment requiring the MBTA to bring these 
facilities into comphance with MWRA regulations and to pay $305,000 to the Massachusetts 
Environmental Trust 



124 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 



SOLID WASTE 



• Commonwealth v. Hercules Building Wrecking Co. An illegal dumping ground action 
brought pursuant to c. 1 1 1 , § 1 50A, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which 
judgment was entered against the defendant requiring payment of $20,000 in civil penalties, with 
additional penalties if the defendant misses the deadlines for waste removal and disposal. The 
judgment also requires that the illegally dumped material be analyzed and disposed of as 
approved by the Department of Environmental Protection. 

• Commonwealth v. Princeton Properties An asbestos abatement case, the defendants 
Utigation agreed to injunctive relief and to pay $80,000 in civU penalties. One of the defendants 
also agreed to publish public service announcements in successive issues of Banker & 
Tradesman and The New England Real Estate Journal, cautioning the real estate industry 
against the risks of improper asbestos abatement. 

• Commonwealth v. MRP Site Development, Inc. The court allowed EPD's motion for 
preliminary injunctive relief requiring the defendant to institute testing protocols on all materials 
involved in its demohtion debris crushing operations at Rowe Quarry in Revere and Maiden. 
The preliminary injunction also prohibits the defendant fi-om hauling any materials to the Quarry 
and requires the defendant to identify all sites that received potentially contaminated materials 
from the quarry. 

PESTICIDES 



EPD filed G.L. c. 93A assurances of discontinuance with more than 40 Massachusetts pest control 
operators, requiring them to halt misleading advertising claiming that their services or products were safe. 

FOOD LABELING 



Together with eight other states, EPD filed a petition with the federal Food and Drug Administration 
urging the agency to require that food manufacturers take reasonable steps to assist allergic people in their 
efforts to avoid eating allergen-containing products. The petition asked that the agency consider adopting 
labeling standards and requiring that manufacturers institute processes to prevent cross-contamination of 
foods during production. 



125 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

FOREST CUTTING 



• Commonwealth v. Mizhir (Boston Municipal Court) EPD sought to enforce the state 
Forest Cutting Practices Act. After trial, the court entered judgment for the Commonwealth 
ordering the defendant to pay a fine. 

CLEAN STATE INITIATIVE 



Fiscal Year 2000 was the year fixed by the Governor's State Environmental Coordinating Council for 
agencies to achieve resolution of aU matters of environmental noncompliance identified under the Qean 
State Initiative. As the deadUne approached, EPD monitored agency reporting and assisted the Department 
of Environmental Protection in preparing an Administrative Consent Order ( ACO), a form for agencies 
that did not achieve full compliance. At the deadline, approximately 70% of Clean State matters were 
reported as resolved, and DEP had succeeded in negotiating ACOs with agencies with outstanding matters. 
EPD continues to pursue enforcement actions where they are warranted. 

DEFENSIVE CASES 



EPD defends environmental officials and agencies when they are sued for actions they take in carrying 
out their environmental poUcies. The following defensive cases that were begun or concluded during this 
fiscal year (in Superior Court except where otherwise noted) provide examples of this important work. 

• Enos V. Secretary of Executive Office of Enviromnental Affairs (Supreme Judicial 
Court) The court ruled that citizens may not bring a declaratory judgment action against the 
Secretary for certifying that an environmental impact report complies with the Massachusetts 
Environmental PoUcy Act. The court noted that even liberalized standing for declaratory 
judgments requires legally-cognizable injuries resulting from violation of a duty owed, not merely 
any injury within a statute's zone of interest. 

• East Ashland Street Realty Trust v. Department of Enviromnental Protection A 
G.L. c. 30A action challenging the Department's assessment of a $25,(XK) administrative 
penalty for solid waste violations, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case after EPD moved to 
dismiss based on the plaintiff's failure to satisfy the conditions precedent to suit. The plaintiff 
had not deposited the full amount of the penalty in escrow with the court, as required under 



126 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

G.L. c. 2 1 A, § 1 6, and did not establish at a hearing within 20 days of the complaint having 
been filed that it was entitled to a waiver of that requirement. 

• Integrated Waste Service Association v. Department of Environmental Protection 

(United States District Court) The plaintiffs challenged the DEP Commissioner's promulgation 
of regulations governing emission standards for municipal waste incinerators. The court denied 
EPD's motion to dismiss without prejudice and, as the fiscal year closed, the parties were 
seeking to resolve the case by agreement. 

• Fox V. Commonwealth An owner of wetlands claimed a regulatory taking, but the court 
dismissed the case on EPD's motion. The court ruled that as a matter of law the plaintiffs could 
not establish that the denied uses for the subject property were compensable because the 
plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. 

• Silva V. Department of Environmental Protection The plaintiff alleged that DEP had 
deprived him of all economic use of his property by refusing a permit unless his septage was 
directed to a neighboring lot even though the Town of Truro had denied him an easement. The 
case was resolved by a settlement under which the plaintiff was allowed to build a septic system 
agreed to by DEP. 

• Leblanc v. Commonwealth Property owners challenged DEP's issuance of a wetlands 
permit to the city of Amesbury to repair a breach around one end of a dam on the Powwow 
River. The owners claimed that the Commonwealth had exacerbated a nuisance caused by the 
city's maintenance of the river's water level in a manner that perpetuated artificial flooding of 
their lands. The court affirmed DEP's issuance of the permit. 

• Town of Westwood v. MBTA and Secretary of Environmental Affairs The plaintiffs 
dismissed with prejudice their challenge to the Secretary's approval of the final environmental 
impact report for the Route 1 28 Intermodal Facility Project. 

• Nelson v. Commonwealth In this case involving a property owner's longstanding efforts 
to construct a sea wall on a coastal dune, EPD again prevailed in the two most recent rounds of 
litigation. 

• WRT Management Corp. v. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife The developer of a 
golf course project in Sturbridge has challenged DFW's regulations requiring "conservation 



127 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

permits" for habitat alteration under the state Endangered Species Act and has also challenged 
DFW's authority to certify vernal pools. 

BROWNFIELDS 



In 1998, the Legislature enacted "An Act Relative to Environmental Cleanup and Promoting the 
Redevelopment of Contaminated Property," otherwise known as the "Massachusetts Brownfields Act," 
Chapter 206 of the Acts of 1998. This important statute encourages the cleanup and redevelopment of 
brownfields sites through both liability reforms and financial assistance. One of the Act's hability reforms 
authorizes the Attorney General to enter into Brownfields Covenants Not to Sue that provide liability relief 
beyond what is otherwise available under G.L. c. 2 IE. The Brownfields Covenant Program addresses 
site-specific Uabihty concerns for complex cleanups and important redevelopment efforts. 

In Fiscal Year 2000, after soUciting input from a diverse group representing environmental, economic, 
and legal interests as well as relevant state agencies, the Attorney General promulgated regulations and 
forms to implement the Brownfields Covenant Program. Attorney General Tom Reilly also hired a Chief 
of the Brownfields Unit, Assistant Attorney General James Farrell. 

In addition to creating the infrastructure for the program, the Attorney General negotiated and fully 
executed three Brownfields Covenants. While these covenants are similar in that they involve the cleanup 
of abandoned manufacturing facilities, the redevelopment projects themselves are quite different. One 
involves nearly 14 acres and 300,000 square feet of industrial/commercial office space in Fitchburg; a 
second involves less than an acre and will eventually contain eight housing units in Newburyport; and a 
third involves the constmction of a bus maintenance facility as part of the upgrade of a regional transportation 
network in Lowell. In all, these Covenants will create approximately 520 new, permanent jobs and 
provide a variety of public benefits ranging from cleaning up an abandoned electroplating facility in a 
residential neighborhood in Newburyport (replacing it with housing), to upgrading the Gallagher Intermodal 
Transportation Center, which is the third largest transportation hub after Boston's North and South Stations. 

NATIONAL AIR POLLUTION ISSUES 
OZONE &: FINE PARTICULATE NAAQS 

• American Trucking Associations v. Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency (United States Court of Appeals for the DisQict of Columbia Circuit) Numerous 



128 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

industry groups and Midwestern states challenge EPA regulations that set new National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (N AAQs) for ozone and fine particulates (tiny particles that 
lodge deep in the lungs). The standards are designed to reduce smog and soot pollution. The 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the rules, concluding that 
EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act worked an unconstitutional delegation of authority to 
an administrative agency. EPA, EPD and others filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme 
Court review; the Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter in Fiscal Year 2001 . The Court 
also agreed to hear a cross-appeal filed by the opponents of the new standards. 

INTERSTATE AIR POLLUTION TRANSPORT 



• State of Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency and A ppalachian Power 
Company v. Environniental Protection Agency (United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit) This fiscal year brought important victories in the Commonwealth's 
battle to reduce power plant emissions in the Midwest. These emissions, mostly from older 
coal-burning powerplants in West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and Michigan, have been 
found to contribute significandy to high levels of smog in the Northeast, as well as acid rain and 
other threats to the health and well-being of Massachusetts residents. Attorney General Tom 
Reilly joined with the Governor in pressing EPA to regulate these major sources of pollution. 
Accordingly, the Commonwealth asked EPA to exercise its own authority to call upon 
responsible States to control their contribution to interstate pollution, and also petitioned EPA to 
order specific powerplants in the Midwest to reduce their emissions. In parallel rulings, EPA 
ruled in favor of the Northeast. In 1998, EPA ruled that 22 States in the Eastern United States 
must develop plans to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, and in 1999, EPA ruled in favor of the 
Commonwealth and three other northeastern States' petitions, against facilities in the Midwest 
and Southeast, hi fiscal 2000 the Attorney General joined in successfully defending the first of 
these rulings in court. The Attorney General also appeared in defense of the second ruling and 
filed a successful brief against a motion by the power plants for a stay of the rule pending judicial 
review. As a result of the court's decision to deny tiiat motion, the power plants were 
compelled to begin planning for installation of pollution controls. At the end of Fiscal Year 
2{X)0, briefing on the merits of the appeal was proceeding on schedule. 



129 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

LOW EMISSION VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS 

• Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers v. Department of Environmental Protection 

(United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) After lengthy proceedings, the court 
agreed with the auto manufacturers' claim that one aspect of DBF's Low Emission Vehicle 
program was preempted by federal law. The provision at issue was the requirement that in 
1998, 1999, and 2000, the manufacturers produce for sale or lease in the Commonwealth a 
number of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), i.e., electric cars. Although this requirement had 
followed a similar provision in CaMfomia's program (which it was required to do by the Federal 
Clean Air Act), in 1996 the auto manufacturers persuaded California to modify its program, 
thereby giving rise to the claim that the Commonwealth's program was preempted. The United 
States District Court agreed with the manufacturers, and EPD appealed. Last fiscal year, the 
Court of Appeals directed the parties to seek the opinion of the federal EPA on certain issues in 
the case. This fiscal year, the EPA Administrator responded that, in the EPA's opinion, the 
Commonwealth's requirement was not preempted. The Court of Appeals, however, chose to 
disregard this opinion in its own final decision, in which it upheld the District Court ruUng that the 
Commonwealth's requirement was preempted. 

The Environmental Protection Division included the following staff members: James Milkey, Chief; 
William Pardee; Frederick Augenstem; Freda Boden; Edward Bohlen; Matthew Brock; Joan Cassell 
Nicole Clark; Mary Connolly; James Farrell; 1. Andrew Goldberg; Nancy (Betsy) Harper; Richard Hecht: 
Carol lancu; Matthew Ireland; Siu Tip Lam; Christine Peluso; Marianne Ricca; and Danah Tench. 



130 



PUBLIC PROTECTION 
BUREAU 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division 

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division 

Investigations Division 

Public Charities Division 

Regulated Industries Division 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 



Public Protection Bureau 



The Public Protection Bureau manages and oversees civil and criminal affirmative litigation on behalf of 
the Commonwealth and its citizens; the development of policy, legislative and regulatory proposals; and 
personnel for five divisions: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division, Consumer Protection and Antitrust 
Division, Investigation Division, Public Charities Division and Regulated Industiies Division, hi addition, 
the Bureau has an office of tiie Chief Prosecutor, which brings criminal actions in appropriate cases. The 
divisions and die chief prosecutor's office also conduct investigations and publish reports in areas of 
interest arising out of their activities. The Bureau also includes the Consumer Complaint and Information 
Section and oversees die Local Consumer Aid Fund, which provides grants to local community groups to 
mediate and resolve consumer complaints at the local level. 

Bureau personnel also coordinate and staff Attorney General Tom Reilly's Student Conflict Resolution 
Experts (SCORE) Program, a nationally-recognized peer mediation program created to reduce violence 
in schools and foster safer learning environments for students. The SCORE program provides grants for 
the development of school mediation programs using trained student mediators to resolve violent and 
potentially violent conflicts among their peers. The SCORE program forges partnerships between educators 
and mediators to estabhsh quaUty student-centered mediation programs in the Commonwealth's schools 
to prevent disputes from escalating into violence. In addition. Bureau staff oversee a Conflict Intervention 
Team (CIT) of specially trained community mediators, who mobilize on a moment's notice to provide 
emergency mediation service to schools in crisis or on the verge of crisis. 

The Bureau oversees Attomey General Tom Reilly's Community Benefits GuideUnes for both hospitals 
and HMOs. This initiative is staffed by members of the Regulated Industries Division, the Consumer 
Protection and Antitrust Division and the Pubhc Charities Division. Members of the Consumer Protection 
and Antitrust Division and the Public Charities Division oversee reporting under the Hospital Guidelines. A 
member of the Regulated Industries Division oversees both reporting under the HMO Guidelines and the 
Attomey General's Community Benefits Advisory Task Force, convened for the purpose of advancing the 
goals of the Community Benefits Guidelines. 

The Attomey General's Elder Hotline ( I-888-AG-ELDER), a statewide toll-free hoUine, handled 
over 5,000 calls from elders and their famihes. The hotline provides information, mediation services, and 
referrals for senior citizens and their families on a wide range of elder issues. The Bureau also has an 
internal task force of Elder Law Advocates comprised of Assistant Attomeys General and office Investigators 
in areas of elder law, including long term care issues, protective services, financial exploitation of elders, 



131 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

and home health care services. These advocates work in conjunction with the Elder Hotline to address 
specific elder protection concerns. 

The Public Protection Bureau included the following staff members: Timothy Shea, Chief; Mark 
Kmetz; Richard Gordon; Catherine Greene; William Porter; Linda Tomaselli; Howard Wise; Eileen Carey; 
John Christin; Jr.; Pamela Meister; Isabel Silva; Thomas Ulfelder; and Rose Ursino. 



CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DIVISION 



ENFORCEMENT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division continues to enforce aggressively the Massachusetts Civil 
Rights Act (MCRA). The MCRA authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief when the 
exercise of a person's civil rights is interfered with by threats, intimidation, or coercion based on that 
individual's race, color, national origin, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, or 
religious affiliation. A violation of a civil rights injunctive order constitutes a criminal offense, punishable by 
a maximum often years in a state prison if the victim suffers bodily injury, or up to two and one-half years 
in a correctional facility if no bodily injury results. In Fiscal Year 2000, the Division's mission to deter and 
prevent hate crimes resulted in the issuance of ten civil rights injunctions and one equity order by the 
Superior Court Department against thirty-five defendants, where it was alleged that the defendants had 
interfered with the rights of fifty-three residents of Massachusetts on the basis of their gender, race, national 
origin, rehgion, or sexual orientation. In addition, the Division conducted at least sixteen in-depth civil 
rights investigations of possible MCRA violations. 

GENDER BIAS 



The Division has continued its efforts to protect women from hate-motivated violence in dating or 
social relationships. The Division prevailed in its first landmark MCRA case involving allegations of civil 
rights violations on the basis of gender in 1994. 

• Commonwealth v. Aboulaz In June, 2000, the Division obtained a permanent civil rights 
order in Suffolk Superior Court against a Revere man with an alleged history of hate-motivated 
violence and abuse against women. The man allegedly engaged in a pattern of threats, 
intimidation and coercion against four different women over a three year period from 1 99 1 to 



132 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

1994. The order was the first comprehensive permanent injunctive order entered under the 
State's Civil Rights statute by a Massachusetts court in a case brought to combat gender bias 
arising from marital or dating relationships. The permanent civil rights injunction enjoins the 
defendant from further abuse or harassment of the individual victims and from abusing similarly 
situated women in the future. 

• Commonwealth v. McGrath In December, 1999, a permanent MCRA injunction was 
obtained from the Worcester County Superior Court in this case against a twenty-seven year 
old Hopedale man for his alleged nine-year history of violence and abuse against women. This 
is the third gender bias MCRA case in Massachusetts, all brought by the Division. The 
defendant is alleged to have repeatedly physically and sexually abused his female victims, and 
taunted them with vulgar and demeaning obscenities, reflecting animus against women as a 
class. One of the alleged victims was thirteen years old when she met the defendant. The 
preliminary injunction prohibits the defendant from engaging in gender-based threats or violence 
against the three women specifically named in the Division's court complaint as well as with any 
other woman with whom he may have a dating relationship in the future. 

RACIAL, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AND RELIGIOUS BL^ 



These MCRA case examples represent the Division's strong response to violence motivated by bias 
against a victim's race, national origin or rebgion. In Fiscal Year 2000, the Division obtained six injunctions 
against perpetrators of race-motivated bias, in addition to investigating ten additional matters involving 
alleged threats and violence against individuals based on their race, national origin or religious choice. 

• Commonwealth v. McPherson. et al. The Division obtained a preliminary civil rights 
mjunction from the Suffolk County Superior Court in September, 1999, against three 
defendants, alleging a series of race-based brutal attacks on a fifteen year-old Somali youth in 
the Charlestown section of Boston. In a series of incidents that occurred over a six-month 
period, the defendants allegedly beat, intimidated, and threatened the Somali youth while yelling 
racial slurs. The victim suffered substantial physical injuries from these attacks that occurred in 
the victim's own neighborhood, with one incident on the stairwell leading to his apartment. The 
injunction contained sdict language prohibiting the defendants, or anyone acting on their behalf, 
from knowingly engaging in further harassment, threats or violence, based on the victim's race or 
national origin, and from knowingly approaching within fifty feet of the victim's apartment 
building. 



133 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

• Commonwealth v. Aguiar The Division obtained preliminary injunctions from the Bristol 
County Supjerior Court against three adults and three teenagers who allegedly attacked a group 
of approximately thirty Asian- American youths, between the ages of six and eighteen years old. 
A majority of the victims were Cambodian Americans who were playing in the yard of a Fall 
River church. The defendants allegedly shouted anti- Asian epithets and threw large rocks, 
bricks, sticks and table legs at the children in the youth group. In this particularly egregious 
attack, several of the defendants allegedly waved baseball bats, while others in the group 
shouted, "Go back to your own country!" At least two people were struck by bricks and rocks 
thrown during the attack. The injunction bars the defendants, and anyone acting on their behalf, 
from harassing, threatening, intimidating or attacking the victims or any person based on his or 
her race or color and prohibits them from entering the property of the church where the alleged 
attack occurred. 

• Commonwealth v. Rotunda In January, 2000, the Suffolk Superior Court issued a 
preliminary injunction against the defendant for a violent assault against a Boston meter maid 
after she had left a ticket on the windshield of his car. The defendant allegedly charged at the 
victim and, while threatening her, shouted a series of disturbing racial epithets after the female 
officer gave him a ticket. The defendant, whose car was parked at an expked meter, terrified 
the victim by screaming derogatory comments at her. The victim feared that the defendant was 
about to attack her when she signaled her office for help on her radio transmitter. The injunction 
prohibits the defendant from assaulting, threatening, intimidating or coercing the victim or any 
other resident of or visitor to Massachusetts because of that person's race or color. 

• Commonwealth v. Doucharme, et al. In March, 2000, the Division obtained preliminary 
injunctions against five defendants for alleged on-going racial harassment, threats and 
intimidation against a fifteen year-old Webster boy based on his race and skin color both inside 
and out of the school building he attended, in his neighborhood and at his home. The 
Commonwealth alleged that over the course of the 1 998- 1 999 school year, the victim and 
defendants attended the same high school. At times, the defendants' wrongful conduct allegedly 
escalated to slapping the victim across the face. During such attacks, the defendants reportedly 
used hateful and threatening language. The harassment, tiireats and physical attacks were so 
bad that the victim was forced to withdraw from the school and attend classes in another school 
district. 



134 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

ANTI-GAY BIAS 

In Fiscal Year 2000, the Division demonstrated its continued commitment to combating hate crimes 
directed at individuals based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation by obtaining two MCRA 
injunctions and one equity order in such cases. In addition, the Division conducted six additional in-depth 
investigations into matters involving alleged hate crimes targeting members of the gay and lesbian community 
because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. 

• Commonwealth v. Maldonado. et al. In May, 2000, the Division obtained final 
judgments by consent against three female students at a Boston high school for engaging in an 
alleged pattern of intimidation, threats and sexual and physical assaults motivated by the 
defendants' bias toward the ethnicity, national origin and perceived sexual orientation of three 
Moroccan girls. According to Moroccan custom, it is customary for young girls to hold hands 
with female friends and to kiss one another in public as a greeting. The Commonwealth's 
complaint alleged that the harassment began in November 1999, and continued through January 
2000, when the defendants allegedly taunted, intimidated, and on one occasion physically 
assaulted one or more of the Moroccan students at school because they thought they were 
lesbians. It was alleged that the intimidation and threats escalated over the winter and in 
January, 2000, and that two of the defendants allegedly attacked one of these girls on an MBTA 
train as it traveled between stations. The three victims had come to Boston to study; a fourth 
alleged victim was so terrified that she returned to Morocco. 

• Commonwealth v. DeGrazia In May, 2000, the Division obtained a preliminary 
injunction from the Norfolk County Superior Court against a 17-year-old Holbrook student 
who allegedly engaged in a pattern of anti-gay intimidation and harassment and a violent assault 
against another Holbrook teen. It was alleged that a pattern of anti-gay taunts and harassment 
cukninated in a vicious attack on the victim as he sat in a chair in the school cafeteria having 
lunch with a group of friends. The defendant allegedly punched the victim in his head five or six 
times while the victim was sitting in the chair and after he fell to the floor. The victim suffered 
extensive injuries to his head, face and eardrum in that attack that ended only when a teacher on 
lunch duty intervene to stop the assault. 

CIVIL RIGHTS IN THE SCHOOLS 



The Division has continued to focus on ensuring the civil rights of students attending schools in the 
Commonwealth. In Fiscal Year 2000, the Division swiftly responded to more than ten allegations of hate 



135 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

or bias-motivated conduct by youngsters which occurred within the Massachusetts school system. With 
each of these complaints, the Division conducted investigations and worked with the schools to resolve the 
conflicts and prevent future occurrences. 

The Division also provided educational trainings to students, teachers and administrators on hate crimes 
and discrimination as well as sexual, racial, national origin, and religious harassment in the schools, including 
training programs to school administrators and teachers on their liability for failing to respond properly to 
hate crime and harassment incidents in the schools. Programs also included how to create comprehensive 
civil rights protection programs for students in middle and high schools and responding effectively to hate 
crimes on college and university campuses. 

Division staff assisted in the planning for the plenary session on civil rights in schools for Attorney 
General Tom Reilly's Education Summit, held on December 8, 1999. 

At the National Association of Attorneys General's (NAAG) National Civil Rights Conference held in 
Washington, D.C., on May 10-12, 2000, Richard Cole, the Division Chief, made a presentation at a 
plenary session where he previewed the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office's training program for 
schools to protect students from harassment and hate crimes. He also discussed how state Attorneys 
General may most effectively ensure that schools throughout the country use "Protecting Students from 
Harassment and Hate Crime: A Guide For Schools" a publicadon jointly developed by NAAG's Civil 
Rights Working Group and the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, an effort in which the 
Division served as national co-chair. 

THE MASSACHUSETTS HATE CRIMES TASK FORCE 



Since its inception, the Massachusetts Hate Crimes Task Force has helped law enforcement officials 
to more effectively coordinate enforcement activities and share information and expertise on combating 
and prosecuting hate crimes in the Commonwealth. Working closely with the Division, Attorney General 
Tom Reilly, along with United States Attorney Donald Stem, jointly decided to expand the Task Force to 
include a broad spectrum of community members with vast experience in hate crimes prevention, victim 
assistance, community relations and human and civil rights advocacy, including numerous nationally recognized 
experts in these areas. The first session of this newly expanded Task Force was held in July, 1999. The 
Massachusetts Hate Crimes Task Force is now comprised of over one hundred law enforcement officers 
and prosecutors, community leaders, civil rights advocates, human rights commission leaders, victim 
assistance professionals, hate crime researchers, civil rights trainers, educators, school diversity/tolerance 



136 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

curriculum specialists and others who have been working on hate crime related issues locally, statewide or 
nationally. 

In Fiscal Year 2000, the expanded Task Force developed a draft comprehensive plan to address and 
prevent hate crimes more effectively in the Commonwealth. In the late summer and early fall of 1999, 
Working Group members developed proposals for presentation to the entire Task Force. At the Task 
Force meeting held in October, 1999, the Working Group conveners provided Task Force members with 
written and oral summaries of a proposed action plan for Task Force adoption and implementation. The 
design of a comprehensive statewide action plan to combat and prevent hate crimes in the Commonwealth 
was outhned at the January, 2000 Task Force meeting. 

In addition, the Task Force debated key Working Group proposals, including recommendations for 
developing a statewide cadre of community hate crimes advocates. Furthermore, Task Force members 
were provided an update on two Working Group projects: (1) drafting a model policy for schools to 
address effectively harassment and discrimination, and (2) developing a statewdde victims' rights and referral 
pamphlet for hate crime victims. 

After the January 2000 meeting. Working Group conveners identified projects, initiatives and action 
steps in assigned topic areas for short- and long-term implementation. Proposals targeted specific law 
enforcement agencies: state and local police departments. District Attorneys' offices, the Attorney General's 
Office, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI, as well as the judicial system, correctional facilities, primary 
and secondary schools and municipalities. Recommendations included training, prevention efforts, victim 
assistance, victim advocacy, data collection, community outreach and public education, research, legislation 
and regulations. 

In the spring and early summer of 2000, the Division Chief, as Task Force Chair, integrated the varied 
Working Group proposals into a single, comprehensive, statewide plan of action. Leaders of other 
organizations were then contacted for feedback, critique and support. The Division Chief is awaiting the 
suggestions and comments to incorporate them into the draft statewide action plan. 



HATE CRIME TRAINING, OUTREACH, AND EDUCATION EFFORTS 

During Fiscal Year 2000, the Division collaborated with other governmental and non-governmental 
agencies and organizations to respond effectively to hate crimes in the Commonwealth. Division staff 
have actively engaged in efforts to address hate crimes through outreach to, and the training and education 



137 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

of, law enforcement, civil rights organizations and members of various communities in Massachusetts on 
hate crime identification, response, investigation, and prevention. 

• Governor's Hate Crimes Task Force - The Division Chief continues to serve as an active 
member of the Governor's Hate Crimes Task Force, attending its meetings, providing input about 
the Task Force's publication of its annual report on hate crimes in the Commonwealth, participating 
in the development of statewide initiatives, and collaborating with its Student Civil Rights Project in 
providing training and technical assistance to schools on preventing and addressing harassment 
and hate crimes. 

• Statewide Hate Crimes Train-the-TVainer Program - The Division Chief helped to organize 
and led a two day training on behalf of the statewide hate crimes training team certified by the 
United States Department of Justice and delivered training on November 29 and 30, 1999, at the 
Massachusetts Emergency Management Administration (MEMA) facilities in Framingham. The 
goal of the training program was to train experienced hate crime trainers in Massachusetts on how 
to deliver to law enforcement officers the state-of-the-art hate crime training curricula recently 
developed by the National Association of Attorneys General Civil Rights Working Group and the 
Department of Justice. 

• Charlestown Task Force Meeting - Division staff attended and actively participated in monthly 
task force meetings chaired by a Captain in the Boston Police Department. The members of the 
task force included representatives from the Boston police department and various federal, state, 
and local officials, along with members of the Bunker Hill Tenant Task Force. At these meetings, 
racial and other problems in the area are discussed, and members brainstorm about possible 
solutions. A number of projects have been implemented in the community as a result of the task 
force. 

• Boston National Voices - Division staff attended and actively participated in monthly meetings 
of the Boston National Voices, a coalition of organizations focusing on addressing the issue of hate 
crimes. The group's mission is to develop a plan to raise awareness about hate crimes and to 
speak out effectively against hate crime across constituency groups. The Division staff assisted in 
organizing an educational meeting that occurred on January 25, 2000, regarding an anti-gay hate 
incident in South Boston 

• National Hate Crime Prevention Center Advisory Board - The Division Chief, a member of 
the National Advisory Board of the National Hate Crime Prevention Center, attended the National 



138 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

Advisory Board's special meeting of the Board, held on June 5-6, 2000, in Boston, where he 
addressed the development of a statewide action plan by the Massachusetts Hate Crimes Task 
Force, and summarized the Division's precedent-setting efforts in addressing hate crimes motivated 
by gender bias. During this meeting, members of the National Advisory Board discussed legal, 
legislative, enforcement, and prevention efforts and developments on the state and national level. 

• Hate Crimes on Colleges and University Campuses - At a meeting of the Massachusetts 
Association of College and University Public Safety Departments on March 14, 2000, at Springfield 
College, the Division Chief outhned steps that college and university public safety departments can 
take to identify, respond to and investigate hate crimes effectively and to work in partnersliip with 
District Attomeys and the Attorney General's Office. 

• Hate Crime TY-aining for Law Enforcement Officers Sponsored by the Northwestern District 
Attorney - At the hate crime educationytraining program for law enforcement officers from 
Hampshire and Franklin Counties, sponsored and led by District Attorney EUzabeth Schiebel on 
May 16, 2000, at the Campus Center, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the Division Chief 
outlined steps that law enforcement officers can take to identify, respond to and investigate hate 
crimes effectively. 

• Reading Police Academy TVaining - The Division conducted a training session regarding civil 
rights hate crime laws for approximately 30-40 pohce officers representing several police 
departments. 

• Hate Crimes - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Regional Conference - The 

Division provided a hate crimes in housing presentation at the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) sponsored Regional Civil Rights Conference for employment and housing 
attomeys, held on April 1 3, 2000. 

• Flaschner Judicial Institute Statewide Victim Rights Conference - The Division Chief co- 
presented a training session for victim rights advocates and social service providers on hate crimes 
on May 1 8, 2000, at the Flaschner Judicial Institute's two day victim rights conference held at 
Falmouth on Cape Cod, forjudges, prosecutors, lawyers, victim advocates and others. 

• NAAG's Annual Civil Rights Conference - At the National Association of Attomeys General 
(NAAG) National Civil Rights Conference held in Washington, D.C., on May 10-12, 2000, the 
Division Chief participated in a panel discussion on the role of state Attomeys General in addressing 
and responding to hate crimes. 



139 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

• Hate Crimes Security Briefing Sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League - On September 
1, 1999, representatives of the FBI and the Commander of Community Disorders Unit of the 
Boston Police Department and the Division Chief briefed Rabbis, Jewish leaders, and Managers 
of Jewish Community Centers in the Greater Boston area about security issues and concerns in the 
aftermath of the shooting rampage at a Jewish Community Center in suburban Los Angeles. The 
event was organized and sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League of New England and was 
held at the Jewish Community Center in Newton. 

• ADL's "No Place for Hate" Initiative - On September 27, 1 999, the Division Chief attended 
a State House kick-off rally and provided remarks, along with other speakers, to an audience of 
state officials, municipal and civil rights leaders, and advocates in support of the "No Place for 
Hate" initiative sponsored by the Anti- Defamation League of New England and the Massachusetts 
Municipal Association. The initiative seeks to have municipalities declare themselves a "No Place 
for Hate" community and to take specific steps to address hate and hate activities in their communities 
through initiation of local programs and activities. The Division Chief remained an active participant 
on the Anti-Defamation League's Advisory Board charged with advising the ADL on the 
implementation of the "No Place for Hate" program. 

• Anti-Defamation League's Leadership Institute - On October 6, 1999, the Division Chief 
spoke to about 35 members of Leadership Institiate of the Anti-Defamation League of New 
England about the role of community leaders in addressing and responding to hate and hate crimes, 
and the role of the Division in hate crime enforcement and prevention. 

• Anti-Defamation League's Hate on the Internet Committee - Division staff were active 
members of the Internet Committee of the Anti-Defamation League of New England, consisting of 
law enforcement and Internet company officials, Internet experts, and civil rights and community 
members. The Committee held a number of meetings to share information and to discuss issues 
concerning identifying and responding to hate and hate crimes on the Internet. 

• Civil Rights and Police - In a collaborative effort to promote civil rights, assist the police and 
provide departments with technical assistance, the Division continues to offer and provide civil 
rights training to law enforcement covering issues of hate crimes identification, response and 
prosecution, civil habihty, sexual harassment and racial and cultiiral awareness. 

The Division continues to investigate allegations of police misconduct. It is also regularly consulted 
by police departments to assist them in their internal civil rights investigations. The Division has 



140 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

closely worked with departments to ensure that ^jpropriate remedial steps are taken when credible 
evidence is found which substantiates civil rights complaints. For example, the Division worked 
closely with one Department to make poUcy and procedure changes, including: requiring that the 
supervisor on duty provide prior written authorization before a strip search may occur; policy 
clarification of the circumstances where strip searches would be lawful; and training of personnel 
on revised strip search pohcy and procedures. 

• Attorney General's Initiative on Racial Profiling - The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division 
has played an increasingly important role in addressing concerns of improper and illegal motor 
vehicle stops and street encounters including, but not Umited to, racial profiling. This is an area 
where law enforcement agencies, both nationally and in the Commonwealth, are increasingly being 
requested to play an affirmative role. 

On March 24, 2000, the Division Chief participated as a member of a five member panel on how 
to address racial profiling practices by law enforcement at a day long conference in Randolph 
sponsored by the Massachusetts Association of Minority Police Officers. 

On May 24, 2000, the Division Chief, as a member of a five member panel for a Massachusetts 
Association of Hispanic Attorneys (M AH A) sponsored conference on how to address racial 
profiling practices, summarized the case law and the basis of legal claims related to racial profiling. 



The Division Chief also organized and led a plenary session on racial profiling on May 1 2, 2000, 
at the National Association of Attomeys General annual Civil Rights Conference held in Washington, 
D.C. PaneUsts also included the Chief of the Montgomery County Department of PoUce and the 
Chief of the Civil Rights Bureau of the New York Attorney General's Office. 

The Division has also played a significant role in assisting Attomey General Reilly in the development 
of an inifiative on racial profiling, including organizing the Attomey General's forum for law 
enforcement and union leaders on racial profiling, held on June 27, 2000. The forum served as a 
first step in ajoint effort to respond to concerns about racial and other forms of bias and prejudice 
in the provision of law enforcement services in the Commonwealth. The primary purpose of the 
meeting was for the Office of Attomey General to hear fi-om law enforcement leaders and other 
participants about their ideas and concems, and to discuss the development of a uniform approach 
to address racial profiling. The participants also reviewed litigation that has dictated very significant 
operational requirements on police practices in the United States, legislation that has been adopted 



141 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

in various states, and efforts in Massachusetts and nationally in the areas of data collection, data 
analysis, supervision, monitoring, education, and training. 

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION 



The Division continues to enforce the Commonwealth's fair housing laws which prohibit discrimination 
on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, 
source of income (receipt of housing subsidy), age or disability. 

In Fiscal Year 2000, the Division fought discrimination in housing by filing fourteen new civil actions in 
Superior Court. These cases involved allegations of discrimination based on race, familial status, gender, 
sexual orientation, and disability, as well as discrimination for retaliation. Five pending housing discrimination 
cases were favorably resolved through court-approved consent judgments during this period. Settlements 
included broad prohibitory and affirmative relief provisions, as well as significant compensatory damages 
to the complainants. Collectively, complainants in the five favorably resolved housing cases received over 
one hundred and forty thousand dollars ($1 40,000) in monetary damages to victims. In addition to these 
cases, the Division continued to work on a number of pending housing discrimination cases. 

Through training programs and prosecuting housing discrimination cases, the Division hopes to modify 
landlord and realtor practices, to educate tenants about the right to fair treatment in the housing market and 
to increase the availabihty of safe, affordable housing for families with young children. Examples of cases 
reflecting the Division's commitment to curtail discriminatory housing practices include: 

• Commonwealth v. Davenport, et al. This housing discrimination case was settled 
through a consent judgment entered in Barnstable Superior Court on May 27, 1999. It was 
filed on September 22, 1997, against the managing agent and trustees of a realty company for 
evicting a tenant who allegedly sought permission to provide foster care in her rental apartment 
to a mentally disabled adult under the care of the State. The Commonwealth sought and 
obtained the largest damage award it ever received in a housing discrimination case and the 
Commonwealth obtained broad and far reaching prohibitory and affirmative injunctive relief 
against the defendants. 

• Commonwealth v. John S. Marini. Marini Management Co. In October, 1999, the 
Division obtained a broad-based settlement agreement in which the defendants agreed to be 
enjoined from engaging in unlawful discriminatory conduct in renting properties and negotiating 



142 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

the terms and conditions of lease agreements. In this case, filed in Norfolk Superior Court by 
the Division in 1996, the defendants allegedly unlawfully discriminated against the Judge 
Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc., a Canton school for adolescents and its students, young 
adults with disabilities, by denying them available rental housing; terminating an existing lease of 
a rental unit occupied by the students; moving to evict the disabled students; and rescinding a 
lease for a second unit because some of its other tenants claimed they were "uncomfortable" 
with the "type of people" hving in the apartment complex. The settlement further required the 
defendants to take positive measures, such as educational trainings on state and federal fair 
housing laws. In addition, the settlement provided that the defendants pay Judge Rotenberg 
Educational Center's attorneys fees. The settlement also ordered the defendants to pay $6,000 
to two non-profit organizations assisting persons with mental disabilities and to permit the 
students to enter into one-year leases for the two apartment units they originally sought to rent. 

• Commonwealth v. Capone In January, 2000, the Suffolk County Superior Court 
approved a housing discrimination settlement in this case in which the Division alleged that the 
defendant, a Boston landlord, refused to rent and show available apartments to an African- 
American woman, when such apartments were in fact available and were simultaneously shown 
to a white male. Among other things, the settlement agreement provided $ 1 5,000 in damages 
to the complainant and prohibited the defendant from imposing different terms or conditions for 
housing accommodations because of an applicant's race or color. The settlement also required 
the defendant to provide employees with training and education on fair housing issues by an 
agency which provides fair housing training, including, but not limited to, state and federal laws 
governing non-discrimination in tenant selection, the rental of units, the investigation of tenant 
complaints, and the development of housing policies. 

• Commonwealth v. Derrick In February, 2000, the Norfolk Superior Court entered a 
judgment against a Milton landlord in a housing discrimination case brought in January, 1 998, on 
behalf of a former African- American tenant. The complaint alleged that in the late summer of 
1996, the defendant bought a two family house in Milton for rental purposes. At the time of the 
purchase, an African- American woman was renting one of the apartment units in the house for 
herself and her teen-aged daughter The complaint alleged that, based on the tenant's race, the 
defendant harassed the tenant and refused to negotiate a rental amount or any other terms of 
tenancy for her and her daughter's continued occupation and rental of the apartment. Under the 
terms of the judgment, the defendant paid the former tenant a monetary settlement and absolved 
her of a District Court default judgment he obtained against her in the eviction proceeding when 
the former tenant failed to appear for trial in that case. The judgment also permanently enjoined 



143 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

the defendant from discriminating against any person in violation of the state anti-discrimination 
law. 

• Commonwealth v. Niles Company The Division settled this Middlesex Superior Court 
case, filed in May 1998. alleging that a large Cambridge landlord failed to provide the 
complainant reasonable accommodations in the terms and conditions of her housing based on 
her disability. The Division obtained final judgment in November 1999 that includes broad 
permanent injunctive relief and payment of a significant amount of money to the complainant. 

HOUSING-RELATED EDUCATION, TRAINING & OUTREACH EFFORTS 

In May, 2000, the Division Chief trained housing specialists employed in Housing Courts statewide at 
a day-long educational conference for Housing Court judges and personnel. The training focused on proof 
of personal injury claims, Uabihty and assessment of damages arising from the housing context, including 
claims of discrimination. 

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION 



The Employment Discrimination Project has focused its efforts on addressing allegations of systemic 
employment discrimination practices in the Commonwealth. The Project investigates allegations of 
discrimination or harassment (race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation) in order to determine 
whether a particular employer or industry is engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination, affecting 
substantial numbers of Massachusetts employees. 

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 



The Division continued to have a significant impact on employment practices at the Massachusetts Bay 
Transportation Authority (MBTA). In February of 1997, the Division entered into a historic, court 
enforceable agreement with the MBTA and twenty-six of twenty-seven of its labor unions to end years of 
alleged violations of state and federal fair employment laws and to protect employees from future 
discrimination, harassment and retaliatory conduct. The comprehensive agreement mandated significant 
changes in policies and practices at the MBTA, and required new systems to govern the identification, 
investigation, monitoring and response to allegations of discrimination, harassment and retaliation at the 
MBTA. In 2000, the Division continued its extensive and ongoing monitoring of the MBTA's compliance 



144 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

wdth the Agreement, responding to voluminous numbers of complaints from MBTA employees, engaging 
in special reviews to determine if there was compliance with particular provisions of the Agreement, and 
investigating possible breaches. 

In December, 1999, the Office of Attorney General extended the 1997 Agreement between the 
Attorney General's Office and the MBTA for an additional two years. The Attorney General concluded, 
based on an intensive review of MBTA policies and practices, that the MBTA was not in full or substantial 
comphance in four areas of the Agreement: 

(A) The MBTA continued to fill certain job vacancies through a "post and bid" system which continued 
to adversely impact women and minority employees at the T; 

(B) The MBTA had maintained employees in "temporary change" status for extended periods rather 
than posting and filling the positions as permanent job vacancies, denying women and minorities 
the abihty to compete for these promotional opportunities; 

(C) The MBTA had failed to address operational and investigative deficiencies in the MBTA's 
Department of Organizational Diversity; and 

(D) The MBTA had failed to implement a fully operational computer system to track relevant 
employment, complaint and disciplinary date. 

• Commonwealth v. Bull HN Information Systems, Inc. (United States District Court) 
The Division's Employment Discrimination Project, along with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), continued to actively litigate the age discrimination issues in 
Commonwealth v. Bull HN Information Systems, Inc., filed in Fiscal Year 1997, in the United 
States District Court. This precedent-setting age discrimination in employment case alleged that 
Bull HN, a large electronics company, violated the federal Older Workers' Benefits Protection 
Act (OWBPA) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( ADEA) when laying off 
its workers aged forty and older. This is the fu-st ever joint enforcement effort of federal 
employment discrimination law in the United States between a state attorney general and the 
EEOC. In a ruhng denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the Commonwealth's federal 
discrimination claims in the case. Commonwealth of Mass. v. Bull HN Info. Systems, Inc., 16 
F.Supp. 2d 90 (D. Mass. 1998), the Court recognized the broad power of the Attorney 
General to bring actions for violations of federal law against Massachusetts employers on behalf 
of the pubUc interest and the important role the Attorney General plays in assuring that 
Massachusetts citizens obtain the full benefit of protection under federal laws. 



145 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

• Commonwealth v. Bull HN Information Systems, Inc. (Massachusetts Commission 
Against Discrimination) In Fiscal Year 2000, the Division continued to monitor comphance 
with the detailed settlement agreement executed by the parties and approved by the 
Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in January 1 999, involving a challenge to 
Bull HN's employment practices under state law. The Commonwealth alleged that Bull HN 
engaged in a pattern of age discrimination when terminating its employees pursuant to an 
ongoing reduction of its workforce. Under the settiement agreement. Bull HN agreed to 
establish or revise policies and procedures to ensure the protection of their employees from age 
discrimination. Some of the provisions of the agreement include the following: a requirement 
that Bull HN give notice of future job vacancies to its former employees who were laid off 
pursuant to a reduction of workforce and the right to file a complaint if the former employee is 
not rehired, and beUeves that he or she has been discriminated against; that seniority be the tie- 
breaking factor when Bull HN is faced with a close decision concerning rehiring or termination 
amongst employees who are substantially equally qualified; extensive training of personnel 
decision-makers on age discrimination law and the requirements of the Agreement; and 
additional review by senior level management when a decision is made to terminate an employee 
forty years of age or older to ensure that age is not a factor in tiie decision. The Agreement 
remains in effect for four years, and pohcies and procedures for five years. 



EMPLOYMENT-RELATED EDUCATION, TRAINING & OUTREACH EFFORTS 

At the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) National Civil Rights Conference held in 
Washington, D.C., on May 10-12, 2000, AAG Cathy Ziehl participated in a plenary session presentation 
on the use of the parens patriae doctiine to pursue affirmative litigation under federal statutes on behalf of 
state citizens by state Attorneys General and how to fashion remedies in discrimination cases when 
representing the state. 

In the fall of 1 999, AAG C. Ziehl was a presenter at a Boston Bar Association educational program on 
the implications of the United States Supreme Court decision in the Sutton trilogy of cases, which concerned 
the interpretation of the Americans with Disability Act. In the prior fiscal year, the Division had written and 
filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court signed by 1 4 states in support of a broader and 
more inclusive definition of "disability" under federal law. 



146 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

In its winter 2000 issue, the Massachusetts Bar Journal pubUshed "Parade of Horribles-the Aftermath 
of Sutton, Murphy, and Albertson," AAG C. Ziehl's article addressing and criticizing the Sutton trilogy of 
decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court. 

EDUCATIONAL EQUITY 



• Comfort V. Lynn School Committee, et al. In November, 1999, the Commonwealth 
joined the Lynn School Committee as a defendant by intervening in Comfort v. Lynn School 
Committee, etal. to defend the constitutionality of the Commonwealth's Racial Imbalance Law 
and the City of Lyim's school choice plan, in effect since 1988, which promotes equal 
educational opportunities, increases the quality of education and ensures safe schools. In 
August, 1 999, five parents with school aged children residing in Lynn had sued the Lynn School 
Committee in the United States District Court contesting the legality of Lynn's "school choice 
plan," alleging that Lynn's volimtary desegregation plan adopted under the Racial Imbalance Act 
discriminated against students in their placement into schools on the basis of their race. Lynn's 
student assignment plan not only guaranteed to parents residing in all sections of Lynn the right 
to have their children educated in their neighborhood schools, but, with some limitations, the 
choice of out-of-district schools that may focus on an educational theme or offer special 
programs that more closely reflect their children's educational interests and needs. 

The Division, jointly with the Administrative Law Division of the Attorney General's 
Government Bureau, argued that, as a result of the Racial Imbalance Law, a number of urban 
communities throughout the state, including Lynn, have received significant financial assistance 
from the state, otherwise unavailable, to promote equal educational opportunities and increased 
quality of education for their students. The additional state monies these communities receive 
under the Racial Imbalance Act have allowed them to improve the condition of the public school 
buildings in which young people learn and enabled them to develop and maintain magnet schools 
and other special educational programs, available to students living in all parts of their school 
districts. The Division further argued that if Lynn's plan, which generally permits parents to 
choose among public schools in Lynn regardless of race, national origin or where a student may 
live, were ended, eight of Lynn's eighteen elementary schools would likely become 
resegregated, with some schools again becoming almost all white and some predominantly 
minority. If the plaintiffs' challenge were to succeed, the Division argued, numerous Lynn 
elementary school students would be denied the opportunity to develop interracial social 
relationships and ftiendships that have been the primary reason Lynn's middle and high schools 



147 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

have not experienced the type of racial divisions and interracial tensions and violence that have 
occurred in a number of other school districts in Massachusetts and throughout this country. 

The Commonwealth also argued that if the Racial Imbalance Act and Lynn's plan were 
enjoined, all students would be required to attend their district schools, disrupting the education 
of over 4,000 Lynn students who voluntarily chose assignment to out-of-district schools, 
including about 2,500 elementary school students. 

In May, 2000, in a twenty-five page decision in Comfort v Lynn School Committee , 100 
F.Supp.2d 57 (D.Mass. 2000), the U.S. District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for issuance 
of a preliminary injunction. 

• Massachusetts Coalition for Equitable Education Division staff participated in meetings and 
a conference sponsored by the Massachusetts Coalition for Equitable Education to develop a 
statewide coalition of organizations and individuals to support and work for racial justice and 
fairness in the public schools, including supporting the METCO program, the state's Racial Imbalance 
Act, and Chapter 636 funding for school systems that are voluntarily integrating their students. 

REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE 



The Division has continued its efforts to safeguard the right to reproductive choice. In December 
1999, the Massachusetts Senate requested an advisory opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 
Court regarding whether Senate No. 148 was constitutional under the First Amendment to the United 
States Constitution and the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. The bill would estabbsh 
a twenty-five-foot buffer zone around reproductive health care clinic entrances and driveways in an effort 
to address confrontational protest activity and tensions outside of the state's clinics. 

The Division, jointly with the Administrative Law Division, authored and filed a Brief of Amicus Curiae 
in the Supreme Judicial Court arguing that the bill did not abridge federal and state constitutional rights to 
freedom of speech and association. In January, 2000, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a unanimous 
Opinion of the Justices opining that Senate No. 148 indeed passed constitutional muster. 

On October 19, 1999, the Division participated in training with the United States Department of 
Justice and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for clinic personnel on clinic security 
issues. At that training, the Division outlined applicable state and local laws and their enforcement. 



148 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS 



In Fiscal Year 2000, the Division continued its enforcement of the laws ensuring the right of the citizens 
of the Commonwealth to equal access to places of public accommodation, regardless of race, color, 
religion, national origin, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation or disability. 

• Commonwealth v. Haverhill Country Club In October, 1999, the Division won a major 
victory in a gender discrimination case against the Haverhill Golf & Country Club (HCC). After 
a month long jury trial in Suffolk Superior Court, the HCC was found to have engaged in a 
pattern and practice of gender discrimination against its women members in their rights and 
privileges of membership and in their access to the services and facilities available to male 
members of the Club. The jury awarded the nine women plaintiffs a total of nearly two million 
dollars as a result of the Club's discriminatory practices. In January, 2000, the Suffolk Superior 
Court entered a permanent injunction against HCC, as requested by the Division, which orders 
the Club to cease discriminating against its female members. The court further ordered HCC to 
rewrite its bylaws and poUcies so that women will not be discriminated against in rights, benefits, 
services or privileges at the Club. 

CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVES WITH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 
ATTORNEYS GENERAL 



NAAG's National Civil Rights Working Group The Division Chief continues to serve as 
national Chair of the National Association of Attorneys General's (NAAG) Civil Rights Working 
Group consisting of representatives of state Attorneys General offices from throughout the country. 
The Working Group's goal is to enhance the cooperative relationship between die states and the 
U.S. Department of Justice(DOJ) in civil rights enforcement. Pursuant to the NAAG-DOJ 
Memorandum of Understanding on Affirmative Civil Rights Enforcement, executed in 1995, five 
NAAG-DOJ Civil Rights Task Forces have been established under the umbrella of NAAG 's Civil 
Rights Working Group. Among other things, these task forces are intended to formulate and 
implement joint enforcement initiatives in five substantial areas: bias-related crimes; housing 
discrimination; mortgage lending discrimination; discrimination in pubUc accommodations based 
on disabiUties; and employment discrimination. Division staff play a key role in each of the national 
task forces to address national pohcy and enforcement issues in these areas. 



149 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

For the past seven years since 1 994, including in Fiscal Year 2000. the Division has taken 
a leading role in initiating and organizing NAAG's annual Civil Rights Conferences attended by 
representatives of state attorney general's offices, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department 
of Justice, United States Attorneys Offices and the EEOC, to share expertise and to enhance 
national, regional and state civil rights enforcement efforts. Division staff attended and actively 
participated in the three day national, civil rights conference held on June 10-12, 1999 in 
Washington, D.C. 

DISABILITY RIGHTS 



ENSURING EQUAL ACCESS TO PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND PUBLIC MEETINGS 



The Disability Rights Project of the Civil Rights Division continued its extensive efforts to protect the 
rights of individuals with disabilities throughout the Commonwealth. 

In an effort to make all retail and department stores more accessible for customers with disabilities, the 
Disability Rights Project drafted an advisory, signed by the Attorney General and sent in December, 1 999, 
to retail and department stores instructing them to remove barriers, such as temporary racks and boxes, 
that obstruct aisle access. The advisory reminds stores that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires 
accessible paths of travel at least thirty-six inches wide for people who use wheelchairs or walkers. The 
advisory also notes that during past holiday seasons, individuals with disabilities experienced difficulties 
with barriers in paths of travel, and that such barriers can be easily removed in order to allow customers 
with disabUities to travel safely through aisles and have access to merchandise and to ensure access for all 
customers. In June, 2000, the Disability Rights Project, in a collaborative effort with six other state 
attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote to the Southland Corporation (7-Eleven 
Stores) to highlight barriers to access at Southland's convenience stores. 

In addition, the Disability Rights Project sent an advisory letter with the Massachusetts Office on 
Disabihty to local and municipal governments to ensure that people with disabilities are not denied access 
to public meetings. The advisory notified such entities that all residents of a community have the right to 
access all municipal decision-making bodies, as guaranteed by state and federal law. 

At the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) National Civil Rights Conference held in 
Washington, D.C, on May 10-12, 2000, the Director of the Disability Rights Project participated in a 
panel discussion on disability enforcement programs of state attomeys general offices. 



150 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 



COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC EDUCATION 



Consistent with the strong emphasis on community education, the Disability Rights Project has emphasized 
programs to increase understanding of and compliance with disability rights laws. In June, 2000, the 
Division published "Employment Rights of Individuals with Disabilities," a pamphlet explaining state and 
federal employment law for people with disabilities, and updated the Attorney General's Access Resource 
Manual. 

The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division included the following staff members: Richard Cole, Chief; 
Lakeisha Brooks; Lael Chester; Patricia Correa; Suzanne Click Gilfix; Caroline Lukasiewicz; Jacinta Ma; 
Maria Mackenzie; M. Julie Patino; Sharon Petrillo; Anthony Rodriguez; Louisa Terrell; Susan Tufts; 
Julianne Williams; and Catherine Ziehl. 



CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 



CPAD carries out the Attorney General's authority under the state Consumer Protection Act and the 
state and federal antitrust laws. The division also acts pursuant to a broad grant of authority found in 
General Laws chapter 12, section 10, which directs that the Attorney General "shall take cognizance of all 
violations of law...affecting the general welfare of the people.. .and shall institute... such criminal or civil 
proceedings before the appropriate state and federal courts.. .as he may deem to be for the pubUc interest..." 

Three specialized units also fall under the responsibility of the Division's Chief. These are the Consumer 
Complaint and Information Section (CCIS), the Local Consumer Programs (LCPs), and the Mediation 
Services Department (MSD). 

The Consumer Complaint and Information Section (CCIS) responds to telephone inquires from 
consumers concerning problems they may experience in dealing with businesses both within and outside of 
Massachusetts. CCIS provides informational brochures on various consumer issues, including new and 
used vehicle purchasing, home improvement contracting, and issues of consumer credit and debt collection. 
CCIS also directs consumers to other appropriate resources, and when disputes arise requiring further 
assistance, CCIS 's trained staff are able to mediate consumer complaints. 



151 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

The Local Consumer Programs (LCPs) are a statewide network of nineteen offices partly funded by 
grants from the Office of the Attorney General. LCPs provide information, referral services, and mediation 
to consumers in all 35 1 cities and towns within the Commonwealth. The information gathered by both 
CCIS and the LCPs are available to attorneys within CPAD, and should a pattern of unfair or deceptive 
conduct by a particular business be noted, the Division may take legal action on behalf of the consumers. 

The Mediation Services Department (MSD) of the office of the Attorney General provides three 
distinct programs to communities in the Commonwealth. The Student Conflict Resolution Experts (SCORE) 
is a mediation training program for students in middle school and high school that provides them with the 
skills needed for peer conflict mediation. The Conflict Intervention Team's (CIT) staff and community 
mediators are trained to respond to particularly difficult student conflicts . Face to Face Mediation Programs 
(FTFMPs) provide a network of community mediation programs to settle disputes with two neutral mediators 
in a face to face setting. 

CPAD, through CCIS and LCPs, acts both to educate consumers concerning then- legal rights and 
responsibilities under state and federal consumer protection laws, and to take legal action on behalf of 
consumers who have been adversely affected by unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the marketplace. 
These programs provide mediation services to resolve consumer disputes that might otherwise end up in 
one of the civil courts of the Commonwealth. 

HIGHLIGHTED EFFORTS & SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES 

• Hospital Community Benefits Status Report - In conjunction with staff from the Regulated 
Industries Division, the Division issued its second report on hospital implementation in 1996 and 
1997 of the Attorney General's voluntary community benefits guidelines. 

• Childrens' Privacy - Emphasizing Attorney General Reilly 's strong commitment both to children's 
safety and the safety and privacy of all who use the Internet, the Division drafted and sent comments 
to the Federal Trade Commission on its proposed regulations on protecting the privacy of children 
on the Internet. 

• Eastern States Antitrust Conference - The Division hosted the Eastern States Antitrust 
conference in December 1999. 

• Cross Agency Initiatives to Address Nursing Home Bankruptcies - Division attorneys 
compiled information available from Department of Public Health (DPH) and other sources, and 
met with attorneys from the Government Bureau of the Attorney General's Office, to develop 



152 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

strategy to deal with increasing numbers of bankruptcy filings by Massachusetts nursing homes 
and related patient care issues. The Division, acting upon requests from DPH, has consistently 
taken a strong role in ensuring continuity of patient care, and orderly transfer, when nursing homes 
file for bankruptcy. In cases in which financial or other difficulties appear to affect patient care, the 
Division, upon notice and request from DPH, frequently files for the appointment of a receiver to 
ensure that patients receive the care to which they are entitled. 

• Small Claims Court Committee of the Trial Court - The Division continued work with the 
Committee to draft Small Claims Rules and Standards in Une with changes in the law in 1992, and 
to ensure coordination and consistency in Small Claims practice across the state. 

• E-Commerce Legislative Review - Demonstrating Attorney General Reilly 's strong commitment 
to the quickly evolving area of e-commerce. Division attorneys reviewed, submitted written 
comments and/or testified on the Uniform Computer Information Act (UCITA), the Uniform 
Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and the Electronic Signatures Act (E-Sign). These acts can 
control the rights of purchasers when buying any products containing software, not only computers, 
as well as consumers rights to written disclosure of their rights in a financial transaction, especially 
when the transaction is conducted over the Internet. 

• Model Rules for Manufactured Housing Communities - Division attorneys drafted Model 
Rules for Manufactured Housing Communities in order to assist community owners in establishing 
mles that provide consumer protections, while addressing needs of the communities. The Attorney 
General reviews all proposed Manufactured Housing Community Regulations, and in trying to 
assist in ensuring consistency and fairness, has drafted model rules both to aid consumers and 
community owners and to facilitate rapid review of proposed rules. 

• Tobacco Advertising and Sale Regulations - Chapter 93 A regulations restricting certain tobacco 
advertising and sales practices and requiring warnings on cigars were drafted by Division attorneys 
and promulgated as a follow up to the Master Settlement Agreement of the state attorneys generals' 
suit against PhilUp Morris and other tobacco manufacturers. 

• Telemarketing Bill - Division attorneys provided testimony to the General Court's Joint Committee 
on Commerce and Labor regarding the telemarketing fraud prevention bill drafted by attorneys in 
the Division and supported by American Association of Retired Persons ( AARP) and others. The 
bill included provisions for "do not call" lists, a three day right to rescind a telemarketing sales 
transaction, and clear disclosures required of telemarketers, as weU as recordkeeping requirements 
for telemarketers. 



153 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

• Health Club BUI - Division attorneys provided testimony to the Joint Committee on Commerce 
and Labor for its consideration of the health club bUl drafted by the Division. The bill provided for 
significant changes in current health/fitness club law, including changes to the state bonding provision, 
and limits on length of memberships. 



SIGNIFICANT CASES 

• Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Receivership On January 4, 2000, Attorney General 
Tom Reilly, at the request of the Commissioner of Insurance, Linda Ruthardt, obtained a 
court order from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court placing Harvard Pilgrim 
Health Care Inc., Pilgrim Health Care Inc., and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of New 
England Inc. (collectively HPHC) into temporary receivership. During the receivership, 
CPAD analyzed the impact on consumers and competition of the receivership, and any 
and all proposed plans of rehabilitation or transactions involving HPHC. Ultimately, the 
receiver filed a plan of reorganization that did not involve any material impact on either 
consumers or the competitive environment in the Massachusetts health care consumer or 
provider markets. 

• Commonwealth v. Philip Morris, et al. The Commonwealth's petition for attor- 
neys' fees and costs in this groundbreaking legal case against tobacco manufacturers was 
submitted, seeking $6.9 million. The Commonwealth was awarded $358 million for its 
share of the Strategic Contribution Fund, including $250 miUion to establish the 
Commonwealth's anti-smoking foundation. Attorney General Tom Reilly, with assis- 
tance from the Division, testified before a legislative committee on recommendations for 
use of the tobacco settlement funds. 

• Commonwealth v. First North American National Bank, d/b/a Circuit City The 

Division settled this multistate case and filed a consent judgment enjoining unlawful debt reaffir- 
mation practices against bankrupt consumers by this major retailer of consumer electronics and 
appliances, and ordering payment of $ 10 million in restitution to consumers nationwide and $3.7 
million in civil penalties to participating states. 

• Commonwealth v. Filene's Division attorneys filed a Consent Judgment entered against 
this national retailer for its unfair debt collection practices; $245,000 in civil penalties was 



154 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

awarded the Commonwealth, plus injunctive relief to end illegal practices, and resolution of 
individual consumer complaints, including restitution and cessation of unlawful practices. 

• Associated Creditors. Inc. Consent judgment was entered against this unlicensed 
debt collection company, enjoining future efforts to collect debts from Massachusetts 
residents. The company was also ordered to pay a $7,500 civil penalty. 

• Commonwealth v. Toys R Us. et al. Division attorneys obtained a Consent Judg- 
ment against toy manufacturers and a major distributor for engaging in anticompetitive 
conduct. The plan for cy pres consumer restitution distributed $302,000 to Massachusetts 
Department of Education "Spread the Word" program for purchase of books for distribu- 
tion to needy children across the state, and $12,000 attorneys' fees to the Commonwealth. 

• Commonwealtli v. Executive Fitness The Boston area health club closed and filed 
for bankruptcy, leaving consumer deposits unretumed. The Commonwealth filed a claim 
in the bankruptcy court for return of the $25,000 bond filed by the Club with the Office 
of the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth, for the benefit of consumers. 

• Commonwealtli v. Haverliill Golf and Country Club. Inc. This Civil Rights and 
Consumer Protection case was brought against the club for unfair acts of discrimination 
against women who applied for membership as well as against female members. After a 
month-long jury trial, the private party plaintiffs, whose case was consolidated with that 
of the Attorney General, were awarded $1.9 million in compensatory and punitive 
damages, and an injunctive order was issued against the Club, providing for both affirma- 
tive and prohibitory relief. 

• Commonwealth v. .1. Sainsbury After extensive review and negotiation by division 
attorneys, a Consent Judgment entered in Superior Court providing for divestiture of 10 
stores and conduct restrictions to address competitive concerns in this acquisition of Star 
Markets by J. Sainsbury (Shaw's). 

• Commonwealth v. Source One. Inc. and Peter Easton Division attorneys represented 
the Commonwealth in this matter, culminating in a bench trial involving information fraud, includ- 
ing obtaining and selling private financial data by trickery and deception. Judgment entered in 
favor of the Commonwealth, with the imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of $500,000, 



155 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. 

• Commonwealth v. Michael Morris, d/b/a Northeast Sash and Door Division 
attorneys obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance against this home improvement 
contractor who took money for work he did not perform. Restitution of $5,500 for this 
uncompleted work was awarded and paid out to consumers. 

• Commonwealth v. .TJ. O'Brien Mover. Inc.. and Gary DeCicco Division attor- 
neys obtained a Consent Judgment which entered in Superior Court against this moving 
company which lost or damaged consumers' goods. Judgment provided for restitution 
through a program of arbitration, and payment of $4,000 in civil penalties, as well as 
injunctive relief against future unlawful conduct. 

• Commonwealth v. Peterson Oil Division attorneys filed a Final Judgment by 
Consent in Worcester Superior Court requiring this Worcester area home heating oil 
dealer to honor all of its current and future fixed price contracts. The order also enjoined 
Peterson from engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising and solicitation practices 
in the future, and provided for payment of $10,000 to a selected non-profit or government 
agency which provides free or low cost fuel oil to consumers, and payment of $5,000 for 
costs of investigation. This matter was especially compelling as the increase came during 
a cold spell, and it also appeared that consumers might not be able to find an alternative 
oil dealer. It was an extremely important message to send to Peterson Oil because other 
dealers where contemplating following suit in light of possible oil shortages. 

• Commonwealth v. Chatham Development. Inc. The Massachusetts Appeals Court 
affirmed the decision of the Superior Court that determined that certain of Chatham's 
residential lease clauses were unlawful; attorneys' fees and civil penalties of $10,000 
were awarded. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) denied further appellate review. 

• Commonwealth v. Equmox Final Judgment entered against this multi-level market- 
ing company, providing for $275,000 for restitution, penalties and costs, and for detailed 
injunctive relief. 

• Commonwealth v. Nine West Division attorneys worked in conjunction with staff of 
other state attorneys general in this retail price fixing case, which resulted in settlement providing 
injunctive relief, costs and expenses. Massachusetts recovered approximately $600,000 for cy 
pres distribution to agencies providing for women's health and safety issues. 



156 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 



• American Shooting Sport Council v. Attorney General (ASSC) Industry chal- 
lenge against the Attorney General's handgun regulations. The Supreme Judicial Court 
found in favor of the Attorney General, finding regulations valid and within Attorney 
General's powers to issue and implement. 

• Commonwealth v. Pine Hill Estates, et al. Division attorneys obtained and filed a 
Final Judgment by Consent under which all notices of discontinuance of this mobile 
home park would be rescinded and considered null and void. The judgment also pro- 
vided that residents were to receive 5 year leases or tenancies at will with rent freeze at 
current level, and $150,000 in attorneys fees to be paid to the Tenants' Association and 
the Commonwealth. 

• Commonwealth v. Patel Division attorneys investigated this matter involving 
"payday loans," with interest exceeding 23%. Assurance of Discontinuance filed, provid- 
ing restitution in an amount equal to interest charged consumers, and injunctive relief. 

• Commonwealth v. Home Comfort Systems by Reidy. Inc. Assurance of Discon- 
tinuance filed against this Holyoke area oil seller for failing to honor prepaid and budget 
paid contracts. The Assurance provided for injunctive rehef against future similar con- 
duct, and credits and refunds to be provided to affected consumers. 

• Commonwealth v. Microsoft Multistate case initiated by the Massachusetts and 
Texas Attorneys General against this software company for alleged violation of antitrust 
laws, including the Sherman Act. After trial, the federal court found that Microsoft has 
violated both state and federal law, and ordered the company be split into two companies. 
The case is on appeal. 

• Fleet Merger Upon review of a Fleet/Bank Boston merger Attorney General Reilly 
was very concerned with proposals to sell off branches to only small local banks, which 
would mean that consumers could be put in an uncompetitive marketplace. Attorney General 
Reilly solicited possible suitors from large regional banks to ensure that competition would 
remain. The investigation resulted in a letter agreement, with divestiture of branches to Sover- 
eign Bank and others. 



157 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

• National Coupon Network Network Consent Judgment entered against Rorida seller of 
work at home materials which provided no income to consumers; injunctive relief and restitution 
of $ 1 ,500 to 50 affected consumers. 



OUTREACH EFFORTS 



Massachusetts Bankers Seminar on Privacy - Division attorneys provided a presentation to 
the Massachusetts Bankers Association on privacy of bank account information and "asset search" 
companies who gain access to information by "pretexting," misrepresenting themselves as the 
account owner. 

Manufactured Housing Guide - Division attorneys drafted "The Attorney General's Guide to 
Manufactured Housing Community Law," a comprehensive guide to Massachusetts manufactured 
housing community laws and regulations. The report demonstrates Attorney General Reilly's 
continuing commitment to maintaining affordable housing stock in Massachusetts. 

Manufactured Housing Community Rules - Division attorneys completed review and returned 
eighteen sets of proposed manufactured housing community rules, and developed a training and 
review protocol for future rules reviews. 

Federal Trade Commission Project Mailbox - Division attorneys coordinated a 
Massachusetts response to a report on state initiatives relating to deceptive/fraudulent direct 
mail schemes. The Division conducts education campaigns through both CCIS and IXPs, and 
responds to consumer complaints through mediation and case work. 

Panel presenters at "Savvy Seniors Make Wise Consumers" - Division attorneys attended 
the Massachusetts Council on Aging Conference attended by over 250 seniors and senior advocates, 
and offered presentations at two panels on the issues of "Nursing Home Admissions Agreements 
and Assisted Living Contracts" and "Consumer Protection Issues for Seniors." 

TVanslation Project - Division attorneys oversaw translation of several popular CPAD brochures 
into multiple languages, including Spanish, Russian, Haitian-Creole, Chinese, Cape Verdean Creole, 
Portuguese, and Cambodian. 



158 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

• Faculty presenters at Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education(MCLE) Seminar - 

Division attorneys also appeared at the MCLE seminar entitled "Health Care Basics", speaking on 
consumer protection issues in health care, including litigating bankruptcies and receiverships of 
health care facilities. 

• New England School of Law - Division attorneys were guest speakers at a consumer law class, 
and presented information concerning the Division's gun and tobacco litigation. 

• Harvard Law School - The Division Chief was a guest speaker at a government law class, and 
addressed the issue of the affirmative consumer protection powers of the Attorney General. 

• Panel presenter at the Department of Justice Conference on Nursing Home Abuse 
Prevention - The Division Chief appeared in Philadelphia and Des Moines, and spoke on Use of 
State Consumer Protection Powers to Protect Nursing Home Residents and their Families. Attorney 
General Reilly and his Consumer Protection Division demonstrated that innovative use of the 
consumer protection laws and receivership statute can add to the personal quaUty of life for seniors, 
a most vulnerable population. 

• Organized Eastern Regional Attorneys General Round Table on Health Care Issues - 

Division attorneys both organized and presented at this round table session, discussing such important 
issues as cost of prescription drugs, ever-increasing health care costs, and the higher price of 
health care in the Eastern Region of the country. 

• Local Consiuner Programs (LCP) - Division attorneys conducted monthly trainings for LCP 
Directors on issues such as bankruptcy for beginners, mortgage requirements in Massachusetts, 
landlord-tenant law and preventing and responding to identity theft. 

• National Consumers Week - The Consumer Complaint and Information Section (CClS) 
conducted outreach at South Station and Harvard Square T-stops during National Consumers 
Week, including offering consumer brochures, answering consumer questions, and providing 
complaint forms on site. 

• Real Estate Broker's Association - Division attorney delivered a speech on the role of the 
Attorney General in Consumer Protection to Real Estate Broker's Association for their annual 
"Day on the Hill." 



159 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

• Straight Talk - Division attorney appeared on this live television cable call-in show on two 
occasions, discussing new consumer protection initiatives, and reviewing common areas of complaint, 
as well as providing overview of consumer protection laws concerning motor vehicles, home 
improvement contracting, telemarketing and sweepstakes fraud, and timeshare and health club 
laws. 

• Attorney General's Web Site - Division attorneys drafted several alerts, advisories and brochures 
drafted for and posted on the Attorney General's Web site, on a variety of consumer topics, 
including going out of busmess sales and what to watch out for, new and used motor vehicle lemon 
laws and regulations, telemarketing and sweepstakes deception, and recently filed cases of interest 
and concern to consumers. 

• Federal Reserve Bank Consumer Conference - Division attorneys assisted in planning this 
conference, and delivered a presentation on Internet Frauds and Scams. The division attorneys' 
presentation focused on financial products available online, how to deal with businesses that may 
not have a "bricks and mortal^' location, and whether this can prove difficult for dispute resolutions 
available for Internet problems. This is one of many examples that reinforces Attorney General 
ReiUy's priority of safe and knowledgeable use of the Internet. 

• AG Elder Hotline, CCIS Hotline - Division attorneys conducted trainings on the role of CPAD, 
CCIS. LCPs in consumer protection, and provided training on landlord-tenant law. 

• National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (N AC AA) Conference - Division 
attorney attended conference of National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators, and 
was elected as Vice President for Public Policy of this international consumer protection agency 
association. In this role, the attorney provides comment to federal agencies on proposed legislation, 
and offers information to various Congressional committees on consumer protection laws and 
regulations propxjsed, or proposed for amendment. 

• New England Cable News - Division attorneys provided presentations on Attorney General's 
travel regulations on NECN and Channel 40. Presenters both summarized the requirements of the 
travel regulations, and answered questions concerning the nature of complaints Attorney General's 
Office receives. The presenters also gave information on where to go for help in addition to the 
Office of the Attorney General, for matters in which states are pre-empted by Federal Law from 
taking action, including the Federal Aviation Administration or the Maritime Authority. 



160 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

MEDIATION SERVICES HIGHLIGHTS 

• Peace Matters - The Director of the Mediation Services Division (MSD) wrote an article on 
SCORE for the Hague Appeal for Peace Newsletter, at their request. 

• New England Society for Professionalism in Dispute Resolution (NESPIDR) MSD staff 
participated in planning committee activities for NESPIDR conference. 

• Western Massachusetts Peacemakers' Summit - MSD staff participated in planning this 
conference of mediators and mediation trainers. 

• Massachusetts Association of Mediation Programs/Practitioners (MAMPP) - Mediation 
Services participated in a conference at Brandeis University, and participated in Mediation Week. 

• SCORE (Student Conflict Resolution Experts) - Mediation Services sent SCORE newsletter 
to schools and designed a new SCORE brochure and poster. MSD staff also held two regional 
trainings for SCORE Coordinators, and completed the final edit of the new Trainer's Manual for 
training student mediators. 

• Face-to-Face Mediation Programs - MSD staff drafted a new brochure for the programs, and 
conducted yearly site visits to member programs to assess performance. 

• Conflict Intervention Team (CIT) - MSD staff completed their reports on conflict intervention 
in various communities, selected states for CIT replication training and held skill-building workshops 
for err mediators. 

The Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division included the following staff members: Freda Fishman, 
Chief; Jesse Caplan; Leslie Davies; Michael Atleson; Christopher Barry-Smith; John Botte; Andrea Breton; 
Sara Bryant; Jeffrey Clements; Arlie Costine-Scott; Rita De Salvo; Henry Eaton; Mary Freeley; Santosh 
Ganesan; DanaGershengom; Michael Hering; Stephanie Kahn; Glenn Kaplan; Pamela Kogut; Andrew 
Latimer; Carmen Leon; Betty Maguire; Lois Martin; William Matlack; Laura Michalski; Carrine Michel; 
David Monahan; Marianne Nicoletti; Donna Palermino; Judith Risch; Prasant Sar; Betsy Sawyer; Lorraine 
Smith; Christine Sullivan; Deirdre Sullivan; Diane Szafarowicz; Joanne Wamness; and Chi Chi Wu. The 
Consumer Complaint and Information Section included the following staff members: Muriel Hervey, Director, 
Laura Murray; Darla Ansell; De'shanta Bailey; Joyce Coughlin; Linda Danovitch; John Donovan; Sophia 
Henry; Pamela Madden; Margaret O' Brien; Astrid Panameno; Julie Papemik; Scott Pearl; Daniel Reynolds; 
Jessica Roberts; Margaret Torio; James Tremble; and Marc Zappulla. The Mediation Services Department 



161 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INVESTIGATIONS 

included the following stafF members: Kathleen Grant; Darlene Skog; Steve Lilly- Weber; Xavier Velasco- 
Suarez; and Sandra Washburn. 



INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

The Investigations Division (ID), formerly known as the Civil Investigation Division, conducts 
investigations primarily for divisions within the Public Protection and Government Bureaus. In addition, ID 
also investigates cases or matters within the Community Based Justice Bureau, on occasion for the Executive 
Bureau, or in conjunction with the Criminal Bureau. 

The major duties of Division investigators are: locating and interviewing victims, witnesses, subjects 
and others; obtaining and reviewing documentary evidence from numerous sources including individuals, 
corporations, and federal, state, county and municipal agencies; conducting surveUlance, background checks 
and asset checks; analyzing financial records and performing other forensic accounting functions; and 
testifying before the Grand Jury and at trial. 

Investigators worked closely with staff of other state attorneys general, district attorneys, local and 
state police departments, the U. S. Attorney's Office, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Trade Commission. 

In Fiscal Year 2000, the Division initiated 345 investigations in the following major areas: 

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 



CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

Investigators continued to perform their traditional role by assisting the office in bringing G.L. c. 93 A 
enforcement actions against businesses and individuals in major consumer areas such as automobile sales 
and repair, debt collection and credit repair services, billing schemes, travel services, health spas, retail 
sales, advance fee loan scams, immigration services and employment schemes. Areas also included numerous 
issues affecting the elderly and vuhierable populations, such as the unauthorized practice of law, mortgage 
lending, investment and home improvement scams and the sale of private financial data. 

The Division initiated several investigations and surveys to determine compliance with existing laws 
and regulations pertaining to numerous consumer areas. Some were multi-state and nationwide and included 



162 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INVESTIGATIONS 

areas such as fraudulent sweepstakes promotions and telemarketing scams. The Division also participated 
in major initiative areas that included Internet scams, the gun enforcement initiative and healthcare. 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 



The Division investigated "hate crimes," allegations of misconduct and other violations of the 
Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Investigations were also conducted into allegations of discriminatory 
housing and employment practices, as well as investigations to determine compliance with the rules and 
regulations established by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Access Board. Division 
staff interviewed victims, witnesses and, where appropriate, subjects of such investigations. Investigators 
obtained and reviewed police reports, court documents and other available evidence. The Division also 
participated in a retail sting involving allegations of racial profiling. 

PUBLIC CHARITIES 



The Division investigated individuals associated with organizations who raised funds from the public in 
violation of Massachusetts law. Investigators interviewed victims, usually business people, who made 
donations to a charity based on the representations of a solicitor. In some instances, solicitors posed as 
law enforcement or other public officials or otherwise misrepresented themselves or the charity's purpose. 
Investigators worked with other law enforcement personnel in locating "couriers" who picked up donations. 
The Division's financial investigators reviewed and audited books, records and financial reports of many 
non-profit organizations. 

REGULATED INDUSTRIES 



Investigators continued to work with Regulated Industries Divison attorneys to review and investigate 
businesses and organizations that withheld employees contributions for health insurance premiums, but 
failed to actually purchase the health insurance coverage. Other cases investigated included unlawful sales 
practices known as "churning" and the sale of fraudulent or costly life and health insurance pohcies. 

BUREAU PROSECUTOR 



Investigators worked with the Bureau Prosecutor on numerous cases which resulted in indictments 
and convictions against individuals for violations of the Commonwealth's criminal laws. Cases included 
larceny against the elderly and vulnerable by home improvement contractors and a travel agent. Cases 



163 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INVESTIGATIONS 

also involved investigations relative to the unlicensed practice of medical professions, telemarketing fraud 
and illegal charitable fundraisers. 

GOVERNMENT BUREAU 



TRIAL 



The Division participated in a major civil suit in an effort to recover the overpayment of retirement 
benefits. 

The Division played a major role in tort actions filed against the Commonwealth by investigating 
allegations of abuse, mistreatment and deaths of mdi viduals in state care ; alleged wrongful termination of 
state employees; and personal injuries and otiier damages which occurred on state-owned property and/ 
or in accidents on state roads or involving state cars. The Division also investigated cases involving 
contract disputes and eminent domain proceedings. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 



The Division's role in EPD cases primarily involved locating and identifying assets of potentially 
responsible parties liable for paying costs incurred by the Commonwealth in die clean-up of polluted or 
hazardous waste sites. Investigators also located former employees and officers of defunct companies 
responsible in part for such violations, and reviewed, evaluated and analyzed financial documents and 
prepared ability to pay analyses. 

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE BUREAU 

SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITLA.TIVE (SNI) 

The Division continued its assistance to the Office's Abandoned Properties Project by conducting 
research on target properties, primarily to determine the status of ownership and existence of encumbrances 
of the buildings, and in some instances, assisted in inspecting properties scheduled for renovation. 



164 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

STATISTICS 



The Division opened 345 investigations in Fiscal Year 2000, with 358 investigations ongoing as of 
June 30, 2000. 

DIVISION/BUREAU OPENED DURING ONGOING AS 

FY 00 6/30/00 

Consumer Protection/ Antitrust 32 62 

Civil Rights 17 25 

Public Charities 2 7 

Regulated Industries 2 3 

PPB/Criminal 18 21 

Government 1 5 

Environmental Protection 6 15 

Trial 266 217 

Insurance Fraud I 3 

TOTAL 345 358 



The Civil Investigations Division included the following staff members: Karen Ortolino, Chief; William 
Stone, Jr.; Amy Cedeitiolm; Kelly Bums; Mayra Connolly; Quinton Dale; Ashley Dizel; Eric Funk; Jennifer 
Hollingsworth; James Hoog; Brian Lelio; Matthew Mcmahon; Michael Mcnally; Bryan O'connell; Kathaine 
Seoane; and Nancy Ward. 



PUBLIC CHARITIES DIVISION 

The Attorney General represents the public interest in the proper sohcitation and use of chiuitable 
funds and is authorized to "enforce the due application of funds given or appropriated to public charities 
within the commonwealth and prevent breaches of trust in the administration thereof." G.L. c. 1 2, §8. The 
Division of Public Charities was established to carry out the Attorney General's responsibilities in tliis area. 

More than 40,780 charities are registered with the Division, as well as 281 professional fundraisers 
presently soliciting donations on behalf of charities in Massachusetts. A public charity is an entity which is 



165 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

non-profit, whose purpose is charitable, and which benefits a portion of the public; in addition to philanthropic 
organizations, examples of public charities include nonprofit hospitals, schools, social service providers, 
and cultural organizations. As well as registering and obtaining financial reporting by charities and fundraisers, 
the Attorney General is the defendant in all proceedings brought to wind up the affairs of a public charity or 
to change the terms of a charitable trust. 

Beyond enforcement of laws requiring annual reporting by public charities operating in the Commonwealth, 
the Division focused its activities during Fiscal Year 2000 in three primary areas: enforcement litigation to 
address deception and fi"aud in charitable fundraising; estate and trust actions to ensure that charitable trust 
funds were appropriately administered and apphed; and corporate governance and oversight initiatives to 
ensure that charitable governing boards carried out their fiduciary duties of due care and loyalty. 

In addition, the Division recognizes that charities provide vital services in our communities while enjoying 
certain benefits due to their tax-exempt status and assuming certain obligations as a result of these benefits. 
As a result, the Division was involved in a number of initiatives in Fiscal Year 2000 intended to strengthen 
the charitable sector at large. These efforts included the Division's annual report on charitable fundraising 
pubhshed during the Fall charitable giving season, the Kellogg Healthcare Conversion Information Project, 
and work with the Boston Bar Association on legisladon that would revise the non-profit corporation 
statute. 

SOLICITATION OF CHARITABLE FUNDS 



The Attorney General takes affirmative legal action against charities and professional fundraisers for 
unfair or deceptive solicitation practices and to enforce their fiduciary duties with respect to funds raised. 
In addition to injunctive relief, the Attorney General may seek restitution of funds intended by the public to 
benefit a specific charity, or particular charitable purpose, along with penalties and fees. 

Following are examples of deceptive charitable solicitation cases in which the Division was involved in 
this Fiscal Year: 

• Commonwealth v. Baystate Assistance Programs; Veterans for the Homeless; 
Commonwealth Alliance d/b/a Veterans Aid Program; Steven M. Materas; Paul A. 
Kouri; Joseph .1. Pctillo In December, 1998 the Attorney General filed a fundraising fraud 
action against these defendants, which include professional fundraisers, charities and their 
officers, for allegedly misleading donors to believe that their contributions would provide housing 
for homeless veterans or would benefit homeless shelters and veteran outreach centers, when 
ahnost none of the more than $5 million raised went to help homeless veterans. 



166 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

In November 1999, following settlement negotiations, the court approved a consent 
judgment distributing $55,000 to several veterans shelters and community service against one 
defendant charity. The Division also actively conducted discovery and prepared for a trial that 
was scheduled with the remaining defendants for Fall, 2000. 

• Commonwealth v. Ranick Enterprises. Inc; Bellcamp Enterprises; Everready 
Enterprises; US Charitable Publications; New England Charitable Services; Eastern 
Mass. Veterans Programs; George Campbell; Help Hospitalized Children's fund; 
Regular American Veterans; Foundation for Disable Firefighters; American Veterans 
Wish Foundation In 1997 the Division had brought suit against a multi-state fundraising 
operation for allegedly defrauding Massachusetts donors of millions of dollars in charitable 
contributions. In 1998, the Division had obtained a final judgment against one of the charities, 
Texas-based Help Hospitalized Children's Fund, had obtained default judgments against five of 
the fundraising defendants, and had recovered $40,000 from the insurance bond company that 
had issued them solicitor bonds. 

In 1999, the Division obtained a default judgment of $500,000 and a fundraising ban 
against defendant George Campbell. 

• Commonwealth v. Allan C. Hill Productions, Inc. et al. The Division had brought this 
case in 1997 against fourteen telemarketing companies for failure to account for charitable 
funds raised in Massachusetts as required under c. 68, Section 24(c). Consent judgments had 
been entered against four of the defendants and defaults had entered against four other 
defendants. 

In 1999, the court ordered the parties to undertake alternative dispute resolution, and the 
remaining defendants either settled or were defaulted. 

• Commonwealth v. Action Programs. Inc. ct al. The Division filed an enforcement action 
in Suffolk Superior Court against eight fundraising companies that failed to account to the pubUc 
for funds raised in the previous year. 

ESTATES AND TRUSTS 

In furtherance of his authority to "enforce the due application" of charitable trust funds and to "prevent 
breaches of trust in the administration thereof," the Attorney General is an interested party in the probate of 



167 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

all estates in which there is a charitable interest and in all other judicial proceedings affecting charitable 
trusts. 

Accordingly, the Division continued to handle a large volume of cases in this area involving such 
matters as proposed allowance of accounts, will compromises, sale of real estate, change of purposes or 
beneficiaries of charitable trusts and bequests, amendment of charitable trusts to meet IRS requirements, 
and termination of charitable trusts under G.L. c.203, §25. For example: 

• Museum of Fine Arts v. The White Fund TVustees, et al. The White Fund Trustees 
hold a collection of paintings in trust for the purpose of creating and gratifying a public taste for 
fine arts, particularly among the people of Lawrence. In 1998, the Trustees sought court 
approval to sell the paintings, which include a valuable Monet, and to use the income from the 
proceeds to fund art projects in Lawrence. In 19 1 2, the Reverend William Wolcott had left the 
paintings in trust to the White Fund Trustees and stated in his will that until a suitable gallery 
existed in Lawrence to hang the paintmgs, the trustees should offer the paintings to the Museum 
of Fine Arts (MFA) for exhibition. The paintings have been at the Museum since that time. The 
trustees' lawsuit challenged the MFA's contention that the status quo furthers the intent of the 
testator. 

The Division filed and argued a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the court should 
conduct a trial for cy pres modification of the will, since the donor's intent to display paintings in 
Lawrence was not being fulfilled. The Superior Court denied the motion and ruled that the 
MFA could keep the Monet and two other valuable paintings. The court also allowed a joint 
reporting of an interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Judicial Court granted the Division's 
application for direct appellate review and scheduled oral arguments. 

• In Re; Petition for the Allowance of the First and Final Account of James K. 
Glidden as Executor of the Estate of Walter Barrett The Division had filed objections to 
the court allowance of the first and final account of James Glidden as executor and attorney for 
the estate of Walter Barrett, on the grounds that his fees were excessive, both as to the amount 
of time spent on various tasks and the rate at which many executor services were billed. The 
Division had further contended that estate taxes were overpaid; GUdden allegedly failed to file 
for a rebate when informed of his mistake; and he improperly billed the estate for unnecessary 
services, including meetings with representatives of the charitable beneficiaries regarding the 
inadequacy of his accounting. 



168 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

The Division tried the case in Barnstable Probate Court on November 2, 1999. The trial 
judge found for the Commonwealth, reduced the attorney's fees from $46,000 to $ 14,500, and 
ordered the difference distributed to the charitable beneficiaries. 

• White Caps A Springfield attorney was the court-appointed special administrator of the 
estate of Francis Theriau, who founded White Caps, Inc., a charity established to provide work 
and recreation for the mentally and physically handicapped through their repair and recreational 
use of sailboats. The charity had never registered with the Division and had been inactive for 
years. Eventually $125,000 escheated to the state from the charity's bank account. The 
Division filed a complaint to revive the charity by naming the attorney/administrator as a court- 
appointed receiver to prepare and file a complaint for dissolufion in the Supreme Judicial Court 
in order to distribute the charity's funds to other charities. 

WILLS, TRUSTS, AND OTHER PROBATE STATISTICS 



During Fiscal Year 2000, the Division received and reviewed 895 new wills, and received and reviewed 
5 1 1 interim accounts for executors and trustees, as well as 702 final accounts. In addition, the Division 
received, reviewed, and assented to 56 petitions for license to sell real estate, 188 complaints to reform 
unitrusts, and 92 miscellaneous complaints. 

CHARITY GOVERNANCE 

The Attorney General's oversight of charitable corporations focuses on stewardship by charity boards 
of directors. The Division may become involved when directors breach their individual fiduciary duties of 
due care and loyalty or to prevent the misuse of charitable funds. The Division has brought a number of 
enforcement actions or obtained several governance agreements, after investigation, in which charity boards 
have agreed to reform the manner in which they operate. This year such matters included: 

• Greater Lynn Mental Health & Retardation Association. Inc. Greater Lynn Mental 
Health & Retardation Association, Inc. ("Greater Lynn") operates a variety of mental health and 
retardation programs, including programs under contract to various state agencies. The charity is 
a major provider on the North Shore with revenues of approximately $30 million. Information 
was brought to the Division indicating that the executive director and founder of Greater Lynn may 
have engaged in a number of actions resulting in the misapplication of charitable funds. The Board 
of Greater Lynn had suspended the executive director for 90 days, but it then appeared that the 
Board intended to rehire him with conditions on his employment. Division attorneys met with the 



169 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

Board to express their concerns about the Board's actions. The Division then negotiated an 
agreement for Greater Lynn to hire a management advisor to review its operations and advise the 
charity and the Division about necessary reforms, ensure funding and operational stabihty at the 
charity, and investigate potential problems within Greater Lynn. 

• The Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association The Division conducted a fiduciary 
duty investigation into the operations of this large Chinatown charity focusing on lack of financial 
accountability and whether a large donor-restricted gift had been used consistent with donor 
intent for affordable housing purposes. After filing a complaint seeking a receivership, the 
Division entered into an agreed-upon preliminary injunction providing that the charity must 
complete certain activities by specified dates and began negotiating with the charity over a 
governance agreement. 

• National Music Foundation This Rorida charity moved to Lenox, Massachusetts in 

1 993, when it began a fundraising campaign to build a $30 million concert center, a museum, 
and a musicians' retirement home. The Foundation also improved its property with a $2.5 
million dollar grant from the Executive Office of Administration and Finance (EOAF). In early 
1999, the Foundation announced that it was abandoning its plans, selling its 62 acre campus to 
Shakespeare and Company, another Berkshire charity, and movmg its operations to New York 
State. The Division investigated allegations of conflict of interest and excessive compensation 
that were raised in an October report by the State Auditor and obtained guarantees that 
excessive deferred compensation would not be paid to the charity's executive director. The 
Division concluded that no further action was necessary, beyond confirming that EOAF would 
be paid the $500,000 which the Foundation netted out of the sale of its property to 
Shakespeare and Company. 

FOR-PROFIT ACQUISITIONS 

The Public Charities Division continued to devote considerable time and resources to reviewing proposed 
for-profit acquisitions of health care providers and other charitable corporations. Massachusetts charitable 
organizations may not, on their own, "convert" to for-profit status. If charitable assets are to be transferred 
to a for-profit, it must be for fair value, the transaction must be necessary and in the best interest of the 
charity, and the charity board must have acted carefully and in a manner uninfluenced by conflict of interest. 

During the year, the Division handled the following matters relating to conversions or proposed 
conversions of nonprofit corporations. 



170 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

• Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Receivership On January 4, 2000, in consultation with 
the Commissioner of Insurance, Attorney General Reilly obtained a court order from the 
Supreme Judicial Court placing Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., 
and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of New England, Inc. (collectively HPHC), the state's largest 
health maintenance organization, into temporary receivership. Division p)ersonnel were actively 
involved in the on-going work associated with preparing and implementing the receivership 

As the Temporary Receiver, the Insurance Commissioner took control of HPHC for the 
purpose of rehabilitating HPHC and conserving its assets, with the goals of ensuring continuity 
of care for members; providing full payment to health care providers; and ensuring on-going 
financial stability for HPHC. The Attorney General and the Insurance Commissioner examined 
several options to meet these goals, including recapitalization of HPHC's debt by non-profit 
and/or for-profit investors, sale to a for-profit entity, or liquidation. They also retained an 
independent auditor (KPMG-Peat Marwick) to review HPHC's business plan for the year 
2000. KPMG-Peat Marwick determined that the business plan was sound and concluded tliat 
the right management team was in place to implement it. 

Based on KPMG-Peat Marwick's report, increased and reUable financial information, 
stability in membership numbers, the payment of $200 million to local providers, and a March 1, 
2000, cash position of $200 million, the Attorney General and Insurance Commissioner 
concluded that the proposed rehabilitation plan was the best option to protect and serve the 
members, the providers, and HPHC, without selling the company to a national for-profit 
company, weighing Harvard Pilgrim down with new debt, de-stabUizing the state's health care 
system, or using taxpayer dollars. 

On March 3, 2000, Attorney General Reilly and the Insurance Commissioner filed a 
proposed rehabilitation plan, which was approved by the Supreme Judicial Court after a public 
hearing, to end the temporary receivership and to allow the current management team at HPHC 
to implement its turnaround plan under the continued supervision of the Attorney General and 
the Insurance Commissioner. 

• MassSave The Division received notice from this nonprofit energy consortium that it was 
in the process of selling its business and dissolving. MassSave was formed to carry out the 
statutory obligation of its utility/members to provide energy audits and other energy conservation 
services to consumers. For market reasons their initial purposes were obsolete and, through 
strategic planning, they had determined that a strategic alUance was necessary. MassSave 



171 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

originally proposed a for-profit conversion, but the Division informed MassSave that it had not 
appropriately explored nonprofit alternatives, a required element of proof in a conversion case. 
In response, MassSave conducted a new search for a non-profit strategic partner and finalized 
a merger with a nonprofit partner. 

• Hospital Laundry Cooperative (HLA) This conversion case involved the sale to a 
Rhode Island for-profit laundry of a non-profit hospital laundry business, without the real estate, 
which served all the hospitals in the Greater Boston area. HLA had not dissolved in 1995 when 
the business was sold so that it could be responsible for the real estate. A buyer emerged in 
March 2000 and the Division, after analyzing the fair market value, conflict of interest, and 
fairness of the transaction terms, assented to the sale. 

REVIEW OF ASSET DISPOSITIONS 



Under amendments to the Non- Profit Corporations Act, which took effect in April, 1 990, a charitable 
corporation must give 30 days advance written notice to the Attorney General before making a sale or 
other disposition of aU or substantially all of the charity's assets if the disposition involves or will result in a 
material change in the nature of the activities conducted by the corporation. G.L. c. 1 80, §8A(c). 

In addition to for-profit dispositions, the Division reviewed a number of significant transactions involving 
proposed disposition of substantial charitable assets. 

The Division reviews major mergers to ensure that the terms of charitable trusts are adhered to, 
conflicts of interest are avoided, and that donated funds (such as endowment funds) are used for their 
original intended purposes. If a merger will require modifying the terms of a charitable trust or the 
purposes for which endowment funds will be used, the changes must first be justified in a court proceeding 
with the Division named as a party. 

• Harvard-Radcliffe Merg er Harvard University and Radcliffe College approached the 
Division with an agreement to merge. Under the agreement, RadcliflFe's functions and 
endowment would be absorbed by Harvard, and Radcliffe would be renamed the Radcliffe 
Institute for Advanced Study, with a focus on women, gender and society. Approximately 
$ 1 50 million of RadclifFe's endowment would support the new institute, with the remaining $50 
million of its endowment funds supporting undergraduate financial aid. The Division reviewed 
details of the proposed merger and ensured that restrictions on Radcliffe-held restricted trust 
funds trust would be honored post-merger Following Division approval, the two entities 
merged on October 1, 1999. 



172 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

• Connecticare This nonprofit, Connecticut-based Health Maintenance Organization 
proposed changing the operating status of its Massachusetts subsidiary from nonprofit to for- 
profit. The Massachusetts subsidiary represented a small fraction of Connecticare's operations 
and the proposed change would bring the Massachusetts subsidiary into line with a larger re- 
organization earlier completed in Connecticut. The Massachusetts subsidiary demonstrated that 
it was a necessary change and accounted appropriately for charitable assets generated in 
Massachusetts. The Division assented to the relief, which was granted in the single justice 
session of the Supreme Judicial Court. 

• Bradford Colleg e Division attorneys met with representatives of Bradford College as well 
as its bondholders to discuss closing of the College following conclusion of the spring 2000 
semester. The Division discussed and resolved a variety of issues concerning the College's 
handling of restricted funds and the College officially closed following commencement exercises 
for tile class of 2000. 

CHARITABLE CORPORATION DISSOLUTION STATISTICS 

In order to cease corporate existence, charitable corporations must dissolve through a proceeding in 
{he Supreme Judicial Court. To enforce the public's interest in the disposition of charitable assets, the 
Attorney General is a party to all voluntary dissolutions of charitable corporations under G.L. c. 180, 
§ 1 1 A. After review, negotiation of necessary modifications, and assent by the Division, the pleadings are 
filed by the dissolving charity in the Supreme Judicial Court. The Division reviewed a number of significant 
transactions involving proposed dissolutions, including the following: 

• Computer Museum/Science Museum The Computer Museum and the Science 
Museum proposed an aUiance through a proceeding to dissolve the Computer Museum which 
involved, among other things, spinning off a subsidiary of the Computer Museum to a third entity 
in California and the Science Museum displaying certain Computer Museum exhibits and 
carrying out its functions. The Division reviewed and assented to the Computer Museum's 
Dissolution Complaint. 

• Springhlll of Ashby/Shackleton Schools Springhill of Ashby, a spiritual retreat center, 
submitted a draft of a proposed dissolution complaint for Division review and assent. In 
anticipation of dissolution, Springhill had sold its principal asset to Shackleton Schools, another 
charity, without obtaining Division assent, as required under G.L. c. 180, § 1 1 A, and had 
promised to turn over any excess proceeds from the sale to Shackleton Schools. However, 
under the doctrine of cy pres, a charity may only transfer its assets to another charity with a 



173 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

mission as similar as possible to its own following court approval, unless it is impossible or 
impractical to do so. The Division negotiated an agreement with Shackleton Schools as to how 
it would restrict the use of funds transferred from Springhill to purposes consistent with 
Springhill's purposes, and the Division assented to Spring Hill's dissolution. 

During the reporting year, the Division assented to 110 final judgments dissolving charitable corporations 
pursuant to section § 1 1 A. 

SIGNIFICANT DIVISION INITIATIVES 



PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN 

The Division continued its ongoing public education campaign regarding charitable giving and charity 
stewardship. The Division continued to distribute its wide variety of public education materials, including 
"The Attorney General's Guide For Board Members of Charitable Organizations," "How To Give But 
Give Wisely," 'Tips On Charitable Giving," and "Questions Commonly Asked To The Division Of Public 
Charities." 

In December 1 999, the Division conducted the eighth annual "Giving Season" public education campaign. 
Carried out in conjunction with the Better Business Bureau and the American Association Of Retired 
Persons Of Massachusetts, this education campaign is part of a long-term effort to inform individuals and 
businesses about the donating process and how to make sure that their contributions are put to the best 
possible use. Materials distributed included the "Attorney General's Guide For Charities Who Fundraise 
From the Public" and "Question and Answer Guide For Professional Fundraisers." 

The "Giving Season" public education campaign featured the annual "Attorney General's Report On 
Telemarketing For Charity." The report provides general information about professional fundraisers and 
their statutory reporting obligations and specific information about the campaigns conducted in calendar 
year 1 998. Annual financial reports from 449 charitable telemarketing campaigns conducted by 85 separate 
telemarketing companies were analyzed. Total revenue from aU campaigns amounted to $84,35 1 ,65 1 out 
of which slightly more than $30,884,409 million dollars went to charity. The average percentage received 
by the charity was 37 percent, after all fundraising expenses were deducted. This represented 2 percent 
more than the amount received by charities the previous year. On a per campaign basis, the average 
percentage received by the charitable organizations was 28.5 percent. 



174 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

NATIONAL TRAINING FOR REGULATORS ON FOR-PROFIT ACQUISITIONS 

In 1 997, the Attorney General had received a $295,000 grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to 
develop and conduct a national training program for regulators dealing with for-profit acquisitions and 
conversions of nonprofit hospitals and other health care entities. 

In 1999, the Division completed a training video and published and distributed a multi-chapter Guide, 
supplemented by a collection of conversion-related materials, to assist board members, regulators and 
advocates facing for-profit healthcare acquisitions and conversions in their communities. The Division also 
created a Web site to maxunize access to these materials, at www.healthcareconversion.org. 

NON-PROFIT CORPORATION LEGISLATION 



The Division actively participated on a Boston Bar Association special task force to revise the non- 
profit corporation statute, G.L. c. 1 80, including three subgroups estabUshed to address charity-specific 
issues: (a) a multi-tier subgroup addressed issues of charitable fiduciary obUgations in affiliated corporate 
systems; (b) a charitable assets subgroup addressed mergers and how to streamline procedures for 
statutory dissolution of charities; and (c) a charity definition subgroup drafted a definition of charitable 
corporations. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMUNITY BENEFITS INITIATIVE 



The Division was involved in the initial pubbc meetings and final drafting of the Attorney General's 
Community Benefits guidelines for Nonprofit Acute Care Hospitals. Since the issuance of the Guidelines 
in June, 1 994, the Division has been closely involved in monitoring and furthering hospital comphance. 

In 1 999, the Division continued to encourage hospitals to comply with the reporting recommendations 
in the Guidelines and provided assistance to hospital community benefit coordinators for preparing Fiscal 
Year 1998 reports. The Division also participated actively in the Attorney General's Community Benefits 
Advisory Task Force . 



175 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU PUBLIC CHARITIES 

CONFERENCE AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION PRESENTATIONS AND 
PUBLICATIONS 



As part of the Division's ongoing public education effort throughout the year, the Director of the 
Division and other Assistant Attorneys General in the Division spoke to numerous charitable groups, 
served on several continuing professional education panels and national educational conference panels, 
and contributed to educational pubhcations. 

DIVISION ADMINISTRATION & STATISTICS 

Enforcement of laws requiring accountability by public charities is central to Division responsibihties 
wdth respect to charitable funds. With the exception of religious organizations and certain federally chartered 
organizations, all public charities must register with the Division and all registered charities must submit 
annual fmancial reports. The registrations and financial reports are public records and public viewing files 
are maintained. The Division responded to over 1,538 requests to view files in the past fiscal year and, in 
response, approximately 4,232 files were pulled. 

CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS: REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 



From July 1 , 1 999 through June 30, 2000, the Division processed approximately 33, 179 annual 
financial reports and annual filing fees totaled $ 1 ,866,744. These funds are turned over to the General 
fund of the Commonwealth. During this period, 2,05 1 new organizations were reviewed, determined to 
be charitable, and registered. Each was sent the Division's packet of information about the Division's 
registration and filing requirements. 

As part of an ongoing compliance program. Division staff contacted charities whose annual filings 
were deficient or delinquent to rectify filing deficiencies. 

ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES TO CHARITIES WHO FUNDRAISE 

Under G.L. c. 68, sec. 19, every charitable organization which intends to solicit funds from the public, 
except religious organizations, must apply to the Division for a solicitation certificate before engaging in 
fundraising. Upon receipt, the Division reviews certificate appUcations for compliance with statutory 



176 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

requirements. Unless there is a deficiency in the application, all certificates are issued within a 10-day 
statutory period. 

REGISTRATION OF PROFESSIONAL SOLICITORS AND FUND-RAISING COUNSEL 

Under §§22 and 24 of G.L. c.68, all persons acting as professional solicitors, professional fundraising 
counsel, or commercial co- venturers in conjunction with soUciting charitable organizations must register 
annually with the Division. Solicitors and commercial co- venturers must also file a surety bond in the 
amount of $ 1 0,000.00. All fundraisers must also file with the Division a copy of each fundraising contract 
which they sign with any charitable organization, and soUcitors must later file a fmancial return regarding 
each fundraising campaign. 

During the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2000, a total of 28 1 registrations were received and approved, 
resulting in $59,200 in fees to the Commonwealth. Registrations were received from 96 solicitors, 141 
fund-raising counsel, and 44 commercial co- venturers. 

MONEY RECOVERED FOR THE COMMONWEALTH TREASURY 

Charitable and Fundraiser Registration Fees $ 1 ,925 ,974 

Other fees, requests for copies, requests for $5,000 (approximate) 

computer information 

TOTAL $1,930,974 

The Division of Public Charities included the following staff members: Jamie Katz, Chief; Eric Carriko-; 
Carol Aloisi; Marion Antonucci; Caitlin Calder; Karen Calhoun; Sandra Cardone; Patricia Clifton; Janet 
Cooper; Annette Herd; Anne Higgins; Matthew Jervinis; Laura Maslow-Armand; Beth McGUlicuddy; 
Kathleen O'Connell; EUzabeth Reinhardt; Richard Reuss; Deirdre Rosenberg; Claudio Salas; Johanna 
Soris ; and Tina Williams. 



REGULATED INDUSTRIES DIVISION 

The Regulated Industries Division represents consumer interests in regard to two industries: insurance 
and public utilities. The Division's work is carried on before state and federal courts as well as administrative 



177 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

regulatory bodies such as the Massachusetts Department of Telecommunications and Energy (DTE or 
Department), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC), and the Massachusetts Division of Insurance (DOI). In many of these matters, 
particularly public utility rate cases, the Division is the only active participant advocating on behalf of 
Massachusetts consumers. 

INSURANCE 



The Regulated Industries Division's representation of consumer interests in insurance matters is divided 
into several distinct categories, includiung ratemaking and enforcement of the consumer protection laws, c. 
93 A andc. 176D of the Massachusetts General laws. In its ratemaking work, the Division intervenes in 
both automobUe and health insurance rate setting proceedings. In its consumer protection function, the 
Division protects Massachusetts citizens from unfair sales and claims practices. Through the Division's 
insurance hotline for consumers, direct mail and telephone communications, the Division receives many 
consumer questions and complaints. Through mediation, negotiation and, if necessary, litigation, the Division 
obtains both restitution and injunctive relief for insurance consumers. Finally, the Division engages in non- 
case related work to advance insurance consumer mterests, including legislative, regulatory, educational, 
and other outreach activities. The Division also operates AGELDER, a toll free hotline to aid seniors and 
their families on elder related issues. 



RATE CASES 

Automobile 

• 2000 Private Passenger Automobile Insurance On July 6, 1 999, the Automobile Insurers 
Bureau (AIB), on behalf of the automobile insurance industry, filed with the Division of Insurance 
its recommendation concerning the profit component of 2{)(X) private passenger automobile insurance 
rates. On July 12, 1999, AIB filed with the Division of Insurance its recommendation concerning 
the cost containment and fraudulent claims payments component of 2000 private passenger 
automobile insurance rates. On August 13, 1999, AIB filed with the Division of Insurance its 
recommendation concerning the main rate for 2000 private passenger automobile insurance rates. 
AIB requested an increase of 7.8 % increase over the 1999 rates. If approved, these requests 
would have been equivalent to an average increase in auto insurance premiums for Massachusetts 
drivers of $66 per car or $234 million overall. On behalf of Massachusetts consumers, the Division 
challenged the increase requested by the industry. The Division made several filings in the case. 



178 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

After discussion and settlement negotiations with AIB and the State Rating Bureau (SRB), the 
parties agreed to an increase of 0.7%. This agreement was adopted by the Commissioner who 
subsequentiy issued a memorandum and order fixing and establishing the new rate, which was 7. 1 
percentage points lower than the industry's request. The savings to Massachusetts consumers 
were approximately $2 1 3 million or an average of $60 per car. 

• 200 1 Automobile Insurance Proceedings concerning the 200 1 automobile insurance rate 
began on April 26, 2000 with notice of the annual hearing called by the Commissioner to 
determine whether it was necessary that the rates for 2001 be fixed and established in 
accordance with M.G.L. c. 175, § 1 138. The Division participated in the hearings and testified, 
on June 1 , 2000, that any return to competition should include a subsidization and cost-sharing 
mechanism to protect poUcyholders in urban areas from rate shock. Such a mechanism should 
be in place prior to any return to competition. No decision had been issued by the 
Commissioner by the end of the fiscal year. 

• OEM Endorsement Proceeding for Private Passenger Automobile Insurance The 

Automobile Insurers Bureau (AIB) filed an optional endorsement under which consumers could 
purchase the right to have their cars repaired with original equipment manufactured parts. 
Currently, crash parts (primarily the exterior of the automobile) are repaired with after market 
parts — new parts that are similar but not identical to the parts manufactured by or for the car 
maker — when such parts are of like kind and quality and are cheaper. The Attorney General's 
Office intervened in the proceeding at DOI to represent consumers, submitting a counter- 
recommendation on pricing and other issues . The Commissioner of Insurance issued a decision 
following the AGO's recommendations. 

• Premier Managed Care Endorsement for Private Passenger Automobile Insurance 

Premier, a wholly owned subsidiary of Travelers and one of the largest automobile insurers in 
Massachusetts, filed an optional managed care endorsement that would reduce the cost of 
automobile insurance for those consumers who agreed, at the time they purchased or renewed 
their insurance, to use their HMOs or, if they were not members of HMOs, to use a managed 
PPO network approved by the Commissioner of Insurance, to treat their automobile accident 
injuries. The Office of the Attorney General intervened in the proceeding to represent 
consumers. The AGO suggested that, if the Commissioner appproved such endorsement she 
should require proper disclosures. The Division filed a draft disclosure to be made to 
consumers. The experimental use of the endorsement was approved by the Commissioner but 
has yet to be marketed. 



179 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

Homeowners 

• FAIR Plan Rate Increase In September, 1999, the Massachusetts Property Insurance 
Underwriting Association (FAIR) submitted filings to the Division of Insurance for increases in 
their Homeowners product and their Dwelling and Fire product. The Division participated in 
the hearings and the case was settled by stipulation. The stipulations resulted in an overall 
reduction in rates of 0.5 1% with savings to Massachusetts consumers of almost $225,000. 

Medicare Supplement 

• Bankers Life 2001 Medicare Supplement Rate Proceeding at DOI Bankers Life and 
Casualty Co., the second largest Medicare supplement insurer in Massachusetts, sought rate 
increases of between 30 and 46% on its drug plans. Any proposed increase in excess of 1 0% 
must be approved by the Commissioner of Insurance after an administrative hearing. The 
Division intervened in the hearing to represent consumers. The Commissioner's decision 
disapproved Bankers Life's requested rate increase and instead approved rates close to those 
recommended by the Division, saving consumers $ 12,469,532. 

• Hartford Life Insurance Co. Medicare Supplement Rate Proceeding at DOI 

Hartford sought rate increases of nearly $250 per month on its Massachusetts plans. The 
Division intervened to oppose the proposed mcrease. The Commissioner rejected Hartford's 
rates and approved rates that saved consumers $2, 1 93, 1 1 3. 

• World Insurance Co. Medicare Supplement Rate Proceeding at DOI In April, 1 999, 
World Insurance Company filed for a rate increase in its Medicare supplement policies. AH of 
the policy forms for which World seeks a rate increase are closed to new enrollment. For forms 
D-A041(old Medisup2 policy) and D-A044 (new Medisup 1 policy). World requested 
increases of 74.5% and 78. 1 % respectively. For D- A042 (old Medisup3 policy) and D-A045 
(new Medisup2 pxdicy). World requested increases of 48. 1% and 50.4% respectively. The 
Division intervened in the case and participated in the hearings. The Division intervened to 
oppose the magnitude of the proposed increases. The Commissioner rejected World's 
proposed rates and approved rates that saved consumers $8 15,333. 



180 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

CONSUMER PROTECTION/ENFORCEMENT 

The Division also engaged in non-rate case related insurance work during Fiscal Year 2000 that 
involved consumer protection issues and/or enforcement of the Commonwealth's insurance laws. 
Representative matters include: 

Employers' Failure to Remit Health Insurance Premiums 

During the 2000 Fiscal Year, the Division continued to investigate complaints against employers who 
allow their group health plans to lapse because of their failure to remit health insurance premiums or their 
failure to provide sufficient funds to cover their employees' health costs. The Division investigated 67 
employers in response to these types of complaints during this Fiscal Year. The Division has seen a 
marked decrease in the volume of "failure to remit" complaints since 1 996, when the Division was instrumental 
in promulgating an Attorney General regulation, 940 CMR 9.00, that requires insurers to pay claims until 
they have notified employees directly of any termination of coverage. With the exception of disputes 
between a single employee and the employer, most complaints now relate to self-insured plans. 

Bankruptcy Intervention 

• Summit Plastics During the previous Fiscal Year, the Division's motion to intervene in tlie 
bankmptcy filing of Summit Plastics was allowed by the bankruptcy court. Summit filed for 
chapter 1 1 protection leaving its former employees with outstanding medical bills in excess of 
$22,000. The matter was still pending at the end of the Fiscal Year. 

• Boston Regional Medical Center (BRMC) B RMC filed for reorganization under 
chapter 1 1 of the bankruptcy code on February 2, 1 999. Prior to the bankruptcy, BRMC had 
deducted a portion of the health insurance premiums from the employees' pay checks for 
approximately two months. BRMC failed, however, to remit those payments to the appropriate 
carriers. This resulted in unpaid medical bills for Fallon Health Care participants (approximately 
240 employees) in the amount of $200,000. The Division filed a Motion to Intervene on 
February 24, 1999 on behalf of the employees which was allowed by the court. The Division 
filed a prof of Claim on behalf of the employees on January 5 , 2000. The Liquidation Agent 
objected to the Proof of Claim. The Court asked for a joint statement of facts which we filed. 
At the end of the Fiscal Year, the matter was being vigorously htigated. 



181 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

• NewCare Health Corporation (New Care) NewCare employees began contacting the 
Regulated Industries Division in June 1 999 with complaints about employee benefits not being 
funded. Through an investigation prompted by the complaints received, the Division learned 
that NewCare had an employee benefit health plan and had failed to remit premiums deducted 
from employee paychecks, as far back as January 1999, to Health New England (HNE). On 
June 22, 1 999, NewCare filed for protection under chapter 1 1 of the Bankruptcy code. On 
August 4, 1 999, the Division filed a Motion to Intervene on behalf of the employee consumers. 
The motion was allowed by Judge Borof NewCare continued to petition the court for 
additional Debtor In Possession (DIP) fuiancing. The court determined that no additional DIP 
fmancing would be allowed until the medical claims of the employees were resolved. The 
medical expenses were paid contingent upon the withdrawal of the Attorney General's Motion 
to Intervene. The premiums owed to HNE for a 60 day period were paid by the estate in the 
amount of approximately $76,000. HNE then paid the claims for the 60 day period. In 
addition to the health insurance claims, there were outstanding dental claims. The dental carrier, 
however had failed to give adequate notice pursuant to 940 CMR 9.04 and 9.05. As a result, 
the dental carrier sent a new notice of termination with a contemporaneous termination date to 
the subscribers and covered the dental bills incurred during the relevant period. 

• CIGNA Health Care CIGNA Health Care (CIGNA) was the tiiird party administi-ator 
for the self- insured employee benefit plan for a group of nursing homes owned by the Lenox 
corporation. Lenox filed for bankruptcy in 1999. Prior to the bankruptcy, Lenox had failed to 
remit withholdings deducted from employee paychecks to CIGNA. As a result of the non 
payment, CIGNA refused to pay outstanding medical bills. The Division received a complaint 
from a consumer who had undergone a bone marrow transplant that was "pre-approved" by 
CIGNA for a period of six months. During the six month period, Lenox failed to pay any 
administrative fees to CIGNA for the processing of the medical claims and also failed to pay the 
premiums to CIGNA to maintain the re-insurance policy (CIGNA was the re-insurer for tiie 
Lenox plan). As a result CIGNA denied all services incurred by the consumer in connection 
with the bone marrow transplant and subsequent chemotherapy treatinents in addition to all the 
medical services incurred by tiie other employees . 

The Division took an active role in investigating this matter Through the Division's 
intervention, it was discovered that CIGNA had possibly committed an unfair ti-ade or practice 
by pre-approving the services for a period of time, then denying payment for those services 
when incurred. The Division negotiated a resolution in the form of a payment by CIGNA in the 



182 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

amount of approximately $102,000 to the providers to cover the services incurred by the 
consumer during the period in question. The payment was made during October of 2000. 

A greements vyith Employers 

• Thomas Taylor & Sons Thomas Taylor & Sons (TT&S) employees received notices of 
termination by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) stating their coverage was terminated 
retroactively sixty days. The premiums, however, were deducted from the paychecks of the 
employees. TT&S had subsequendy contracted with Aetna for health care coverage. Through 
the Division's discussions with TT&S's attorney, payment was finally made to HPHC for the 
previous two months. HPHC then sent out new notices for the amended coverage period. One 
of the employees incurred medical bUls in excess of $ 1 1 ,000 that were subsequently covered by 
HPHC. TT&S then filed bankruptcy. 

• Exhibit Emporium Exhibit Emporium had a self-insured employee benefit health plan, 
allegedly through April 6, 1999. Medical bills incurred by employees prior to April 6, 1 999 
were denied because the plan was terminated without any notice to employees who had 
continued to incur medical bills. Through the Division's discussions with the director of Exhibit 
Emporium, a payment was made directly to the employees for the unpaid medical claims. 

• Goddard House Goddard House, a nursing home, had an employee benefit dental plan 
through US Health Care. The coverage was terminated appropriately by US Health Care but 
Goddard House continued wage withholdings. Through the Division's discussions with the HR 
department at Goddard House, the problem was resolved. Goddard House HR stated that it 
was an error. 

Violarions of 940 CMR 9.00 

• Harvard Pilgrim Health Care The Division learned through various consumer complaints 
that Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) was violating 940 CMR 9.00 by denying coverage 
to groups that were terminated due to non-payment of premium by the employer/group sponsor. 
HPHC was terminating groups retroactively up to 8 months as opposed to the 60 day maximum 
allowed by the regulation. The Division negotiated a resolution, in the form of an Assurance of 
Discontinuance (filed August 24, 1999) with HPHC under which HPHC would reprocess all 
bUls for covered services up to the date that notice complying with the regulation was sent to the 



183 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

subscribers. HPHC also agreed to reimburse any premiums to members who had purchased 
continuation coverage during this period. The resolution included a donation to be paid to the 
Consumer Aid Fund in the amount of $2,500. 

• T\ifts Associated Health Plan The Division learned through various consumer complaints 
that Tufts Associated Health Plan (TAHP) was violating 940 CMR 9.00 by denying coverage to 
groups that were terminated due to non-payment of premium by the employer/group sponsor. 
TAHP was terminating groups retroactive up to 10 months as opposed to the 60 day maximum 
allowed by the regulation. The Division negotiated a resolution, in the form of an Assurance of 
Discontinuance (filed August 24, 1999) with TAHP under which TAHP would reprocess all bills 
for covered services up to the date that notice complying with the regulation was sent to the 
subscribers. TAHP also agreed to reimburse any premiums to members who had purchased 
continuation coverage during this period. 

• Health New England The Division learned through various consumer complaints that 
Health New England (HNE) was violating 940 CMR 9.00 by denying coverage to groups that 
were terminated due to non-payment of premium by the employer/group sponsor. HNE was 
tenninating groups retroactive up to 6 months as opposed to the 60 day maximum allowed by 
the regulation. The Division negotiated a resolution, in the form of an Assurance of 
Discontinuance (filed August 24, 1999) with HNE under which HNE would reprocess all bills 
for covered services up to the date that notice complying with the regulation was sent to the 
subscribers. HNE also agreed to reimburse any premiums to members who had purchased 
continuation coverage during this period. The resolution included a donation to be paid to the 
Consumer Aid Fund in the amount of $3,000. 

HEALTH CARE COVERAGE 



During Fiscal Year 20(X), the Division undertook a variety of initiatives in the areas of health insurance 
coverage and managed care. 

Harvard Pilgrim Health Care 

On January 4, 2000, Attorney General Reilly, representing the Division of Insurance, took HPHC into 
receivership. Many members of the Division worked on various aspects of the receivership including legal 
and financial analysis of various issues related to the receivership; consumer guides for the Attorney General's 
Web page; provider guides for the Attorney General's Web page; monitoring and investigation of consumer 



184 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

complaints about HPHC vendors, including providers; drafting of a consumer impact report; and coordinated 
two public hearings on the receivership that were simulcast from multiple locations. HPHC remained in 
receivership for three months; during this time, many members of the Division devoted a considerable 
amount of time to the receivership. 

Community Benefits 

• Hospital and HMO Coimnunity Benefits A Division AAG oversees the implementation 
of the Attorney General's HMO Community Benefits Guidelines. During Fiscal Year 2000, the 
AAG provided guidance to the HMOs in their completion of their annual community benefits 
reports and analyzed those reports. The AAG also participated on a panel sponsored by the 
Massachusetts Hospital Association to inform hospitals of recent community benefits 
developments. Another Division AAG assisted with the analysis of the annual hospital 
community benefits reports. 

• Community Benefits Tksk Force A Division AAG also oversees the Attorney General's 
Advisory Task Force on Hospital and HMO Community Benefits, which was convened in June 
1 998 for the purpose of advancing the goals of the Community Benefits Guidelines. This Task 
Force includes representatives of hospitals, HMOs, insurance carriers, health maintenance 
organizations, community health advocacy groups and relevant state agencies, and is organized 
into several working groups that focus on the key elements of community benefits. At a meeting 
of the full Task Force in January 2000, the original working groups were reorganized into the 
following three groups: ( 1 ) Connecting Institutions and Communities; (2) Building Institutional 
Support for Community Benefits; and (3) Community Benefits Reporting. The focus of these 
working groups reflects what the Advisory Task Force has identified as the necessary 
ingredients to any successful community benefits program: active community engagement; top- 
down support for community benefits within the hospital or HMO; and strong public 
accountability. Each of the working groups has been meeting on a monthly basis, and wUl 
continue to do so in the next Fiscal Year. 

Continuation Coverage after Divorce 

A Division AAG participated in a working group made up of various health care advocates to provide 
education to pro se divorce litigants on their rights to continuing coverage in the event of divorce. The 
group prepared a brochure to be distributed to all divorce litigants through die probate court. In addition, 
the group drafted amendments to the current statute to clarify the rights of divorcees to continuing coverage. 



185 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

Health Care Litigation 

• 1\ifls Health Plan Termination of Providers A Division AAG prepared a complaint and 
entered into negotiations with Tufts Health Plan, which was proposing to terminate numerous 
providers without notice to plan members. Ultimately, Tufts Health Plan agreed to continue the 
provider contracts until the beginning of open enrollment period of each provider's patients, so 
that terminations were fully disclosed and consumers had the ability to change insurance carriers 
and obtain continuous coverage. Tufts Health Plan entered into an Assurance of 
Discontinuance. 

• Chickering This administrator of health plans covering a large number of college students 
in Massachusetts was in violation of the Massachusetts law that requires carriers to cover 
preexisting conditions if the insured had comparable coverage prior to the effective date of the 
student health coverage. Chickering entered into a consent judgment in which they agreed to 
change their policies to conform to the law, to reimburse all students whose coverage was 
unlawfully denied, and to make payments to the Attorney General's Local Consumer Aid Fund. 

• Boston Mutual Insurance Co. This carrier of health plans covering a large number of 
college students in Massachusetts was in violation of the Massachusetts law that requires 
carriers to cover preexisting conditions if the insured had comparable coverage prior to the 
effective date of the student health coverage. The carrier entered into a consent judgment in 
which it agreed to change its policies to conform to the law, to reimburse all students whose 
coverage was unlawfully denied, and to make payments to the Attorney General's Local 
Consumer Aid Fund. 

• Continental Assurance Co. This carrier of health plans covering a large number of 
college students in Massachusetts was in violation of the Massachusetts law that requires 
carriers to cover preexisting conditions if the insured had comparable coverage prior to the 
effective date of the student health coverage. The carrier entered into a consent judgment in 
which it agreed to change its policies to conform to the law, to reimburse all students whose 
coverage was unlawfully denied, and to make payments to the Attorney General's Local 
Consumer Aid Fund. 

• Mutual of Omaha This carrier of health plans covering a large number of college students 
in Massachusetts was in violation of the Massachusetts law that requires carriers to cover 
preexisting conditions if the insured had comparable coverage prior to the effective date of the 



186 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

student health coverage. The carrier entered into a consent judgment in which it agreed to 
change its poHcies to conform to the law, to reimburse aU students whose coverage was 
unlawfully denied, and to make payments to the Attorney General's Local Consumer Aid Fund. 

Infertility Treatment 

Continuing work done in the prior Fiscal Year, the Division worked with three health care carriers to 
provide infertility treatment to couples in accordance with Masschusetts law. The carriers were Mega Life 
and Health Insurance Co., Tufts Associated Health Plan and Baystate Health Systems. 

LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE 



During the Fiscal Year 2000, the Division continued its work in the examination of problems faced by 
elders in financing nursing home and other long-term care. 

Consumer Complaints and Education 

The Division responded to consumer inquiries regarding long-term care insurance. A member of the 
Division made presentations to groups of agents and consumers concerning long-term care insurance. 

Long-Term Care Insurance Reguladon 

A Division AAG worked with the Division of Insurance to finalize major revisions to the DOI's long- 
term care insurance regulation, which became effective on January 1 , 2000. That AAG also played a lead 
role in developing and writing "Your Options For Financing Long-Term Care: A Massachusetts Guide," a 
comprehensive consumer guide to long-term care financing that the new regulation requires long-term care 
carriers and their agents to provide to consumers at the start of the sales process. During the next Fiscal 
Year, members of the Division plan to monitor industry compliance with the revised long-term care insurance 
regulation, and to conduct focus groups with consumers and agents to identify how consumer education on 
long-term care financing might be improved. 

LIFE INSURANCE LITIGATION 



• Consumer Complaints During Fiscal Year 2000, the Division continued to devote a 
considerable amount of time and resources to sales practices in the life insurance industry. These 



187 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

practices included the alleged misrepresentations made by various life insurance companies in the 
sale of their life insurance products. These misrepresentations generally involved "chuming" (the 
practice of turning in old policies for new policies on the representation that the old policies would 
fully or partly support the new); "vanishing premiums" ( the promise that premiums would no 
longer be necessary after a finite number of years). The Division mediated cases on behalf of 
individual consumers and also engaged in discussions with several companies that would resolve 
the cases on a global basis. 

• Prudential Life Insurance Company of America Claims Settlement The Division 
continued to monitor the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process detailed in our consent 
judgment against Prudential and in the global class action settlement. In addition, the Division 
provided advice to pohcyholders who were dissatisfied with their settlement proposal and 
wished to appeal the decision. The Division continued to participate in the Regulatory Oversight 
Group that is conducted by the various states to ensure the fairness of the remediation process. 
Members of the Division also spent time with policyholders who do not understand the offers 
made to them. The processing of claims and appeals, and accordingly the Division's work, will 
continue into the next Fiscal Year. 

• Hancock Mutual Insurance Company In the previous Fiscal Year, the Division filed a 
consent judgment in which John Hancock agreed to provide global relief for the alleged 
deceptive sales practices of its agents from 1979 through 1996. The judgment provided relief 
to approximately 250,000 Massachusetts pohcyholders. In the Utigation, the Division, as in the 
case against The Prudential, alleged that John Hancock engaged in three primary deceptive 
sales practices in the sale of whole life, universal life and variable life insurance policies, as well 
as certain mutual funds and annuities sold during that time frame. The Division alleged that John 
Hancock engaged in: "chuming" or replacement and financing; "vanishing premiums" or 
"abbreviated premium payment" plans; and selling life insurance as an investment, retirement 
plan, savings plan or college savings plan (the practice of selling life insurance by either 
disguising the product as life insurance or minimizing the life insurance of the product). 

On May 1 , 1 998, the Division set up a consumer hotline to assist policyholders in making 
appropriate elections of either ADR or General Policy Relief (GPR) and to assist them in fiUng 
their claim forms in a manner designed to afford them the best possible relief The hotline was 
still in operation at the end of the Fiscal Year. The Division has also met with and assisted 
almost 3,000 policyholders through personal assistance and seminars. The Division continues to 



188 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

meet with defendants' and plaintiffs' counsel in order to ensure compliance with the letter and 
spirit of the settlement. At the end of the Fiscal Year, the remediation program was still ongoing. 

• Metlif e In June of 2000, the Division filed a consent j udgment in which Metropolitan Life 
Insurance Company (MetLife) agreed to resolve alleged deceptive sales practices by providing 
global rehef to Massachusetts consumers who purchased certain insurance products from 
MetLife between 1982 and 1997. Massachusetts v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company . 
SUCV #2000-025 16-A (Sikora, J.). The judgment provided rehef to approximately 250,000 
current and former MetLife poUcyholders in Massachusetts. The deceptive sales practices 
alleged by the Division included: vanishing premium sales, replacement sales, sales of insurance 
as investment or retirement plans, and policy performance misrepresentation sales. The 
judgment followed a multi-year investigation by the Division. The allegations in this case were 
similar to the allegations resolved by the Division in prior consent judgments with the Prudential 
Life Insurance Company of America and the John Hancock Life Insurance Company. 

As part of the MetLife consent judgment, the Attorney General required substantive 
improvements to a national class-action setdement and that settlement was approved as 
amended by the Attorney General. In re: MetropK)Utan Life Insurance Company Sales Practices 
Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 96- 179, MDL No. 1091 (W. D. Pa. July 26, 2000). The 
national class action involved roughly seven miUion class members and the total relief to class 
members nationwide has been estimated at one billion dollars ($ 1 ,000,000,000). 

In addition to providing global relief through an improved rehef structure, the Attomey 
General instituted an outreach and assistance program to aid individual class members in 
Massachusetts. The rehef structure required current and former MetLife policyholders to 
decide between general rehef (temporary insurance coverage) or more valuable individual claim 
rehef which provides cash benefits. The outreach and assistance program involved sending 
informative guides about the settlement to all 250,000 Massachusetts class members, pubhc 
service announcements, and a toll-free telephone hotline to answer individual questions from 
class members. The Division received more than 1 8,000 calls about the MetLife settlement. 
The Attomey General's outreach programs were funded by MetLife. 

As a result of the Attomey General's outreach program in the MetLife case, individual relief 
claims were submitted by 4.8% of class members in Massachusetts. Nationally the figure was 
only 1 .95% of class members. This difference between Massachusetts and the national average 
indicates that roughly 5,000 Massachusetts class members filed individual claims because of the 



189 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

AG's outreach. With average individual claim relief at $3,266, it is fair to say the AG's outreach 
in the MetLife case provided those 5,000 Massachusetts class members with roughly sixteen 
million dollars ($16,000,000). Total relief to Massachusetts residents from the MetLife case 
was approximately thirty-three million dollars ($33,000,000). 

AUTO INSURANCE LITIGATION 



• In re Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Co. The Division investigated 
Metropolitan for failure to credit passive restraint discounts to private passenger auto insurance 
premiums. The Attorney General entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance in which 
Metropolitan agreed to: (a) correct a systems error so as to make proper discounts in the 
future; (b) refund nearly $2 million in unpaid discounts; and (c) donate $40,000 to the Attorney 
General's Local Consumer Aid Fund. 

CONSUMER ASSISTANCE 



Insurance Hotline and Mediation Program 

The Insurance Hotline is the primary communication Unk between the pubhc and the RID mediation 
program. In Fiscal Year 2(K)0, 10, 9 16 people, an average of more than 900 a month, called the Hotline 
to ask questions and seek help with insurance problems. More than 50% of the callers were concerned 
about health insurance issues. Many of the callers had been recently laid off from their jobs and did not 
know their health insurance rights; others were concerned about the cost of health insurance, access to 
care, claim denials and medical bills. 

The Insurance Hotline received a very large volume of calls in January, when Harvard Pilgrim Health 
Care was placed in receivership. During the months of January, Febmary and March, the Hotline received 
an average of more than 1 ,400 calls a month. Many of the callers were Harvard Pilgrim members worried 
about their coverage, health care providers, employers, and senior citizens with First Seniority coverage. 
At the urging of Attorney General Reilly the Insurance Hotline became toll-free m January, 2000. 

Hotline callers ask questions ranging across a broad spectrum of insurance issues. Though health 
insurance always tops the list, auto insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, credit insurance, travel 
insurance, and potential insurance scams are major concerns. Callers ask questions about claim settlement 
procedures, how to cancel an unwanted policy, how to appeal denials, and how to evaluate an insurance 
company or product. 



190 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 



REGULATED INDUSTRIES 



RID's four full-time mediation staff members answer the questions of Hotline callers. Staff members 
provide information and referrals, and, when appropriate, mail consumer complaint forms to callers. 

During Fiscal Year 2000, RID opened 1 ,374 new consumer complaint files, nearly 60% of which 
were submitted on complaint forms or as letters to RID. As with the Hotline, the majority of written 
complaints related to health insurance. 790 of the new complaints, more than 57% of the total, involved 
health insurance. The most prevalent health insurance complaint category was claim denials. In Fiscal 
Year 2000, RID closed 1,351 consumer complaint files. RID mediators recovered $1,480,361.90 for 
consumers. 

Consumer complaints are handled by RID staff mediators and undergraduate interns. In Fiscal Year 
2000, twenty undergraduate students from more than a dozen schools and universities were trained to 
mediate consumer complaints. Nearly half of the interns received academic credit for their work. During 
the summer and academic year, interns volunteered more than 2,000 hours in the mediation program. 



RID INSURANCE HOTLINE RESULTS: FISCAL YEAR 2000 





Total 


Complaint 


Top Issue 


Files 


Funds 




New 


Forms + Letters 




Closed 


Recovered for 




Complaints 








Consumers 


July '99 


67 


43+6=49 


Health: 40 


130 


$113,707.75 


August '99 


92 


41+21=62 


Health 43 


117 


$99,857.86 


Sept. '99 


98 


31+17=48 


Health: 40 


50 


$104,724.33 


October '99 


94 


31+11=42 


Health: 46 


92 


$99,453.88 


Nov. '99 


96 


42+30=72 


Health: 40 


119 


$92,276.58 


Dec. '99 


88 


40+17=57 


Health: 48 


96 


$102,801.61 


January '00 


145 


57+34=91 


Health: 103 


56 


$95,131.78 


Feb. '00 


153 


58+32=90 


Health: 115 


153 


$215,540.26 


March '00 


164 


61+33=94 


Health: 92 


164 


$140,900.38 


April '00 


131 


67+15=82 


Health: 76 


131 


$109,362.52 


May '00 


113 


41+19=60 


Health: 63 


77 


$107,707.81 


June '00 


133 


36+18=54 


Health: 85 


166 


$198,897.27 


Total 


1374 






1351 


$1,480^61.90 



191 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

Notable Mediations 

• A New Bedford resident contacted the Office for help with his elderly uncle's medical bills. 
The elderly gentleman, who is a retired New Bedford city employee, suffers from advanced 
Parkinson's disease. After taking a new medication, he became disoriented and wandered from 
his house at three in the morning. A pohce officer found him and brought him to a local hospital, 
where he was admitted for twelve days. The hospital then transferred him to a skilled nursing 
facility. The family contacted the insurance company and received approval. The elderly 
gentleman stayed at the nursing home for fifty-two days and, after rehabilitative care and a 
change in his medications, was able to go home. The insurance company denied payment for 
the rehab, stating that it was not pre-approved and was not medically appropriate, so the 
nursing home billed the family $9,900 plus $ 1 , 1 00 interest and late fees. A RID mediator 
contacted the insurance company and requested an immediate review of the claim. Upon 
review, the company paid tiie bill in fuU and the nursing home dropped the interest and late 
charges. 

• A Wakefield woman who was an employee of an industrial equipment supply company, 
contacted RE) for help with unpaid medical bills. Her employer-sponsored healtii plan denied 
payment of two months' worth of medical bills, amounting to $10,758, stating that she had no 
coverage at the time. RID contacted both the employer and the plan and learned that a 
miscommunication had caused the plan to create two different subscriber numbers for the 
woman. The error was corrected and the plan paid tiie bills in full. 

• A Norwood man suffered a sti-oke while on a business trip in Texas. Eight months after the 
hospitalization, his HMO still had not paid the claim, despite constant inquiries and reminders. 
When the hospital began billing him direcdy, the man contacted RID for help. A RID mediator 
contacted the hospital in Texas to review the bills, then contacted the HMO. Within two weeks, 
the HMO paid tiie claim and the hospital confirmed a zero balance. 

• A Maiden man called the Insurance Hotiine after his HMO told him that he had to wait for 
his neurologist to return from a three week vacation before he could receive follow-up care. A 
RID mediator immediately contacted the patient's health plan center and spoke at length with 
the patient's primary care provider. The provider's nurse practitioner agreed to call the patient 
at home and arrange a referral to a new specialist. By the end of the day, die patient had a 
referral and was scheduled for surgery. The surgical procedure was performed successfully the 
morning after the patient called the Hotiine. 



192 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

• Seven members of a Milton synagogue planned a trip to Israel. Each of them purchased 
travel insurance. When the US State Department issued a Travel Warning for the Middle East 
shortly before their scheduled departure date, the group canceled their trip. The travel 
insurance policy states that it covers trip cancellation in the event of a governmental travel 
warning; therefore, each person filed a claim for a refund of the ticket cost. The insurance 
company denied their claims, asserting that the State Department had not prohibited travel to 
Israel on specified dates. The group's travel agent contacted the Attorney General's Office to 
ask for help in appealing the denial. A RED mediator contacted the State Department to discuss 
Travel Warning procedures, and learned that a warning is the strongest form of cautionary 
notice. The mediator then contacted the travel insurer. After several discussions, the insurance 
company agreed to issue fuU refunds to all seven travelers. 

• A young mother from Hanover contacted RID to request help in appealing her health plan's 
denial of sixty days of occupational and physical therapy for her six-year-old son. Her plan 
allows sixty days of therapy. The boy has gross and fine motor skill delays after having 
undergone cardiac surgery in infancy. In denying the request for therapy, the health plan stated 
that the boy had already used up his benefit. However, a RID mediator, working with the 
mother and the boy's medical providers, was able to demonstrate that most of the sixty-day 
benefit was still available. The plan reversed its denial and agreed to provide full coverage. 

• A Hingham widower contacted the Attorney General's Office for help because his health 
plan was refusing to pay more than $40,000 in nursing home bills. His wife had recently died of 
lung cancer, after undergoing intensive chemotherapy and radiation treatments. The man's 
health plan denied payment of the nursing home bills incurred in his wife's final weeks of life, 
stating that the nursing home care was not at the appropriate level and was not pre-approved. 
A RID mediator contacted the health plan and requested a full review of the claim. After 
several discussions, the plan agreed to pay the bills in full and took steps to redesign its handling 
of similar claims. 

• A Lowell woman asked RID for help when her HMO denied coverage of special low- 
protein formula for her infant son. The plan stated in its denial that the infant did not meet 
medical ehgibilty criteria. A RJD mediator contacted the infant's pediatrician and learned that 
the child did, in fact, meet the criteria. Working with the pediatrician and the family, RJD 
appealed the denial. The HMO reversed its decision and provided coverage for the infant 
formula. 



193 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

• A Chatham woman contacted the Insurance Hotline after all her efforts to appeal her 
HMO's denial of an emergency claim failed. The woman's husband had fallen down the cellar 
stairs head first and was rushed unconscious to the nearest emergency room. He was admitted 
to the hospital for three days and released with moderate injuries. The HMO refused to pay 
any of the bills because the hospital was out of network and the situation was not a bonafide 
emergency. 

The HMO also provided contradictory information about appeals. A RID mediator 
contacted the HMO, and after also receiving contradictory information about appeals, was able 
to convince the HMO to reverse its denial and pay all the bills in full. 

In addition to the many consumer complaints which the Division was able to resolve on behalf of 
consumers, members of the Division explained and worked with many consumers to guide them in such 
matters as: understanding the intricacies of various entidement programs and the interplay between them; 
the billing practices of their health insurers; and continuation of health insurance coverage following termination 
of employment or following divorce. While no monetary consumer benefit can be placed on these activities, 
they provide a valuable service to Massachusetts consumers, many of whom are elderly or who have no 
other sources to turn to for help. 

AG ELDER 

The Attorney General's Elder Hotline is a recent initiative that began operation on June 1 6, 1 997 . The 
hotline was established in response to the high volume of calls from, or relating to, the elderly that come into 
the Attorney General's Office. When the Hotline first began, it primarily provided information and referral 
services and, with the exception of the director, was staffed solely by senior volunteers. Since that time, the 
role of the Hotline has expanded to include mediation services and two part-time staff people have been 
hired to help handle the increased work load. In the past Fiscal Year, the number of calls and the number 
of elders helped has continued to grow, showing an increase of 1 ,376 calls over the previous year. The 
total number of phone calls fielded were 6,617 calls and 2,408 elders were provided direct assistance. 
Mediation activities benefitted elders in the amount of $6 1 ,663.46 during the past Fiscal Year. 

The Hotline handles a wide variety of complaints for its targeted population, men and women age 60 
and over The Hotline also responds to inquiries from family members and professionals who have concerns 
about an elder. In these instances, in keeping with the philosophy of the Hotiine, the elder is always 
contacted before any action is taken on the complaint. 



194 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

Typically, the Hotline receives a large number of complaints against telemarketers, home improvement 
contractors, mail order businesses, car dealerships, collection agencies, and health care businesses. 
Complaints about prescription drug coverage and limitations in health care coverage are also frequent. 
Other types of complaints include tenant/landlord issues and complaints from elders living in senior housing 
complexes. 

Although the issues that were raised by the callers were consistent with those raised in previous years, 
there were some variations in the emphasis. This year, there was an increase in the number of complaints 
from elders with limited means who had accrued unmanageable debts. Generally, these elders receive 
govemment benefits as their sole form of income and are considered "judgment proof" Much of the credit 
card debt consisted of late charges and other fees. The Attorney General's Office was able to assist these 
callers by educating them about the protection afforded their benefits and by assisting them with letter 
writing and through contacting the debt collectors on their behalf. In many instances, we were able to get 
the debt forgiven. 

A second area of note was the increase in complaints against telemarketers and specifically those 
selling credit card protection services. Telemarketers used high pressure tactics and sometimes 
misrepresented their product in order to persuade elders to purchase the services. Mediation through the 
Elder Hotline resulted in refunds for nearly one hundred percent of the consumers who filed complaints 
against telemarketers selling this service. 

Most complaints that come into the hotline are handled by first educating consumers about their rights 
and options and encouraging them to take steps to resolve the issue diemselves. When this is not effective 
or appropriate the Hotline mediates complaints. In some instances, the complaint may be referred to 
another division within the Office of the Attorney General for follow-up. 

Outreach Activities 

The Elder Hotline has continued to grow and has become more widely known among other agencies 
in Massachusetts as evidenced by the growing number of referrals that come into the line through outside 
state agencies. The Hotline has encouraged collaboration with state agencies through the referrals that it 
gives and through the monthly trainings that the Hotline offers its staff. These trainings are often given by 
agencies that provide services to elders. In addition. Hotline staff has begun to increase its outreach to the 
larger community by seeking opportunities to address elders and elder service providers on issues of 
concern to them. 



195 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

OTHER ACTIVITIES 

Le gislative Acriviries 

A member of the Division worked actively with the Attorney General's legislative office and advocates 
to support two bills, S.733 and S.734. Both bills would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on 
the basis of gender. 

Guest Speakers 

Members of the Division made presentations to several organizations regarding insurance and financial 
exploitation of the elderly. Division staff also participated on a panel sponsored by the Massachusetts 
Hospital Association to inform hospitals of recent community benefits developments. A member of the 
Division made presentations to groups of agents and consumers concerning long-term care insurance. 

Regulatory Activities 

A member of the Division presented testimony at a pubhc hearing at DOI to consider the overall state 
of the Massachusetts Medigap market for health insurance for seniors. The "Medigap" market provides 
seniors with health coverage for gaps in Medicare, including a portion of hospitalization and physician 
costs and prescription drugs. The testimony discussed the principal issue in the Medigap market, cost, and 
urged the Commissioner to closely scrutinize proposed cost increases. The testimony also discussed two 
flaws in the functioning of the market that may be dangerous or disruptive to seniors: I ) the withdrawal of 
Medigap insurers fix)m certain geographic areas within the state without providing patients with an opportunity 
to obtain alternative coverage, and 2) the termination of provider contracts without adequate notice to 
patients. 

Amicus Briefs 

• Pe gram v. Herdrich A member of the Division was the primary author of an amicus brief 
filed in die U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of 17 states. The case addressed the preemption by 
ERISA of state actions regarding physician incentive plans in managed care organizations, and, 
by extension, the ability of the states to regulate managed care. 



196 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

• Szymanski v. Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Mass. App. Ct. No. 99-P-1756) A 

member of the Division was the author of an amicus brief filed in the Massachusetts Appeals Court 
on behalf of the Attorney General. This issue before the Court is whether the statute of Umitations 
begins to run at the time an insurance pohcy fails to perform as promised or when the consumer 
receives the first statement regarding the policy. In this case, the consumer purchased a vanishing 
premiums pohcy in 1986 and then began receiving annual poUcy statements in 1987. The consumer 
did not become aware of any problems with his policy until 1996 when his premiums failed to 
vanish as promised. He then filed in suit in 1 998. The Superior Court held that the statute of 
limitations had passed. 

ESTIMATED SAVINGS TO CONSUMERS 

Auto Rate Case $2 1 3 ,000,000 

Medigap Insurance Rate Cases 15,477,978 

FAIR Rate Case 225,000 

Consumer HotHne 1 ,480,362 

AGELDER Mediation 61,663 

Total $230,245,003 

UTILITIES 



The bulk of the utility workload of the Regulated Industries Division in Fiscal Year 2000 involved 
advocacy of consumer interests in connection with the implementation of the dramatic changes underway 
in the telephone, electric and gas utility industries. There were no traditional rate cases, but a number of 
proceedings related to mergers between utihty companies involved rate issues. Implementation of the 
1997 Electric Restructuring Act (St. 1 997, c. 164) continued with the final proceedings on individual electric 
utility company restructuring plans as well as proceedings concerning sales of electric generating faciUties, 
annual transition cost reconciliation filings, and the design of the "default" power service that must be made 
available to all customers. Work continued among interested parties to make competitive gas suppUes 



197 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

available to more customers and further progress was made at expanding the range of activities in which 
competition could occur in the telecommunications industry. The Division was an active participant in all of 
these developments. It advocated new strucUires and rules to maximize the consumer benefits from the 
change in regulatory approach as well as to protect the interests of small residential and business customers 
during the transition to new regulatory frameworks. Most of this work occurred in adjudications of specific 
cases. Examples of the Division's public utility work relative to each industry in Fiscal Year 2000 include: 

G^^S MATTERS 



• Eastern Enterprises-Colonial Gas Company Merger, DTE. 98- 1 28 - Colonial is a 
natural gas local distribution company serving approximately 152,000 customers in 24 
municipaUties northwest of Boston and on Cape Cod. Colonial has one subsidiary, TransGas, 
which is in the business of trucking LNG and is not regulated by the Department. 

Eastern Enterprises is a holding company under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 
1935, exempt from registration under the intrastate exemption pursuant to various orders of the 
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which has concurrent regulatory, but 
separate subject-matter, authority with the Department over the merger. Eastern is the sole 
stockholder of all issued and outstanding common stock of Boston Gas and Essex County Gas 
which together serve approximately 580,000 customers in Massachusetts. 

The Department is considering approval of the petition of Eastern Enterprises to acquire 
Colonial Gas Company which has proposed as part of its petition that a Rate Plan be adopted. 
In broad terms, the proposal posits that there would be a ten-year "rate freeze," meaning that 
base rates would not be increased for ten years; over that time Eastern would collect $15.3 
million per year through charges to Colonial's customers. Of this amount, $8.2 million 
represents the annual cost to amortize the goodwill or acquisition premium (the amortization will 
last for another thirty years), $4. 1 million represents the annual interest on $ 144 million in cash 
used to purchase Colonial shares of stock, $1.7 million represents the annual amortization cost 
to reimburse Eastern for the cost necessary to achieve synergistic savings, and $1.3 million per 
year for ten years is necessary to make Eastern whole for the transaction costs to complete the 
merger. Over the succeeding thirty years. Colonial's customers will be required to pay $ 1 2.3 
million per year, $8.2 million for the amortization of goodwill and $4. 1 million in interest on the 
Eastern cash used to purchase Colonial's common stock. The Petitioners maintained that 
without these charges to Colonial's customers, there is no assurance that the merger will be in 



198 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

the Eastern shareholders' interest. In other words, at a cost to Colonial's customers of $522 
million, Eastern's management can guarantee its shareholders that the merger will be profitable. 

The Division requested that the Department should reject the ten- year rate freeze and the 
Petitioners' claimed savings because: ( 1 ) the Petitioners' proposal is contrary to the legislative 
intent that gas and electric companies be subject to perfomance based rates (PBR); (2) there is 
no record evidence that Colonial would have received an $8.5 miUion rate increase if it filed a 
rate case in 2000; (3) the cast-off revenue requirement is based on flawed assumptions; and (4) 
3.2 percent, not 1 .0 percent is the most appropriate productivity offset, if Colonial's rates were 
to be subject to a price cap formula. 

At the close of the Fiscal Year, all hearings had been conducted and the matter has been 
fully briefed. The Division awaits the decision of the Department. 

• Gas CoUaborative, D.T.E. 98-32-B - In 1997 the Department of PubUc UtiUties, the 
predecessor of the Department, directed the ten local gas distribution companies to initiate an 
informal process to build a consensus among various interested parties on principles upon which 
to restructiare the existing industry. The goal of this restructuring is to allow all customers to 
choose among competing supphers of natural gas to be deUvered by the local distribution 
company. The Division has participated in this process, representing the interests of residential 
and small business customers in numerous meetings and technical conferences, urging, among 
other things, the principle that any restructuring or unbundling should not result in an unfair shift 
of costs from large to small customers. Most of this effort has been taken as a member of the 
so-called "Customer Group" (an informal coahtion including the Division of Energy Resources 
as well as representatives of busmess customers). As a result of the inabiUty of the interested 
parties to reach an agreement on the allocation of responsibility for the cost of the gas 
companies' existing gas supply capacity commitments, Uie Department opened a notice of 
inquiry in April 1998 to examine the question of how to dispose of that capacity as well as the 
question of allocation of responsibility for those costs. In May and June 1998, the Customer 
Group had filed two rounds of comments and given testimony in support of a requirement that 
those existing customers of gas companies be assigned their pro-rata share of supply capacity if 
they elect to purchase gas from a third party. On February 1 , 1999, the Department issued its 
decision in which it adopted the "mandatory assignment" position advocated by the Customer 
Group and set October 1 , 1999 as the date upon which all of the gas companies would be 
required to provide all of their customers widi tiie option to purchase gas from competitive 
suppliers. 



199 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

To assure continuation of a market for gas supplies for those customers that already had 
competitive alternatives, the Division entered into a settlement agreement with interested parties 
that: ( 1 ) exempted customers who had migrated to transportation service before February 1 , 
1999 from the mandatory assignment of capacity, and (2) provided that those customers who 
entered into supply contracts between February 1 and November 1 , 1999 (including a 
significant number of residential customers) would pay $0.01/ therm or CCF in Ueu of a 
mandatory assignment of capacity through November 1 , 2000, after which they will be assigned 
their respective sUces of system capacity, witii the funds collected being appUed to reduce the 
gas supply costs of residential customers. The Department approved this settlement. 

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company. DTE. 99-66-B - By Notice of 
Investigation, issued on November 1, 1999, the Department, on its own motion, opened an 
investigation into the Attorney General's allegation that Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Company 
(the Company) had double-collected interest on gas inventories since 1987. The Department's 
Notice posed three questions for resolution: "( 1 ) whether Fitchburg over-collected for costs 
related to gas inventory; (2) the amount of any such over-collection; and (3) whether 
Fitchburg's ratepayers are entitied to reimbursement for any over-collection." 

The Department conducted a public hearing on December 8, 1 999 and estabhshed a 
procedural schedule. The Attorney General was the only party to intervene. 

On January 14, 2000, the Company pre-filed the testimonies of Susan F. Tiemey, Ph.D., a 
consultant, formerly Assistant Secretary for Policy at the United States Department of Energy 
and Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of PubUc Utihties from 1988 through 
199 1 , and Karen M. Asbury, Manager of Regulatory Services for Unitil Service Corp., an 
afiTiUate of the Company. On January 25, 2000, Uie Attorney General filed the testimony of 
Timothy Newhard, a financial analyst with the Regulated Industties Division of the Office of the 
Attorney General. Mr. Newhard testified to the ratemaking principles and precedent regarding 
the appropriateness of the rettim to the Company's customers of tiie "double-collection" of the 
interest on inventory amounts. He also testified as to die dollar amount to be returned to 
customers as well as the interest or carrying charges on those returned amounts. Evidentiary 
hearings were held at the Department's offices on March 14, 1 5, and 22, 20(X) during which all 
witnesses were cross-examined. 



200 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

The docket was reopened upon the discovery of additional relevant documents from the 
Department's own archives concerning the extent of the Company's over-collections. At the 
close Fiscal Year 2000, the additional hearings were not yet convened. 

• The Berkshire Gas Company, D.T.E. 99-75 - The petition of the Berkshire Gas 
Company requested the Department to approve a new Local Distribution Adjustment Factor 
and to recover certain costs associated with its planned LNG storage and vaporization facility in 
Whately, Massachusetts, pursuant to the LDAC as well as the Company's Rate Schedule No. 
M.D.T.E. 266, Seasonal Cost of Gas Adjustment Clause. The Division opposed the method of 
cost recovery of the facility, and the Company withdrew its petition on January 18, 2000. 

• Bay State Gas Company, D.T.E. 99-72 - The petition of Bay State Gas Company 
requested approval by the Department to modify the Service Quahty Index that was approved 
as part of Bay State's two-year rate plan settlement and continued by the Department's Order 
approving Bay State's merger with NIPSCO Industries, Inc. In response to the Company's 
August 6 filing in which it proposed to modify the operation of the service quality plan adopted 
by the Department in a 1997 settlement and extended in a decision approving a rate plan 
proposed in connection with the acquisition of Bay State by Northern Indiana Public Service 
Company, the Division negotiated modifications to that proposal which the Company 
incorporated in a revised proposal filed with the Department on December 27. Issues related 
to the computation of the rate changes called for in the year 2000 under that agreement 
continued to be the subject of discovery. On January 18, 2000, the Department approved 
certain modifications to the Company's plan. 

• Boston Gas Company, D.T.E. 99-76 - This case involved the petition of Boston Gas 
Company, Colonial Gas Company and Essex Gas Company, pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 176 
and 94A, for approval by the Department a Gas Resource Portfoho Management contract. 
The Division argued that the Department should resolve certain issues only after a thorough 
investigation, including evidentiary hearings. These issues are: ( 1 ) whether the portfoho 
management proposal chosen by the Companies provided the best price and non-price terms; 
(2) whether the proposed management contract, as a "replacement resource" provides net 
benefits to existing firm ratepayers relative to the existing resource; (3) whether approval of the 
portfoho management contract will result in inappropriate market power in hght of the fact that 
El Paso's affiUate, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company is the largest of the two pipelines that serve 
Massachusetts; and (4) whether the Companies' proposal to retain a portion of the results of 



201 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

the portfolio restructuring is consistent with the "margin sharing" principles. By order dated 
October 1 8, 1 999, the Department approved the Company's request. 

• Southern Union Gas / Fall River Gas Merger, D.T.E. 00-26; Southern Union Gas/ 
North Attleboro Gas Merger, D.T.E. 00-25 - On January 27, 2000, Southern Union 
Company, headquartered in Austin, Texas, filed petitions with the Department requesting 
approval to acquire two small Massachusetts gas companies operating in southeastern 
Massachusetts, Fall River Gas Company and North Attleboro Gas Company. The Division 
entered into discussions with Southern Union which resulted in a settlement agreement in June 
2000 in which the Attorney General agreed not to oppose the acquisitions. Southern Union 
agreed not to request rate recognition of any merger costs in this proceeding and to provide 
certain allocation of cost information on a continuing basis. 

Fall River is estimated to save $ 1 05,836 annually due to the merger and resulting ehmination 
of "pubhc company" expense such as are incurred with shareholder meetings, and the 
preparation and processing of required public filings. North Attleboro is estimated to save 
$12,917. 

Fall River's allocated share of the acquisition premium is approximately $33.5 million, while 
its share of transaction costs is estimated at $3.7 miUion, with no estimate of integration costs 
provided. North Attleboro's allocated share of the acquisition premium is approximately $ 1 1 .3 
million, and no estimate of its transaction costs or integration costs is made. Finally. Southern 
Union commits to no layoffs as a result of the mergers. 

ELECTRIC MATTERS 



• BEC Energy-Commonwealth Energy System Merger, D.T.E. 99- 1 9 - Boston Edison 
is a Massachusetts electric company subject to the jurisdiction of the Department pursuant to G. 
L. c. 164, § 1, and a principal and wholly-owned subsidiary of BEC Energy. The Department 
approved the formation of the holding company in Boston Edison Company, D.P.U. 97-63 
(1997), an unincorporated Massachusetts voluntary association, created by Declaration of Trust 
dated March 25. 1 997, which is an exempt holding company under the Public Utility Holding 
Company Act of 1935. 15 U.S.C. § 79(b)(a)l. Boston Edison is currently engaged in the 
generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to approximately 633,000 retail 
residential, commercial and industrial customers over an area of 590 square miles in forty 
communities. Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement filed with the Department on July 8, 1 997 



202 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

and approved by the Department in Boston Edison Company, D.P.U. 96-23 (1997), Boston 
Edison agreed to freeze retail rates until December 3 1 , 2000. 

Commonwealth Energy System is composed of twenty subsidiaries including Com/Energy 
Services, which performs management services for the subsidiaries, Canal Electric Company, a 
wholly-owned generation company which historically has provided electric generation services 
to Commonwealth Electric and Cambridge, Hopkinton LNG, a natural gas company. Com/ 
Energy Resources, Inc., MATEP, which owns a cogeneration facihty located in Boston, and 
Com/Energy Marketing, Inc., a power marketer. Commonwealth Electric serves approximately 
327,000 retail customers in southeastern Massachusetts, including Cape Cod and Martha's 
Vineyard. Cambridge provides transmission and distribution service to approximately 45,900 
customers in the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. It also makes wholesale sales under 
FERC-approved contracts and owns the 13.5 MW Blackstone generating station located in 
Cambridge. Commonwealth Gas provides local gas distribution service to approximately 
239,000 retail customers in eastern Massachusetts. 

On February 1, 1999, Boston Edison Company ("Boston Edison" or "BECo"), Cambridge 
Electric Light Company ("Cambridge Electric"), Commonwealth Electric Company 
("Commonwealth Electric"), and Commonwealth Gas Company ("Commonwealth Gas") 
(jointly "the Companies") filed with the Department of Telecommunications and Energy ("the 
Department") a joint petition for approval pursuant to G. L. c. 164, § 94 of a rate plan related 
to the planned merger of BEC Energy. BEC Energy's other wholly-owned, primary subsidiary, 
Boston Energy Technology Group, Inc. ("BETG"), is the unregulated parent company of 
BecoCom, Inc., a 49% owner of RCN/BecoCom LLC which provides local and long-distance 
telephone service, video, and high-speed Internet access. BETG also owns Northwind Boston, 
LLC (75%), Coneco Corporation, Boston Edison Services, Inc., and RZT Corporation, the 
holding company and parent of Boston Edison and Commonwealth Energy System ("the 
Commonwealth System"), the holding company and parent of Cambridge, Commonwealth 
Electric and Commonwealth Gas. The holding companies have filed an AppUcation for 
Approval of Merger with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, dated February 8, 1999. 
In that fiUng, the companies do not propose to charge their wholesale customers any part of the 
$858 million acquisition charge, and state that "the merger requires the approval of the 
Massachusetts DTE." 

The Companies estimate that an acquisition premium of $502 miUion will be paid for COM/ 
Energy's stock, assuming a share price of $44. 1 with 2 1 .5 million shares outstanding and a 



203 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

book value of $446 million at $20.75 per share. As of the time of the hearings, it was not 
determined how the acquisition premium would be allocated among the four utiUty distribution 
subsidiaries. 

As elements of a rate plan tied to the merger, the Companies proposed that 1) distribution 
base rates for all four utility operating companies be frozen for four years following 
consummation of the merger; 2) merger costs be recovered over forty years; and 3) a service 
quality plan be instituted. Distribution base rates could be increased during the rate freeze for 
exogenous costs, consistent with the Department's decision in Eastern-Essex Acquisition, 
D.T.E. 98-27 (1998). Boston Edison's existing rate freeze, due to expire December 2000, 
would be extended by about two years. 

As part of its proposal, the Companies sought Department approval to charge customers 
$34. 1 million a year during the first six years after the merger, an amount composed of $20.6 
million for the acquisition premium ($824 million amortized over forty years) and $13.5 million 
in costs to merge ($ 1 35 million amortized over ten years). Over the succeeding thirty years, 
customers will be charged $20.6 million a year for the acquisition premium. It is the 
Companies' position that these costs must be unconditionally approved. The Companies 
estimate net savings during the first ten years following the merger of $532 million. 

The Division proposed to compare Boston Edison's, Cambridge Electric's, ComElectric's, 
and ComGas' current rates to what they would be during each of the four years of the 
proposed rate freeze if determined using a price cap formula under performance-based 
regulation (PBR). The Division argued that for the proposed rate freeze to satisfy the no net 
harm standard, the Joint Petitioners must first demonstrate that the current rates are just and 
reasonable. The Division maintained that the Joint Petitioners made no attempt to demonstrate 
that their current rates are just and reasonable. In support of its position, the Division noted that 
the most recent full review of Cambridge Electric's, ComElectric's, and ComGas' rates were in 
1993, 1 99 1 , and 199 1 , respectively. The Division concluded that the record demonstrates that 
rather than producing savings for customers, the Rate Plan deprives them of PBR-based rate 
decreases, to the benefit of shareholders. Consequently, the Division considered that the 
proposed four-year rate freeze fails to meet the no net harm standard and therefore should be 
denied. The Joint Petitioners inappropriately seek to shift all the risks related to merger costs 
and savings, including the acquisition premium, onto their respective ratepayers. 

At the close of the Fiscal Year, all hearings had been conducted and the matter has been 
fully briefed. The Division awaits the decision of the Department. 



204 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

• New England Electric System and Eastern Edison Company Merger/National Grid 
and New England Electric System Merger, D.T.E. 99-47 - Massachusetts Electric 
Company and New England Power Company, subsidiaries of New England Electric System 
and Eastern Edison Company, subsidiaries of Eastem Utilities Associates, filed a joint petition 
for approval by the Department of Eastem Edison Company's merger into Massachusetts 
Electric Company. At the same time. The National Grid Group, a global U.K.-based 
company, merged with New England Electric System, the parent company of Massachusetts 
Electric Company. 

The Division worked with numerous interested intervening parties to arrive at an overall 
setdement that resolved all the issues in both proposed mergers. 

The settlement provided for a rate freeze or "Rate Cap" period from the effective date of 
the Settlement through February 2005, giving customers an immediate $ 10 million rate 
reduction. Then beginning in March 1 , 2005 through December 2009, a Performance Base 
Ratemaking (PBR) mechanism was established that ties Mass Electric's rates to the rates of 
other companies in the region. Beginning March 1 , 2005, the Company's disttibution Rates will 
be set based on a regional index of similarly unbundled lOU's in New England, New York, 
New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The settlement requires that distribution rates will not exceed 90 
percent of the regional index. During the Rate Index Period, distribution rates will be adjusted 
annually to track changes in the regional average, subject to both positive or negative adjustment 
for exogenous factors. Mass Electric's distribution rates are guaranteed to be below the rates 
for the Northeast region. Another important facet of the Settlement is a comprehensive service 
quality plan, based around a number of output measures, relating to reliability, customer service 
and worker safety. The settlement's Service Quality Plan has a system of incentives and 
penalties, which will be determined annually with the maximum net penalties in any year set at 
the equivalent of 2 percent of Company's transmission and distribution service revenues. 

On March 14, 2000, the Department issued an order approving die settlement. In 
reviewing the setdement proposal, die Department evaluated die benefits and costs associated 
with the merger based on the following four factors: ( 1 ) effect on rates; (2) effect on service 
quaUty; (3) societal costs; and (4) distribution of resulting costs and benefits between 
shareholders and ratepayers. The Department concluded that the settlement was in the public 
interest and approved the mergers. 

• Western Massachusetts Electric Company, D.T.E. 00-33 - This case involves Western 
Massachusetts Electric Company's transition charge reconciliation filing for the 22-month 



205 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

reconciliation period from March 1, 1998 through December 31, 1999. The Division has 
engaged in negotiation regarding certain elements of the reconcihation, including the treatment of 
connection charges related to the sale of generation assets, tax credits and pension fund benefit 
retirement funding issues. As of the close of the Fiscal Year in June 2000, no final settlement 
had been reached with the Company. 

• Boston Edison Company, D.T.E.96-1A-1/97-1A-1/98-1A- On January 9, 1996, 
pursuant to G.L. c. 164, s. 94G and 220 C.M.R. s. 8.00 et seq., Boston Edison Company 
applied to the Department for review of its actual jjerformance results relating to fuel 
procurement and use for the twelve- month period November 1 , 1994 through October 3 1 , 
1995. These matters were docketed as D.P.U. 96- 1 A. On January 8, 1997, the Company 
appUed for review of its actual performance results relating to fuel procurement and use for the 
twelve-month period November 1, 1995 through October 31, 1996. These matters were 
docketed as D.P.U. 97- 1 -A. The Department consolidated these dockets for hearing. 

On June 30, 2000, the Division filed a settlement with the Department resolving most of the 
issues in these proceedings concerning the performance of Boston Edison's Pilgrim nuclear 
power plant during 1995-98. This agreement requires the Company to return $2.5 million to its 
customers through a special credit against the transition costs it will otherwise recover from 
customers. No final order approving the settlement had been issued during this Fiscal Year. 

• Massachusetts Electric Company v. Braintree Electric Light Department, DTE. 97- 

84 - Massachusetts Electric Company filed a petition, complaint and request for declaratory relief 
concerning unauthorized service by Braintree Electric Light Department to Massachusetts Electric 
Company's customer, Massachusetts Heavy Industries, Inc. The Division intervened in the matter. 
After negotiations, the complaint was withdrawn by the Company with Department approval on 
December 20, 1999. 

• ComElectric, D.T.E. 99-69 - On July 22, 1999, Commonwealth Electric Company, 
petitioned the Department for approval of an Amended and Restated Power Sale Agreement 
that the Company executed with Lowell Co-generation Company Limited Partnership. The 
Commonwealth requests that the Department approve: ( 1 ) the termination of all obligations that 
the Company has with respect to purchasing electricity from Lowell Co-gen; and (2) the 
inclusion of the buy-out amount as an actual and fully mitigated transition cost in the fixed 
component of the Company's transition charge. 



206 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

The Division argued that although the Amended Agreement appears to help mitigate 
transition costs and produce savings for ratepayers, the Division took no position concerning 
whether the Department should approve the Amended Agreement. The Division requested 
that the Department defer ratemaking treatment of the Amended Agreement to the Company's 
next annual reconcihation filing, and in that proceeding, the Division would seek additional 
information regarding whether using EIS funds to make payments to Lowell Co-Gen is 
appropriate and whether the Company is improperly seeking carrying costs on customer funds, 
that is, the unamortized amount of the buy-out costs. On October 29, 1 999, the Department 
approved the petition, but did not order the further hearings requested by the Division. 

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, D.T.E. 99-58 - On June 11, 1999, 
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company petitioned the Department for approval to sell 
entitlements to specific units of its generation portfolio to Select Energy, L.L.C. The Division 
retained an outside expert consultant concerning the allocation of costs between the generation 
assets and the purchase power agreements. The Division negotiated a stipulation with the 
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company that the Company agreed not to seek any mitigation 
incentive after the sales agreement is implemented. By order dated December 28,1 999, the 
Department found the Company's sale process to be equitable and structured to maximize the 
value of the existing generating facilities being sold. 

• Boston Eklison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Commonwealth 
Electric Company, Eastern Edison Company, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light 
Company, Massachusetts Electric Company, Nantucket Electric Company and 
Western Massachusetts Electric Company, D.T.E. 98-13 - On January 22, 1998, the 
Department of Telecommunications and Energy (Department) opened an investigation in order 
to consider whether granting exemptions from some or all of the requirements of G.L. c. 164, 
§§ 94G and 94G 1/2 (including fuel charges, performance reviews, goal-settings and oil 
conservation adjustments) for Boston Edison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, 
Commonwealth Electric Company, Eastern Edison Company, Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light 
Company, Massachusetts Electric Company, Nantucket Electric Company and Western 
Massachusetts Electric Company is in the public interest. The Division argued that as a result of 
the Restructuring Act the state's utilities agreed to sell their generating units and that the 
provisions of G.L. c. 164, §§ 94G and 94G 1/2 were no longer applicable and therefore an 
exemption was appropriate. However, the Division also requested that the Department conduct 
a final audit of the fuel charge and performance review accounts in order to assure an accurate 



207 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

closure of the process. This request was denied by the Department, stating that the Division's 
usual discovery powers would be sufficient. 

• Western Massachusetts Electric Company, D.T.E. 97-120 (Phase II) - On December 
1 , 1 999, the Department ruled on motions seeking clarification and reconsideration of the 
Department's September 17 decision on the Company's proposed restructuring plan. The 
Department denied a request for clarification regarding its rejection of an argument that the 
Company's proposal regarding the Northeast UtiUties generation and transmission agreement 
would shift onto Massachusetts customers responsibility for significant costs that had previously 
been the responsibility of the customers of the Company's Connecticut affiUate. On October 

1 8, 1999, the Company made a compliance filing in which it purported to have modified its 
restructuring plan to comply with the Department's September 17 order. After evidentiary 
hearings on November 22, 1999, and ftulher briefing, the Department adopted many of the 
Division's objections to the compUance filing and ordered further amendment to the Company's 
fiUng. A group of industrial customers and a single customer representing a temple filed notices 
of appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court from the Department's September 17 decision. The 
Division subsequently negotiated and filed a comprehensive settlement agreement addressing 
issues regarding unit performance review proceedings, as well a pending matter before the 
FERC. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company will write off $26. 15 million of assets on its 
books and will abide by an incentive formula for its recovery of the underappreciated cost of the 
1 992 replacement generator at Millstone Unit 2. 

• Demand Side Management, D.T.E. 98- 1 00 - In connection with a rulemaking 
proceeding to establish practices and procedures for the evaluation and approval of energy 
efficiency programs under G. L. c, 25 §§ 1 IG and 19, the Division participated in weekly 
meetings with interested parties in an attempt to achieve consensus on the energy efficiency 
programs for both the gas and electric industries. The Department indicated that it intended to 
address four broad issues in this investigation: ( 1 ) the process by which the Department will 
review energy efficiency programs pursuant to G.L.c. 25, §§ 19, and c. 25A, §§ llG;(2)the 
criteria that the Department will employ to determine whether a proposed energy efficiency 
program is cost-effective; (3) the monitoring and evaluation of savings that result from 
implementation of energy efficiency programs in order to determine program cost-effectiveness; 
and (4) the shareholder incentives that are included in energy efficiency plans. On January 7, 
2000, the Department issued an order addressing numerous issues, including environmental 
impacts, economic consequences and low income customer impact. 



208 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

• Commonwealth Electric, D.T.E. 99-90 - On October 27, 1999, pursuant to G.L. c. 164, 
§ 1 A(a) and 220 C.M.R. § 1 1 .03(4)(e) Cambridge Electric Light Company and Commonwealth 
Electric Company filed with the Department its annual Transition Charge Reconciliation Filing. 
The Division challenged many of the Companies' adjustments during six days of evidentiary 
hearings. Among the issues addressed was the Company's failure to apply promptly the 
proceeds from the sale of fossil units to reduce the transition costs related to the Seabrook 
nuclear power plant, ComElectric's attempt to collect a higher rate of carrying costs on certain 
balances than allowed under the terms of earUer settlements, and ComElectric's attempt to claim 
as transition costs the unrecoverable balance of a plant abandoned nearly a decade before the 
restructuring act. The Division was awaiting a decision at the end of the Fiscal Year. 

• Performance Based Ratemaking, D.T.E. 99-84 - On December 3, 1999, the Division 
filed written comments with the Department responding to fourteen questions posed in a 
November 5 , 1 999 notice of inquiry concerning service quality plans implemented in connection 
with performance-based approaches to rate regulation for electric and gas utilities. In these 
comments, the Division urged the Department to act quickly to adopt separate sets of uniform 
service quality measures for the electric and gas industries and, at least for the immediate future, 
to base the required level of performance for individual utilities relative to those measures on the 
most recent five years' performance by each company. The Division urged the Department to 
require that any service quality plan provide for maximum level of penalties permitted by law - 
2% of revenues - for extraordinarily poor performance and suggested that rewards be provided 
to encourage exemplary service. On December 23, the Division filed Reply Comments. The 
Division was awaiting a decision at the end of the Fiscal Year. 

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, D.T.E. 99-110 - On December 1, 1999, 
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 1 A(a) and 220 C.M.R. 
§ 1 1 .03(4)(e), filed with the Department its electric reconciliation mechanisms and inflation 
adjustment filing. The Company also proposed changes in charges for energy efficiency and 
renewables programs pursuant to G.L. c. 25, §§ 19 and 20. The Company filed proposed 
tariffs, effective January 1 , 2000, that incorporated these proposed charges and adjustments. 
The Division filed the testimony of David Effron of Berkshire Consulting, who challenged many 
of the Companies' adjustments during evidentiary hearings. Among the issues addressed were 
the Company's excessive administrative and general expenses, post- 1995 plant additions, and 
over collection of the Seabrook costs. The Division was awaiting a decision at the end of the 
Fiscal Year. 



209 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

• Boston Edison Company, D.T.E. 99-107 - On November 30, 1999, Boston Edison 
Company filed its 1999 transition charge true-up filing for approval by the Department. The 
Company also filed a reconciliation of standard offer service, default service, and transmission 
service costs and revenues for 1 999, and proposed changes to charges and tariffs to be 
effective January 1 , 2000. In early December, the Division filed comments objecting to the 
Company's transition (i.e., stranded) cost recovery report and requesting a full investigation. 
Among the issues identified is the Company's treatment of certain foregone revenues from sales 
to the MWRA as well as a depreciation account deficiency resulting from a recent sale of street 
lighting assets to a municipality. After numerous rounds of discovery, the Division entered into 
setdement discussions with the Company and interveners. These discussions resulted in an 
agreement which addressed some of the concerns held by the Division. At the close of the 
Fiscal Year, the Department had not yet issued an order addressing tiie proposed settiement. 

• Commonwealth / Cambridge Electric, D.T.E. 99-89 - On October 27, 1999, Cambridge 
Electric Light Company and Commonwealth Electric Company, pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 1 A, 
IG, 76, 94, and 94A, petitioned the Department for approval of a sixth amendment to a Power 
Contract by and between Canal Electric Company and the Companies. The Sixth Amendment 
provided for the Companies' buydown of their embedded cost obligation to Canal with respect to 
purchases of electricity from Seabrook Unit No. 1 

The Division asserted tiiat a buydown of Seabrook embedded costs would be in the best 
interests of the Companies' customers. Nonetheless, the Division argued that a number of 
factual and ratemaking issues remain unresolved, and that the Department's assessment of the 
buydown agreement must therefore address: ( 1 ) whether the Companies' Seabrook costs are 
generation-related transition costs or above-market PPA costs; (2) the propriety of the more 
than twelve-month delay between the time that the Companies received the proceeds of the 
Canal divestiture and the time that the buydown was proposed; and (3) what, if any, ratemaking 
treatment should be given to post-December 31, 1995 Seabrook investments as well as 
ongoing Seabrook costs. The Division also asserted that die Companies must provide 
information regarding the remaining available balance of EIS funds and clarify whether payout of 
the buydown funds will occur in one step or over a number of years. The Division did not 
oppose the proposed buydown, subject to a resolution of those matters. The Division was 
awaiting a decision at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Northeast Utilities Service Company, FERC No. ER- 99-3 196 - The Nortiieast 
Utilities companies have operated pursuant to the FERC-jurisdictional Northeast Utilities 



210 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

Generation Transmission (NUG&T) agreement as a means of reducing generation and 
transmission costs. In light of the recent electric industry restructuring, modifications to the 
NUG&T agreement were required to account for divestiture of generation units. Northeast 
Utilities Service Company, on behalf of Western Mass. Electric Company (WMECo) and 
certain other NU companies, filed an NUG&T amendment with FERC. The Division filed a 
protest with respect to the cost allocation mechanism of the modifications to the NUG&T as not 
in the best interests of Massachsuetts consumers. FERC responded that the Company's 
proposed amendment had "not been shown to be just and reasonable, and may be unjust, 
unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful." FERC suspended 
the filing and set the matter for hearing pending resolution of state restructuring dockets. The 
Division reported to the FERC in January 2000, indicating that Department has declined to 
address interstate cost shifting issues raised by the proposed terms under which the Northeast 
Utihties generation and transmission agreement is to be terminated. In this report the Division 
requested that FERC appoint a settiement staff, and the Division has been negotiating with the 
parties for a resolution of the cost shifting issue. As of the end of the Fiscal Year no fmal 
settlement had been approved. 

• Western Massachusetts Electric Company, D.T.E. 00- 1 1 - The Division participated in 
a one day evidentiary hearing held in connection with the Department's investigation of a 
proposed buyout of a purchase power contract for a portion of the output of the Vermont 
Yankee nuclear power plant. Under the terms of the buyout option proposed by WMECo, the 
Company is required to make a lump sum payment in exchange for the termination of its current 
life of the unit, cost of service contract. In the comments filed on June 6, 2000, the Division 
urged the Department to reject the Company's proposed buyout since the record evidence did 
not demonstrate that the lump sum payment option would likely result in savings for consumers. 

• Western Massachusetts Electric Company, D.T.E. 00-40 - The Division participated in 
two days of evidentiary hearings on the Company's April 18, 2000, request that the Department 
allow it to issue up to $261 million of rate reduction bonds to refinance the principle amount of 
its remaining transition costs. The Division filed briefs urging the Department to limit the amount 
of rate reduction bonds authorized to the level shown to result in actual savings for customers. 
At tile close of the Fiscal Year, an order has not yet been issued by the Department. 

• Default Service, D.T.E. 99-60 - On May 12, 2000, die Department issued an order in the 
investigation it initiated on June 21,1 999, into the pricing and procurement of Default Service 
under the Restructuring Act. In response to written comments previously filed, the Department 



211 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

announced a modified pricing proposal that allowed utilities substantial flexibility in determining 
when and for how long to seek competitive bids to supply power, deferred the issue of class 
specific default service rates, and provided two pricing options for consumers. The Division 
participated in a public hearing / technical sessions on the proposal, which was adopted with 
Umited modification in a June 30, 2000, order by the Department. 

TELEPHONE MATTERS 



• Four Overlay Area Codes for Eastern Massachusetts, D.T.E. 99- 1 1 - The 

Department opened this area code relief docket to determine whether new area codes were 
necessary for Eastern Massachusetts and, if necessary, whether the current area codes should 
be split or should be overlayed with new area codes. The North American Number Planning 
Administration (N ANP) filed area code implementation plans under which the Department 
could choose either a geographic split (where half the phone numbers stay the same and the 
other half are assigned a new area code) or an overlay (which requires ten-digit diahng for all 
phone numbers, old and overlay). The Department conducted pubUc hearings on the NANPA 
proposals during which the Division issued public statements that urged the Department to 
conduct a thorough investigation before adopting any implementation regime. Verizon and other 
carriers urged the Department to implement overlays, rather than spUtting the current area 
codes. The Department denied the Division's request for evidentiary hearings and on April 25, 
2000, released its order creating four new overlay area codes. NANPA later announced the 
identity of the codes: 339 (781 area code overlay), 351 (978 overlay), 774 (508 overlay), and 
857 (6 17 overlay). On May 1 1 , 2000, the Division attended a NANPA implementation 
meeting for the four new overlays in Eastern Massachusetts. The new overlay area codes went 
into effect on May 1 , 2000, and mandatory ten-digit diaUng will go into effect on April 2, 2(X) 1 . 

• Thousand Block Number Pooling in Eastern Massachusetts, DTE. 99-99 - 
Complementing the overlay docket, the Department had opened a new docket to investigate the 
feasibiUty of implementing thousand block number pooling. The Division filed reply comments 
on the Department number poohng trial for Eastern Massachusetts on November 1 , 1999, and 
filed a motion on January 28, 2000, asking the Department to issue an order for number jwoling 
for the 508, 6 1 7, 78 1 , and 978 area codes by May 1 , 200 1 . The Division also filed reply 
comments on March 13, 2000, to AT&T's motion for partial reconsideration of the 
Department's number pooUng order regarding the Department's requirement of a 75% fill rate 
before a carrier could request a new exchange code. 



212 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

• 413 Area Code Relief for Western Massachusetts, D.T.E. 00-64 - The Department 
opened a new docket to examine the need for a new area code in Western Massachusetts. As 
part of that investigation, the Division attended a NANPA area code rehef planning meeting in 
Holyoke, MA for the 4 1 3 area code on June 20, 2000. 

• Bell AtlanticA^erizon's Section 271 Application to enter the Massachusetts long 
distance market, D.T.E. 99-27 1 - Verizon, then Bell Atlantic, filed a proposal with the 
Department on May 24, 1999, that attempted to demonstrate that the Company had opened 
the local markets to competition sufficient to merit the Department's support for Bell Atlantic to 
be granted entry into the long distance market under Section 27 1 of the Telecommunications 
Act of 1 996. Under the Telecom Act, Bell Atlantic has to prove that it satisfies a fourteen-point 
competitive checkUst, as well as showing that its entry into the long distance market is in the 
public interest. After completing an investigation at the state level. Bell Atlantic would then file a 
Section 27 1 appUcation with the Federal Communications Commission, who then has 90 days 
to render its final decision based on input from the Department, the U.S. Department of Justice, 
and interested parties like the Attorney General's Office. 

The Division assumed a high-profile stance that was critical to opening the local market to 
competition. As part of the Division's involvement, the Division filed written comments on July 
19, 1999, on Verizon's Section 27 1 filing, attended pubUc hearings conducted in Pittsfield (July 
19, 1999), Worcester (July 20, 1999), New Bedford (July 26, 1999), Newton (August 4, 
1999), and Gloucester (August 5, 1999), and procedural conferences at the Department on 
July 22 and September 9, 1999. The division filed proposed discovery requests on September 
17, 1999, which the Department reviewed to determine which questions they would allow Bell 
Atlantic to be asked. The Division participated in 2-3 conference calls per week with KPMG 
and telecom carriers regarding Bell Atlantic's performance on operator support systems (OSS) 
from January 7, 20(X) to May 2000. The Division also filed comments and proposals regarding 
Bell Atlantic 's Performance Assurance Plan on April 2 1 , 2000 and reply comments on May 19, 
2000, and attended an FCC field hearing in Lowell, MA, regarding the deployment of 
advanced telecommunications services in Massachusetts. At the close of the fiscal year 1999- 
2000, the Department was continuing its investigation and had requested proposed discovery to 
be filed. Technical sessions had not yet been scheduled. 

• Verizon's Fifth Price Cap Compliance Filmg, D.T.E. 99-102 - In 1995, Verizon, then 
NYNEX, was ordered by the Department to file six annual comphance filings to show its 
adherence to the 1995 Price Cap Order's pricing rules issued by the Department on May 22, 



213 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

1995 in DPU 94-50. On November 17, 1999, Verizon, then Bell Atlantic, filed its fifth annual 
price cap filing with the Department, and included a reduction in the productivity adjustment 
factor to recover past penalties. The Division filed comments on Bell Adantic's filing on 
December 23, 1999, which challenged the method used by the Company to calculate penalty 
charges that were incurred in 1995 and 1996. The Division attended a public hearing and 
procedural conference on January 5, 2000 at the Department, filed request for evidentiary 
hearings on January 2 1 , 2000 on issues, filed an initial brief on March 6, 2000 and a reply brief 
on March 20, 2000. The Department had not issued its final order as of the close of the fiscal 
year. 

• Bell Atlantic's Local Service Provider Freeze, D.T.E. 99-105 - The Division intervened 
in this docket on February 4, 2000, and attended a public hearing and a procedural conference 
on February 8, 2000, at the Department regarding allowing Bell Atlantic to permit its customers 
to "freeze" their local and in-state toll Unes, just as they do for long distance lines. Freezing 
requires the customer to specifically "unfreeze" the line before switching to another 
telecommunications service provider. The Division issued information requests on BeU Atlantic's 
pre- filed testimony and tariff revisions on March 1 , 2000, and attended evidentiary hearings 
April 13-14, 2000, at the Department, filed an initial brief on April 26, 2000. and reply briefs 
on May 3, 2000. The Department subsequendy approved the tariff revisions, and the Division 
filed an opposition to AT&T's motion for reconsideration on June 30, 2000. 

• Slamming, D.T.E. 99- 18 -The Division is an intervener in this case. On June 30, 1999, 
the Attorney General filed his initial comments and on July 23, 1 999 filed his reply comments on 
the Department's rulemaking of the Massachusetts And-Slamming Law, G.L. c. §§ 108-1 13. 
The Department ultimately adopted new slamming regulations which are now codified at 220 
C.M.R. 13.01-13.08. 

• Accelerated ("Rocket") Docket, D.T.E. 00-39 - The Department opened a docket 
designed to expedite single-issue, two-carrier disputes. The Division filed comments on the 
Department's proposed regulations on June 28, 2000. 

• Consolidated Arbitrations, D.P.U./D.T.E. 96-73 et seq. - Division staff attended 
technical sessions on dark fiber at the Department on February 16, 2000 and on UNE-P and 
HARC on March 2. 2000. 



214 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU REGULATED INDUSTRIES 

CONSUMER COMPLAINTS 

Division staff conducted a joint meeting on December 6, 1999, with Department staff and 
telecommunications carriers regarding consumer complaints on unexpected impacts on phone bills from 
selecting a carrier other than Bell Atiantic. Later, Division staff met with MCI WorldCom representatives 
on May 25, 2000, regarding consumer complaints. During the Fiscal Year Division staff received, reviewed 
and processed 692 utility consumer complaints, of which 686 were related to telephone services, 4 to 
electricity services, and 2 to gas services. Division staff perform an important service to telephone, electricity, 
and gas consumers by serving as mediators between the consumer and the company where the consumer 
has been unable to reach a satisfactory resolution on their own. These complaints can also serve to 
highlight patterns of suspicious behavior and potential unfair and deceptive trade practices and can lead to 
further Division investigation. 

The Division included the following staff members: George Dean, Chief; Joanna Connolly; Stacey 
Book; Wilner Borgella; George Brooks; Matthew Buehler; Victoria Carter; Michelle Cataldo; Norman 
D' Amours; Gerald D' Avolio, Jr.; Judith DePontbriand; Joanne Bickson; Barbara Fain; Mary Flohr; Maureen 
Forbes; John Grugan; Veronica Kane; Patricia Kelley; Helen Koroniades; Leo Lawless; Julayne Lazar; 
Peter Leight; Daniel Mitchell; Trevor Murray; Timothy Newhard; Thomas O'Brien; Rebeca Perez; Doe 
Pichard; David Publow; Karlen Reed; Joseph Rogers; Joseph Rogers; Danielle Solod; James Stetson; 
Anthony Taylor; Rachel Weiner; and Meghan York. 



215