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

Public Document

No. 12

^l)z Commontuealtl) of iHaiSfiacIjusietts;

Report of the

Attorney General

for Fiscal Year 2003

July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003

Publication of this Document Approved by Ellen M. Bickelman, State Purchasing Agent.
Publication Number CRl 097-06/05-4. SO-Docuprint Express

Thomas F. Ri hi v
ATTORNKY CENFRAI.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Office of the Attorney General

Oni: AsiiburionPi ACF.
Boston. MAssACiiusLns ()21()(S-169S

In accordance with the provisions of Section 11 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. 2002 to
June 30, 2003.

Respectfully submitted.

Thomas F. Reilly ,
Attorney General

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ASSISTANT ATTORNF.Y GENERAL APPOINTMENTS i

EXECUTIVE BUREAU 1

General (Counsel's OtFice 1

Human Resource Management Office 5

External Affiiirs Office 6

Information Technology Division 7

Budget Office 9

Operations Division 10

Communications Office 1 1

Francis X. Bellotri I, aw I.ibrar\' 12

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 17

Fair Labor and Business Practices Division 1 7

Insurance and L'nempkn'ment Fraud Division 24

Medicaid Fraud Control Unit 30

CRIMINAL BUREAU 39

Appellate Division 40

CAnruption, Fraud, and Computer Oime Di\ision 45

Victim/Witness Assistance Division 54

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division 61

Environmental Crimes Strike Force 69

Criminal Justice Polio,' Division 72

Victim Compensation and Assistance Division 77

Financial Investigations Division 81

Sate Neighborhood Initiative Division 85

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVFRNMFNT BUREAU

101

Administrative Law Division

103

114

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU

125

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division

126

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division

Environmental Protection Division

136

154

169

Investigations Division

177

180

186

Mediation Senices Division

REGIONAL OFFICES

197

201

203

Central Massachusetts

209

217

APPOINTMENTS

Fiscal Year 2003 (7/1/02 - 6/30/03)
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL, THOMAS R REILLY
FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL. DEAN RICHLIN

ANNACKll

mkuhlf.adflman
jf.nniffr adreani (7)

nAVlI3AN[)RF;WS
MARION ANTONUCCI
jAMFSARGUIN
FRFDFRICK AUGFNSTERN
EVA BADWAY
rilOMASBARNICC)
(IIRISTOPIIERBA[^RVSMirH
JASON BARSHAK
R.DAVID BECK
ANNETTE BENEDETTO
ROBERl BENSON (6)
MATTHEW BERGE
CRISPIN BIRNBAUM
NANCY BLOOMBERG
WILLIAM BI.OOMER
EDWARD BOHI EN
WIENER BORGELLA
JOHN BOWEN
JOHN BOWMAN
JULIE BRADY (U)
MATTHEW BROCK
MATTHEW BUEHLER (41)
RANJANA BURKE
JOSEPH CALLANAN
ROMEO CAMBA
JESSE CAPLAN
SANDRA CARDONE
ERICCARRIKER
PATRICK CASSIDY (31)
ALOKE CHAKRAVARTY
JULIE C HAT! OPADHYAY (19)
KATHYCHEN(IO)

NOR\CHOROVER

JOHNCJJRISTIN

LAWRENCT: CI IRISTOPI lER (27)

JAMES CLARK

PEIER CLARK

STEPHEN CLARK

ALEXANDER COCHIS

RICHARD COLE

JEFFREY COLLINS (13)

JOANNA CONNOLLY

ROSEMARY CONNOLLY

COLLEEN CONNOR (II)

MARGRFTCOOKE(4l)

PATRICIA CORREA

DAVID COSGROVE (28)

PIERCE CRAY

JOHN CRIMMINS

JOHNCURSEADEN

PAMELA DASHIELL

GERALD DAVOLIO JR.

THOMAS DEE (21)

LINDA DELCASTILHO

BARBARA DILLON DESOUZA

(30)

STEPHEN DICK

THOMAS DIGANGI (5)

JENNIFER D0HER:LY (8)

KIRSTEN ENGEL

BENJAMIN ERICSON

BARBAR-XEAIN

JAMES D.PFARRELL

DANIEL FIELD

ELIZABEIH ANN FOLEY

MARYFREELEY

R0SALYNGARB0SE(I7)

MARIANNE GEULA (29)
SALVAIORE GIORLANDINO
1RANC(K;0B0URNE(18)
I.ANDREW GOLDBERG
LORRAINE GOI.DENBERG-
TARROW

RICHARD GORDON (21)
ELKJL GREEN
HANNAH GREENWALD (25)
JOHN GROSSMAN
DANIEL HAMMOND
NANCY (BETSY) HARPER
KAIHFRINE HATCH
JANICE HEALY
RICHARD HEIDLAGE (20)
MICLLAELHERING(26)
HILARY HERSHMAN
ERICHIGHTOWER(IO)
SARAHINCHEY
JOHNHITT
BART HOLLANDER
PAMELA HUNT
MARSHA HUNTER
CAROL lANCU
MATTHEW IRELAND
DEEPAISAC(46)
MARIA HICKEYJACOBSON
THOMAS JOHNSON (4)
JOCELYN JONES
TIMOTHY JONES
ROSALIND KABRHEL
MICHELLE KACZYNSKl
STEPLLANIE KAI IN
JUDYZEPRUNKALMAN
GLENN KAPLAN

APPOINTMENTS

JAMIE KATZ

RONALD KEKIOE

DAVID KERRIGAN

KATHARINE KI.UBOC'K

MARKKMETZ

URSULA KNIGHIi;^?)

PAMELA KOGUT

NICK KOSIAVELON (27)

SIUTIPLAM

JUDITH EASIER

KELLI LAWRENCE

DIANE LAWTON

DANALECCESE(I6)

PATRICK LEE

PETER LEIGHT

MADELINE LEONE

JUDYLEVENSON(ll)

DAVID LIEBER (14)

CAROLYN LONG (21)

STEPHANIE LOVELL

ANITA MAIETTA

MARIA MAKREDES (45)

IIMOIHYMALEC

DAVID MARKS

LAURA MARLIN

STEPHEN MARSHALEK

LAURA MASLOW-ARMAND (30)

TINA MATSUOKA

LEA BRISTER MAY (9)

DEAN MAZZONE

COLLEEN MCCONNELL (15)

PHILIP MCGOVERN

CONSTANCE MCGRANE

TIMOTHY MCGUIRE

MICHAEL MCNALLY (36)

WILLIAM MEADE (34)

PALRICIAMEDEIROS

PAMELA MEISTER

BETHMERACHNIK

HOWARD MESHNICK

NICHOLASMESSURI

JAMES MILKEY

PAULMOLLOY

BRIAN MONAHAN (29)
DAVID MONAI IAN
NAIALIE MONROE (3)
ALICE MOORE
TIMOTHY MOR.'XN (12)
MARKMULDOON
MARK MULLIGAN (22)
DAVID NALVEN
CALHRYN NEAVES
EILEEN O'BRIEN
JAMES O'BRIEN
THOMAS O'BRIEN
CHERYL O'CONNELL (I)
JOHN O'LEARY (44)
MARYO'NEIL
WILLIAM O'NEILL
KRISTENOROURKE(40)
DONNA PALERMINO (43)
JAMES PAPPAIOANOU (2)
EMILY PARADISE
WILLIAM PARDEE
HOLLY PARKS (27)
MARGARET PARKS
MAITEPARSI
M. JULIE PATINO (26)
ROBERT PATTEN
PETER PAULOUSKY
SUSAN PAULSON
ANTHONY PENSKI
MARY A. PHILLIPS
MARY B. PHILLIPS
KEVIN PLAN IE (8)
WILLL^M PORTER
ANNE POWERS (37)
CHRISTOPHER QUAYE
JASON QUEENIN
KAIHLEEN QUILL (42)
ROBER4 QUINAN
KARLEN REED
WILLIAM REYNOLDS
JULIANA RICE
DEAN RICHLIN
ROBERT RITCHIE

JOSEPH ROGERS

DEIRDRERONEY

JULIE ROSS (40)

AMY ROYAL (23)

JOSEPI I RUCCIO (6)

I'EIERRUSSELI

FRANK RUSSO (29)

PETER SACKS

ERNEST SARASON

KURT SCHWARTZ

JEFFREY SHAPIRO

MALI HEW SHEA

ADAM SIMMS

GINNYSINKEL

JOHANNA SORIS

AMY SILVER SPECTOR

C;HRlSrOPIIER SPERANZO

DAWN STOLFI STALENHOEF

CAROL STARKLY (24)

DEBORAH STEENLAND

CATHERINE SULLIVAN

MARKSUTLIFF

JAMES SWEENEY

JOHN TALBOT

ROSEMARYTARANTINO

NEIL TASSEL

DANAHTENCH

STEVEN THOMAS

L1NDAT0MASELI.I(37)

M ARINl TORRES-BENSON

BRUCE TRACER

TRACEY TURNER

TERI WILLIAMS VALENTINE

(32)

LINDA WAGNER

TERESA WALSH

PAMELA WECHSLER (35)

PETER WECHSLER (39)

RICHARD WEITZEI, (38)

JAMES WHH COMB

DORIS WHITE

JONATHAN WHITE (33)

JUDI HI WHITING

APPOINTMENTS

miisywiiittey
(;i:c)ffru;ywhy
JISSICA COCCOI.I WIKI r.us

janewili.()U(;hby

'nAIHANAFI, WRIGHT

rHAKIKSWY/ANSKl

HERMENYEE(2r.)

jUniTHYO(;MAN{'12)

SHEILA YORK

KAREAZARBO

CATHERINE ZIEHL

APPOINTMENTS

APPOINTMENT DATE

TERMINATION DATE

(1)

07/29/02

(2)

07/31/02

(3)

09/03/02

(4)

09/09/02

(5)

09/16/02

(6)

09/30/02

(7)

12/02/02

(8)

12/16/02

(9)

12/30/02

(10)

01/06/03

(11)

01/13/03

(12)

02/10/03

(13)

03/03/03

(14)

03/24/03

(15)

03/31/03

(IG)

05/05/03

(17)

05/12/03

(18)

06/02/03

(19)

06/23/03

(20)

06/30/03

(21)

07/05/02

(22)

07/12/02

(23)

07/19/02

(24)

07/26/02

(25)

08/02/02

(26)

08/16/02

(27)

08/30/02

(28)

09/06/02

(29)

09/13/02

(30)

10/11/02

(31)

10/25/02

(32)

11/08/02

(33)

12/27/02

(34)

01/02/03

(35)

01/10/03

(36)

01/24/03

(37)

01/31/03

(38)

02/04/03

(39)

02/21/03

(40)

02/28/03

(41)

03/21/03

(42)

04/04/03

(43)

04/11/03

(44)

04/25/03

(45)

05/30/03

(46)

06/20/03

EXECUTIVE BUREAU

General Counsel's Office

Human Resource Management Office

External Affairs Office

Information Technology Division

Budget Office

Operations Division

Communications Office

Francis X. Bellotti Law Library

EXECUTIVE BUREAU

Executive Bureau

The Executive Bureau's piiinary function is to provide the Office with overall achninistiation
inaiiagenieiit, poMcy setting, staff supervision, and employee training. It is also charged with the
responsibility of administering technical support to over 450 employees located throughout the
Commonwealth. Additionally, the Executive Bureau is responsible for a number of specialized functions,
including the coordination of legislative affairs, constituent relations, community outreach, and all
communications, both internal and external.

The Office of the Attorney General is located in four areas in Massachusetts. The niain office is
located in Boston with three regional offices in Springfield, Worcester, and New Bedford. The Executive
Bureau is designed to develop and maintain the agency's infrastructure, enabling all the Offices of the
Attorney General to function productively and effectively for the benefit of the Commonwealth's citizens.

The Executive Bureau consists of the Office of the First Assistant Attorney General, which oversees
all legal matters and includes the Office of the General Counsel. The Chief of Staff is responsible for
the day-to-day activities of the Attorney General, ensuring that the Attorney General's schedule reflects
his priorities. The Chief of Staff is also responsible for the overall management of the following divisions:
Human Resource Management. Budget. Information Technology, Operations, Support Services, and
the Francis X. Bellotti Law Library.

In recognition of the Executive Bureau's dual responsibility to provide leadership on the office's
overall mission and priorities and to administratively support the office to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness, the office reorganized the management of the bureau to better reflect these equal, but
distinctly different functions in January 2003.

The new Chief of Staff, Stephen Bilafer, was given oversight over several key functions of the
Executive Bureau, including Communications, External and Intergovernmental Affairs, Public
Information and Constituent Services, as well as Scheduling. In addition, the Chief of Staff was
responsible for working directly with the bureaus to develop and coordinate the key policy initiatives
and priority issues of the office. Added was the newly created position of Chief of Administration and
Finance, assumed by Jason Queenin. The Chief of Administration and Finance was responsible for
oversight of all the elements that go into ensuring the smooth, efficient and effective operations of the
office, with the primary focus of working with the bureaus to develop an even more coordinated and
positive work environment. Within the Executive Bureau, the Chief of Administration and Finance
has responsibility for the management of Human Resources, Operations, Budget, Information
Technology and the Law Library

EXECUTIVE BUREAU GENERAL COUNSELS OFFICE

In Fiscal Year 2003, the Executive Bureau included Dean Richlin, First Assistant Attorney General;
Stephen Bilafer; Kerri Burridge; Ellen Donaghey; Diane MacDonald; Jason Queenin; and Jeffrey Shapiro.

Smooth operation of the Attorney General's Office is also reliant on the dedicated professionalism
of the following staff members in the Bellotti Law Library and the Telecommunications Division:
KarinThunnan, Library Director; Michael Ball; Catherine Douglas; Susan Lindsey; Raymond Manigault;
and Denise McCartin.

GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE

The General Counsel's Office is within the Office of the First Assistant Attorney General. This
Office provides reconunendations on legal and policy matters to the Attorney General, the First Assistant
Attorney General, and the Chief of Staff The Office also advises and supports all other staff members,
both legal and nonlegal, in the Office of the Attorney General.

More specifically, this Office advises on the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Ethics
Law; provides legal advice and assistance to the administrative staff within the Executive Bureau; through
the AC //^ifyYi/fp provides and conducts office-wide, in-house training programs for all staff; coordinates
the appointments of Special Assistant Attorneys General (SAAG); reviews and approves legal services
contracts for state agencies; reviews and circulates petitions and notices from the Board of Bar Overseers;
coordinates the office-wide review of tax settlements between the Department of Revenue and individuals
who have failed to pay taxes; retains and manages ihe state's Operating Under the Influence (OUI)
notices to drinking establishments; monitors the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG)
recommendations and submission of amicus briefs for the First Assistant, and coordinates bureau
responses; monitors and reviews NAAG's recommendations to join other Attorneys General throughout
the country in letters of support and/or opposition to proposed legislation or regulations; represents
and provides technical support to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) on matters
before the Superior Court; reviews public records law appeals referred for enforcement action by the
Secretary of State through the Supemsor of Public Records; and investigates open meeting law violations
by state agencies.

The General Counsels Office includes five attorneys, one paralegal, and one secretary: Pamela M.
Dashiell, General Counsel; Eileen Carey; Akiti Chandler; Lorraine Goldenbeig-Tarrow, Judy Zeprun
Kalman; Christopher Speranzo; Deborah Steenland; and Teri Williams Valentine.

EXECUTIVE BUREAU GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

The General Counsels Office manages all internal personnel matters in ronjunrtion with the Human
Resource Management Office. It is lesponsible for handling workeis' compensation claims, union
arhitiaf ions and gi ievances, discrimination complaints, and disciplinary proceedings up to and including
eniployee terminations.

On occasion, the General Counsels Office will provide assistance to other bureaus with respect to
cases involving litigation. Therefore, some menibeis of the staff carry an active caseload of work unrelated
to the core responsihililies of the General Counsel's Office.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

.iH;/rm Briefs Received 40

NAAG Sign-ons Received 35

Legal Services Contracts Received 62

SAAG Appointments Made 29

SAAG Appointments Vacated 19

Public Records Enfoicement Appeals Received 46

Public Records Requests Received 42

Open Meeting Law Complaints Received 9

OCPF Cases Received 6 *

Board of Bar Overseers/Tax Settlements Received 27

OUI Notices Received 3.548

*The number of cases dropped significantly from Fiscal Year 2002 (17) due to the new protocol

instituted by this Office at the beginning of Fiscal Year 2003. under which the OCPF will repiesent

EXECUTIVE BUREAU GENERAL COUNSELS OFFICE

itself in Superior Court. This Office, however, continued to provide technical support by issuing
warning letters to respondents and by reviewing the OCPF paperwori< and serving complaints for the
OCPF.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

Staff of the General Counsels Office worked with the Human Resource Management Office to
conduct training on the Attorney Generals Anti-Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Policy. The
Members of the General Counsels staff were involved in other cross-bureau initiatives, including the
Diversity Committee, the Employee Benefits Conmiittee, and The Elder Protection Unit of the Public
Protection Bureau. The AG Insrimte credited a knowledge management system. The VAULT, integrated
within the office-wide case management system, and initiated training on how to use the system. This
Office also had a staff member lead an internal group charged with developing an office-wide policy on
the interpretation and applicability of rule 4.2 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.

In keeping with the Attorney General's priority of ensuring that staff has access to the latest
information and training available, and in furtherance of their professional development, the AG Inst irate
provided continuing education to legal and nonlegal staff on a variety of topics. During Fiscal Year
2003, the /46V/«ryrj;fe offered 41 programs and brought in six "Distinguished Lecturers."

OUTREACH, EDUCATION. AND TRAINING

During Fiscal Year 2003, the staff of the General Counsel's Office provided training to state and
local government agencies on open meeting law issues and public records law matters. One staff
member served on a Board of Bar Overseers hearing panel. Other staff members were active in the
Boston, Massachusetts, and American Bar Associations where they functioned in leadership positions
on various committees. They also served as panelists and speakers at NAAG seminars, Massachusetts
Continuing Legal Education forums, and other legal programs offered across the country sponsored by
the various bar associations noted above. Members of the staff also participated in the Citizens Schools
mock trial program and volunteered their services at the Paul McLaughlin Center and with other
community groups in their own neighborhoods.

I'XECUTIVE BUREAU I lUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE

The Human Resource Management Office staff is responsible for the leciuitiiient and hiring of
employees, benefits administration, performance appraisals, the hiring of legal and collegiate interns,
and time and attendance data entry. During Fiscal Year 2003, staff members included Diana LaRochelle,
Director: James Chu: Joyce Delgardo: Ihomas Kopaczynski: Sandra Macdonald; Meade Munroe;
Joseph Shea; Marie Urciuoli; and Christine Wilson.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AND SKXUAL HARASSMFN i POLICY

1 he Office reissued the Anti-Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Policy in April 2003. The
Office seeks to remind all employees that it is committed to the goal of having a workplace that is
respectful, inclusive, and diverse.

OFFICK-SPONSORLD BAR .\SSOCIATION MEMBERSI UPS

In addition to sponsoring memberships for all attorneys in the Boston Bar Association or a county
bar association, AAGs were also offered the opportunity to join one of the many minority and women's
bar associations in Massachusetts. This benefit was continued from previous years to further the OAG s
commitment to enhance attorneys" professional development, and to encourage involvement with
organizations composed of diverse members and experience.

ITCJAL AND COLI E(;iATE INTERN PR0(;RAMS

The Attorney Generals Office continued its strong commitment to the Legal and Collegiate Intern
Programs during Fiscal Year 2003. The OAG participates each winter in the Massachusetts Law School
Consortium interview process to recruit and select summer legal interns. In addition to this valuable
source of candidates, the Office coordinates and holds over a hundred interviews in late winter and
early spring with students from numerous law schools.

The OAG received applications from 134 law students and placed 56, the majority of whom took
part in the Summer Legal Intern Program. The law students are afforded a unique opportunity to
participate in a full-time, structured nine-week summer program which is unfunded, aimed at both
utilizing the knowledge of the law students and giving them hands-on experience and training in some
of the most interesting legal cases in the Commonwealth.

The Collegiate Intern Program attracts a large number of applicants throughout the year but has
the largest component during the spring and summer months. In Fiscal Year 2003. the OAG placed

EXECUTIVE BUREAU EXTERNAL, AFFAIRS OFFICE

103 of the 114 collegiate interns who applied. These interns volunteer at least 15 hours per week and
are assigned in all six bureaus across the office. The term of their internships varies from student to
student but often exceeds nine weeks.

Additionally, some Assistant Attorneys General run clinical programs throughout the year for students
at three area law schools - Harvard Law School, Boston College Law School, and the New England
School of Law.

PKRSCJNNEl. ACTIVITY

During Fiscal Year 2003, the Attorney Generals Office hired 27 attorneys and 38 nonlegal staff for
a total of 65 employees. There were 98 staff members who separated from the Office.

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE

The External Affairs Office of the Executive Bureau is responsive to the public and the legislature.
Its function is to serve as a liaison between the community, the legislature, and the Attorney General.

The External Affairs Office included the following staff members: Laura Marlin, Director; Jeffrey
Collins; Leah Green; Sally Ogine-Noel; and Lyndsay Wolf

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Attorney General Reilly created the Office of Community Partnerships in 1999 to work with
Massachusetts' mayors, other 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. This Office acts as a direct liaison between the Attorney Generals Office and the
state's cities and towns.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

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

EXECUTIVE BUREAU INFORMATION TECHNCJLOGY DIVISION

In Fiscal Year 2003, on l)ehalf of the Office, the Intergoveinniental Affairs Office drafted legislation
and worked to enhance the laws that improve the environment, improve our criminal justice system,
and protect consumers, working families, and our most vulnerable citizens, children and the elderly.

Additionally, the Intergovernmental Affairs (Office acts as the contact for members of the legislature
and staff who have questions for or need assistance from the Office of the Attorney General on behalf
of their constituents. In Fiscal Year 2003, the office handled hundreds of calls and written inquiries
from members of the state legislature and congressional delegation pertaining to a wide range of matters.

COMMUNITY LIAISON

The Community Liaison is responsible for constituent services. The position was created as a resource
for the conununitv to obtain information for either internal or external assistance, through e-mail,
letters, telephone calls, and walk-ins. In Fiscal Year 2003. approximately 3,000 telephone requests were
fielded and resolved.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

The Information Technology Division (IT Division) is responsible for the operation and maintenance
of the agency's computer network and related technical resources. The division maintains a wide area
network (WAN) at One Ashburton Place, which provides connectivity from the main office in Boston
to the local area networks (LANs) installed at 200 Portland Street, Boston, and the regional offices in
Springfield. Worcester, and New Bedford,

The mission of the IT Division is to provide network communications, hardware, software, and
end-user assistance for all agency staff in all locations. The Division's staff' supports 17 mail and application
servers, seven backup servers, one DNS server, one firewall server, five routers, more than 25 network
switches, and over 600 computer devices, including desktop PCs. Notebook PCs, printers, scanners,
and other peripheral equipment. During Fiscal Year 2003. IT Division staff included Paula M. Durant,
Director: Ronald Rossetti, Network Manager: Thomas Smith, LAN Manager: Christine Heneghan,
Notes Database Administrator: Visakha Samaraweera, Relational Database Developer: Claudette
Clement, Administrative Coordinator: Bruce Crosby, Technical Support Specialist: Jean Exantus,
Technical Support Specialist: and Jack Ngan, Technical Support Specialist.

EXECUTIVE BUREAU INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS. AND ACTIVITIES

During Fiscal Year 2003. the Attorney General's IT Division continued to maintain and improve
the quality of its technical resources. Having previously replaced outdated servers and obsolete operating
systems, the IT Division turned its focus to improving network backbone communications. The initial
phase of the project, which involved server memory upgrades and the installation of new core switches
for each of the main computer rooms, substantially improved overall network performance and server-
to-server communications. In the second phase, the IT Division replaced all existing wiring hubs with
new switching equipment and upgraded individual PC memory, which allowed agency staff to realize
a significant increase in data transfer speed and improved client/server response.

Network security is a priority. To increase protection for agency resources and information, the
Attorney General's IT Division recently upgraded its firewall technology. The agency also continued
to maintain a subscription to keep its antivirus products current. In Fiscal Year 2003, the IT Division
was also able to procure Internet monitoring and filtering products, which will act as an additional
safeguard when implemented.

Other enhancements were made at the desktop level. Recognizing the need to participate in federal
and state electronic filing initiatives, and to provide a simple method of document and information
exchange, the IT Division took steps to provide WinZIP and Adobe Acrobat licenses for each PC. In
addition, printer upgrades were completed and the agency was able to replace a number of outdated
PCs.

Along with making agency-wide improvements, the IT Division also responds to the needs of
particular agency divisions. During Fiscal Year 2003. the IT Division worked with various divisions to
implement scanning equipment and software to assist with document management; procured and
installed software updates and color printing solutions for publications and Web management; converted
and implemented a SQL back-end database for the Consumer Complaint Information Section; and
provided database assistance and GIS software for the Health Care team.

The need for presentation technology and litigation support tools continued to increase. To enable
the Multimedia Unit to meet this rising demand, the IT Division worked to acquire updated presentation
and mobile computing equipment, and procured additional licenses for litigation support software
packages.

HXECUT1VEBURF.au BUDGET OFFICE

OUTREACH. EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

1 he liifomiatioii rerlmolog}' Division continued to provide a high quality of end-user assistance
upon request. Two Help Desks are maintained for user convenience, one at Ashburton Place and one
at 200 Portland Street, where IT staff members receive and respond to user calls encompassing a wide
variety of issues. Reported hardware problems are referred to the next available Technical Support
Specialist, and any calls requiring a particular expertise are directed to the IT staff member best qualified
to assist. In addition, orientation sessions are held for new employees and interns upon start of work.

As in past years, the IT Division connnunicated with agency staff regularly via e-mail, issuing a
variety of policy reminders, virus alerts, and technical bulletins. The IT staff continued to provide
individual and group training as needed.

BUDGET OFFICE

The Budget Office included the following staff members: Frank Velluto. Director; James Creedon;
Kerisotellia Ford; Mary Jane Grace; Jennifer Hanly; Kristine Hill; Penny Michalski; Gail Sarno; and
Lynette Smith. Support Services staff included William Coughlin, Manager; Stephen Cress; Timothy
LeBlanc; Pier Minghetti; Nestor Morales, Jr.; David Scafati; and Harold Tafler.

The challenge to the Budget Office in Fiscal Year 2003 was to provide for the increasing needs of
the Office while anticipating that Fiscal Year 2003 funding would be reduced due to the ongoing state
budget crisis.

To meet these demands, during the second part of the fiscal year, the Budget Office recommended
that most positions vacated through regular attrition and retirements associated with the Commonwealths
Early Retirement Incentive Program not be filled. Unfortunately, further reductions were necessitated
by anticipated Fiscal Year 2003 cuts, and at the end of the year, the Office further reduced staffing
through 11 layoffs. Although difficult, these decisions allowed the Office to absorb an almost 5%
reduction in its main appropriation in the following year without further reductions.

Even with diminished resources, the Budget Office worked to fund costs associated with a number
of high-profile cases and various cost-share agreements.

Additionally in Fiscal Year 2003, the Budget Office worked with staff from the Insurance Fraud
Division to establish a new inter-governmental service agreement with the Social Security Administration

EXECUTIVE BUREAU OPERATIONS DIVISION

(SSA), administered tiirough the Massachusetts Rehabihtation Commission. With funding provided
by SSA, the Office hired two investigators to combat disabihty fraud and to ensure that disability
benefits are awarded only to deserving individuals. To allow the project to go forward, the Budget
Office worked with the State Comptrollers Office to arrive at a lower indirect cost rate.

In Fiscal Year 2003, the management and supervision of the time and attendance function was
moved from the Human Resource Management (HRM) Office to the Budget Office. This change
resulted in a streamlining of business processes to simplify the reporting procedure while also significantly
reducing the wasteful use of paper. This has resulted in a more accurate reporting of employees' time
and greater productivity for both Budget and HRM staff

During Fiscal Year 2003, Budget staff processed over 12,000 payment voucher (PV) documents
totaling $18,456,943.

Among these totals were 2,427 PVs totaling $621,331 that were issued to claimants who benefited
from settlements made with various retailers and over $1 million in recovered wages.

OPERATIONS DIVISION

The Operations Division offers professional, timely, and valuable ancillary services that allow the
Office of the Attorney General to effectively carry out its mission. The multitude of initiatives, functions,
cases, and day-to-day business activities are supported by the technical ability within the realm of the
Operations Division. In Fiscal Year 2003, new personnel along with a new focus enhanced the ability
of the division to become more engaged in daily facility operational matters and offer greater leadership
to staff

In Fiscal Year 2003, the division staff included Kristine Hill, Director; Chris Adams; Anthony
Melius; Meade Munroe; Kevin Nolan; and Pasha Polihronidis.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

In Fiscal Year 2003, the Operations Division completed a significant five-month project involving
physical inventory of all office equipment and furniture at both Boston offices and the legionals. This
comprehensive process involved the services of a private consultant along with operation staff to complete.
The project now allows the office to accurately track and inventory all new purchases, quickly identify

EXECUTIVE BUREAU COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

current in-house stock, and effectively monitor and allocate inventory to satisfy staff needs. In addition,
new inventory procedures related to purchasing, moving, and disposal of furniture were develo|)ecl to
[)rovide a coherent, consistent, user-friendly system.

In light of the events of Septemher 11, 2001, the Office of the Attorney General felt additional
security measures were required to protect the safety of staff and to prevent unauthorized individuals
from accessing office space. To help accomplish these measures, all OAG staff were issued identification
badges that include a photo and division assignment. These ID badges allow staff to comfortably work
within ()A(j office space with a greater sense of security and provide a uniform method of identifying
employees. In addition, all interns and visitors receive badges that identify either the work location or
the division being visited.

Another important effort accomplished in Fiscal Year 2003 was the relocation and consolidation of
the Multi-Media Lab, which now provides a centralized location for a variety of professional services,
including media, audio, color duplication, visual presentations and exhibits, and photo IDs. The lab is
outfitted with technical media equipment that provides the Office staff with resources comparable to
those used in the private sector. The technical expertise of the Operations staff resulted in high-quality
presentations, professional services, and timely response to increased demand for such services.

The Operations Division also coordinated the archiving of closed case files and the recalling of files
from both the State Records Center and Iron Mountain. This task involved training and oversight of
all bureau and division personnel involved in the maintenance of records, as well as the acquisition and
distribution of record maintenance materials to all central and regional sites.

Other functions within the scope of Operations included vehicle maintenance, staff parking,
acquisition and maintenance of emergency remote communications devices, responding to facility
alarms, and general physical plant upkeep.

COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

The Communications Office coordinates all media-related matters for the Office of the Attorney
General. The chief responsibility of the Communications Office is to serve as a centralized public voice
for the agency To that end, the Communications Director and Deputy Press Secretaries work with
Executive staff and Bureau Chiefs to ensure that the Attorney Generals priorities are reflected in all
public statements and materials, including press releases, advisories, public statements, interviews,
publications, the Attorney General's Web site (www.ago.state.ma.us ). and other public appearances
and events.

EXECUTIVE BUREAU FRANCIS X. BF.LLOTTl LAW LIBRARY

To effectively communicate within the agency and with the pubHc, the Communications Office
has implemented policies to handle media inquiries, create publications and brochures, and manage
content on the Attorney General's Web site.

The Communications Office staff are Ann E. Donlan, Director; Sarah Nathan, Beth Stone, and
Corey Welford, Deputy Press Secretaries; and Jen Adams, Web Site Manager.

WEB SITE

In existence since December 1999, the Office's Web site continued to expand during Fiscal Year
2003. In an effort to improve the hosting of the Office's Web site, in December 2002, the site was
migrated from the previous host company to bx.com. Following the successful migration, bx.com also
updated the functionality of the site's "search" feature to yield more thorough results.

The site traffic reports demonstrated between 56,000 and 66,000 visitors per month. Current
publications continued to be added to the Web site in PDF and, if possible, HTML formats (for
accessibility compliance). All press releases disseminated from this Office were made accessible on the
site, as well as customized directions to all office locations, hotline numbers, and up-to-date information
on employment opportunities and policies.

In addition, in August and September 2003, the Community Benefits Web Project was launched.
The project included facilitating the electronic filing of annual reports, promoting public access to
hospital and HMO Community Benefit Annual Reports, and providing tools to find and analyze these
reports. Users of this online tool successfully uploaded their reports for Fiscal Year 2002.

FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI LAW LIBRARY

The library provides the Office of the Attorney General with the finest possible research facility
and supports the research activities of the attorneys and staff The collection includes 2.564 book titles
and 161 periodical, law review, newspaper, and newsletter titles. The library contains the only complete
index to Opinions of the Attorney General, town bylaw and zoning approval letters on microfiche, and
Bid Protest Decisions and Advisory Opinions from the Fair Labor and Business Practices Division.
The attorneys also have access to Westlaw for online searching of legal and newspaper databases. Library
staff frequently assist individuals who are not affiliated with the Office in locating these materials.
Outside individuals must make an appointment with the library in order to use the special collections.

F.XECUTIVE BUREAU FRANCIS X. BELLOTTl LAW LIBRARY

The library joined the Boston Regional Library System in the fail of 2002, facilitating interlibrary
loan from nonlegal libraries. Included with membership is access to OCLC, a national bibliographic
database, which locates material nationwide.

During Fiscal Year 2003, the library staff included Karin Ihurman, Director: and Raymond
Manigault.

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

In Fiscal Year 2003, all new attorneys, paralegals, and interns received tours of the Library, and an
introduction to the online Internet and CD-ROM databases available to them. During Fiscal Year
2003, 25 attorneys and paralegals, and 107 interns were trained. Westlaw training was mandatory for
all new attorneys and available for any attorney wishing to expand his/her knowledge.

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 DIVISION

Business and Labor Protection Bureau

The Business and Labor Protection Bureau, a bureau comprising approximately 100 lawyers,
investigators, and administrative staff, maintained responsibility 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 environnient in which businesses and workers can
participate.

The bureaus primary offices continued to be located at 200 Portland Street, Boston. The bureau
also staffed the Attorney Generals regional offices in Springfield, Worcester, and New Bedford as well as
its part-time satellite locations in Fall River and Pittsfield. Staff also regularly maintained office hours in
Lawrence.

In Fiscal Year 2003, bureau management staff comprised David Nalven. Bureau Chief; David Marks.
Chief Prosecutor: Connie McGrane, Deputy Bureau Chief; and Vicky Scolnick, Administrative Assistant.

FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION

The Fair Labor and Business Practices Division (FLBP) was responsible for enforcing many of the
Commonwealth's statutes and regulations concerning conduct in the workplace and the protection of
workers and their wages. As Fiscal Year 2003 witnessed a decline in the national and regional economies,
and brought to the fore many business problems arising from a failure of corporate responsibility, the
demands placed on FLBP increased dramatically. FLBR through its telephone hotline, served as a
workplace-law information center for both workers and businesses. FLBP investigators investigated
thousands of formal and informal complaints received through this hotline. Most of the problems raised
in these complaints were resolved following a FLBP inquiry, but many others required FLBP staff to
pursue resolution through administrative, civil, and criminal processes.

During Fiscal Year 2003, FLBP staff included Dan Field, Division Chief: Rosalyn Garbose, Deputy
Division Chief; Randy Berg, Chief of Investigations; Jeff Ambrose: Jeb Banks; Bruce Bergman: Patricia
Bopp; Cecile Byrne; Ronald Cabezas; Jay Clark: Susan Decker; Joseph Drzyzga; Mary Dullinger; Patrick
Faherty; Michelle Gamble; John Gatti; Lorraine Goldenberg-Tarrow; Paul Gordon; Michael Guarin;
Marsha Hunter: Tom Johnson; Jocelyn Jones: Barbara Kane; Patricia Kelleher; Noreen Kelly: Katharine
Klubock; Robert Lamarre; Brian Macera; Jeffrey Mahoney; Anita Maietta: Mildred Markham; Katherine

BUSINESS AND I AROR PROTECTION RURCAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION

Mulligan; Mario Paiva; lona Powell-Headley; Anne Powers; Greg Reutlinger; Mario Rosado; Jed Ruccio;
Elizabeth Rufo; Palmer Santucci; Steven Spencer; Bruce Trager; Theresa Ukleja; and Karla Zarbo.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

The FLBP Division is charged with enforcing the Massachusetts wage and hour laws, including the
prevailing wage, minimum wage, and nonpayment of wages and overtime laws. FLBP is also charged
with enforcing child labor laws. In addition, FLBP maintained responsibility for enforcement of laws
concerning adherence to public contracting requirements. FLBP is also responsible for reviewing and
ruling on applications by businesses for waivers from compliance with certain workplace laws.

OVERALL 1NVESTI(;AT0RY ACTIVITY

The FLBP Division received and investigated in excess of 3,700 formal complaints in Fiscal Year
2003. In many instances FLBP's investigators recovered payment of full restitution or provision of
another appropriate remedy to the aggrieved employee without initiating the civil citation process or
litigation. 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. Through these efforts, in the last fiscal
year, FLBP recovered in excess of $1.8 million in wages that were owed, but unpaid, to Massachusetts
workers, as well as administrative and criminal penalties and costs.

PREVAILING WAGE LNFORCLMEN L

Attorney General Tom Reillys FLBP division placed a high priority on enforcement of the prevailing
wage law. Well-documented complaints often formed the basis for FLBP's most effective prosecutions
and wage recoveries. FLBP inspectors also conducted unannounced site inspections at numerous public
construction projects to encourage compliance and a level playing field for all employers. During Fiscal
Year 2003, FLBP investigators conducted over 230 public construction site inspections throughout the
Commonwealth. This proactive approach not only assisted in the discovery of unlawful conduct, but
also served the important public purpose of deterring workplace misconduct that might otherwise take
place.

The following provides a representative sampling of prevailing wage cases undertaken by FLBP
during Fiscal Year 2003:

• Diebold, Inc. Employer failed to pay telecommunications prevailing wage rate to 15
employees. Settlement reached, $31,000 restitution. Zarbo. Reutlinoer.

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION

• Cornerstone Masonry Prevailing wage case arising from employers misclassificatioii of
employees as apprentices. Settlement agreement reached, including payment of approximately
$37,000 in restitution, and a $2,500 penalty. Zarho. Mmra.

• Zenone Prevailing wage case. DALA decision upRolding citation. Appealed to Superior
Court. Citation upheld. Bristol Superior Court. Mnictta. Dyrnp.

• E.l. Sciaba Contracting company was cited for failing to pay prevailing wage. The original
decision vacated the citation. Motion filed for reconsideration pointing out that the factual findings
supported the conclusion that the company had violated the law. Upon reconsideration, the
citations were affirmed and the company was ordered to pay $ 13,300 in restitution and penalties.

Junes. Rrutliii<'fr.

• KDK Enterprises Waltham- based painting company performed work on numerous PW
projects. Two complainants alleged they were not paid the correct PW rate for work they performed
as painters. Settlement agreement executed with restitution of $20,000. Maietia.

• Robert L. Delhome. Frank I. Arena. Charter Environmental Settlement agreement arising
from failure to pay prevailing wage rate to 44 laborers misclassified as "deleaders" relating to work
performed on the Callahan/Sumner Tunnel ventilation rehabilitation project. Terms of agreement
included payment of $88,732 in restitution and a $6,000 penalty. Zaibo. Macera.

• Laidlaw Transit Co.. Inc. Company providing statewide public school bus service failed to
pay prevailing wage to drivers in Plymouth. MA. for two years. The company cooperated and
conducted a self-audit of both yean. Finalized settlement agreement included $ 18.000 in restitution
to approximately 40 employees and $3,000 in penalties. Jones. I amaire.

• Sharpe Painting Fines and debarment through 2006 upheld by DALA against employer
with a history of prevailing wage violations. Zaibo. Macera. Bopp.

PAYMENT OF WAGE.S ENFORCEMENI'

The FLBP Division is authorized to issue civil citations for violations of the wage and hour laws. 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. FLBP has issued such 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,
during Fiscal Year 2003, FLBP issued 149 civil citations for violations of the payment of wages and
prevailing wage statutes.

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION

The following provides a representative sampling of unpaid wage cases undertaken by FLBP during
Fiscal Year 2003:

• SMG National arena-management company operating in Worcester was indicted for failure
to remit service charge to its employees. Company charged patrons 18% service charge and
retained proceeds. SMG was placed on pre-trial probation and ordered to pay $445,148 restitution,
a $100,000 civil assessment, and $2,000 court costs, as well as sign a compliance agreement.

Ticiger. Johnson. Bopp.

• Booktecli Settlement of citation resulting from failure to pay $84,000 wages to 30 employees
of closed Internet company. Zaibo. Rosado.

• Framingham Excavating Settlement of prosecution of union company that made payroll
deductions for union from wages of nonunion employees but did not remit deductions to
employees' or union health and welfare plan. Agreement to pay $52,000 to union fund and a
penalty of $4,500. Irager. Bopp.

• lohn Crowley (Cape Allied Transit) Cape Cod courier company failed to meet payroll and
closed their doors, resulting in nonpayment of final week's wages to 31 employees. But new
company appeared to be doing old company's business, and shutdown appeared to be a sham.
Defendant pleaded guilty to 14 counts of nonpayment of wages; was placed on probation for
one year; and was ordered to pay $20,410 restitution and $1,500 fine and to submit a sworn
statement of compliance, monthly DET and DIA filings to probation, and monthly copies of
payroll and bank account statements to OAG. Maietta. Gordon.

• Atlantic Packag in g. Inc. Settlement agreement finalized regarding overtime and payroll
record-keeping violations affecting 60 immigrant employees, arising from the employer's practice
of paying overtime wages to its non-exempt hourly employees only for hours worked over 50 in
a work week. Back wage payment of approximately $26,000. Zaibo. PouvII-HeadJey. Rosado.
Rufo. Mahoni'v.

• Bilafer Landscaping Bilafer pleaded guilty last year for failure to pay seven immigrant
landscaper employees. Violation of Probation hearing this quarter yielded a guilty finding. Bilafer
was sentenced to 10 days in the House of Correction for failing to provide workers' compensation
insurance and six months in the House of Correction, suspended, with supervised probation, and
was ordered to continue to pay restitution and fines of $15,600. Johnson. Mahoney.

BUSINFSS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION

• Estes Express Lines. Inc. Trucking firm failed to pay overtime to 44 employees amounting
to $23,000. Estes performed a self-audit and OAG reviewed. Estes immediately offered to
comply with findings and paid restitution. ( huk. S.iiuuai.

• Lawrence Baker Owner of defunct local television company failed to pay wages to three
employees and was ordered to pay $4 1 ,000 restitution and a civil penalty of $2,940. Huntn.
Pmu'll Ikndln.

• Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. $8,500 settlement agreement arising from employer's
failure to pay overtime wages to 24 non-exempt loading dock workers, /riiho. Rimdo.

• Oyster Harbors Club Failure to pay service charge to waitstaff. No financial loss to
employees because of elevated wage. Settlement includes agreement to revise practice going
forward and $5,000 penalty. Jonrf. Cordon.

PUBLIC CONTRACTS OVERSIGHT

The Attorney Generals Office continued to provide a professional and accessible forum for the
resolution of public construction bidding disputes, including investigating allegations of impropriety in
connection with public-works project bidding. The Attorney General's primary enforcement efforts in
this area have been undertaken by FLBPs Public Contracts Unit. The tools employed by the Public
Contracts Unit include adjudication of disputes through a quasi-administrative hearing process, offering
informal advice through its Unit Hotline and public education. In Fiscal Year 2003, the Unit issued
written decisions in 62 cases.

The Unit also provided informal advice by telephone to the Commonwealths awarding authorities
and contractors who bid on public-works projects. During Fiscal Year 2003, the Public Contracts Unit
received thousands of written and telephone inquiries. The Unit's telephone support has become an
established resource for contractors and awarding authorities. Telephone assistance also has served as a
significant prevention tool, often delivering the information necessary to prevent (or quickly remedy) a
violation of the public bidding laws.

FLBPs public contracts enforcement efforts also included an educational component that provided
public contracting pailicipants with information regarding the public bidding laws. Among other things,
the Attorney General's Office distributed the written public contracts bid protest decisions to the public
construction conmiunity. In addition, FLBPs staff participated in educational programs that provided
substantive and procedural information to the construction industry and their counsel necessary to properly
solicit or submit public-works construction bids. Such proactive efforts have served many useful purposes,

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION

not the least of which has been to decrease the number of bid protests, and provide clear and consistent
guidance.

Following are two examples of significant public contract disputes resolved by FLBP in Fiscal Year
2003:

• Pittsfield Pipers v. Mass. Moca Bid protest of award of $475,000 HVAC contract was
denied after investigative hearing. Bidder did not violate public bid laws in not listing
manufacturer's consultant.

• Foundation for Fair Contracting of Mass. v. New Leadership Charter School Renovation
of Springfield facility fell under the ambit of the pubic bidding laws, although private funds were
involved. Accordingly, the bid protest was allowed.

CHILD LABOR

The Massachusetts child labor laws were established to protect workers under the age of 18. These
workplace laws implicitly recognize the special vulnerabilities of young workers. The laws have allowed
young workers to optimize their educational opportunities by restricting the number of hours minors of
certain ages may work. In recognition of the increased rate of workplace injuiy among teenage workers,
these laws also have helped shield minors from working on hazardous tasks and equipment. In addition,
the permitting process, in which FLBP's specially trained child labor inspectors are closely involved, has
created a structure for school superintendents, who issue work permits, to review the intended employment
to ensure that it is safe, is consistent with the child labor laws, and serves the best interests of the minor.

During Fiscal Year 2003, FLBP inspectors investigated reports of child labor violations and conducted
workplace site inspections, visiting many businesses where minors were employed, noting violations, and
advising employers of their responsibilities and legal obligations under the child labor laws.

• Dunkin' Donuts/lolm Salema Settlement agreement following investigation that revealed
thousands of child labor and wage violations in more than 20 Western Mass. Dunkin' Donuts
franchises. The agreement included a $ 1 50,000 civil fine and three-year compliance plan overseen
by outside auditor. The Attorney General agreed to conduct a series of management training
seminars for management employees, (lark. Decker

• Six Flags New England Employer delivered first reports on 14- to 15-year-olds as agreed
last year. The AG reviewed orientation processes which were satisfactory. Employer submitted
additional material as part of waiver application for time extension for 16- to 17-year-olds,
including agreeing to all conditions of 200 1 waiver. Waiver issued. Clark. Decker

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION

WAIVFr^S AND INDUSIRIAI. HOMIVVORK

FLBP is charged by statute with the authority to waive certain requirements of the labor laws under
certain conditions. During Fiscal Year 2003, FLBP processed more than 70 waiver applications and
industrial homework certificate requests. Each request for a waiver was carefully evaluated before a
determination was made to grant or deny the request. FLBP enforced the industrial homework laws
(work performed for a company in the eniployees home) by issuing permits to the employers and
certificates for each employee, where applicable. FLBP also monitored these companies to ensure
compliance with the minimum wage and overtime laws.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

Restitution Recovered $ 1 ,822,936

Hotline Calls In excess of: 51,770'

Formal Complaints Filed 3,788

Cases Closed 3,917

Civil Citations Issued 149

Public Contract Dispute Decisions 62

OUTREACH. EDUCATION. AND TRAINING

Attorney General Reilly has long believed that public education is the first step in promoting compliance
with workplace law: Accordingly, outreach to the employee and employer communities, and their unions,
trade associations, counsel, and other advocates, has been a FLBP priority. One means to this end has
been FLBP's telephone hotline, which has served as a workplace-law information center for workers and
businesses. In Fiscal Year 2003 the FLBP hotline received over 52,000 inquiries in the three quarters for
which statistics are available. In many instances, workers were apprised of their rights and were assisted in
obtaining their rightful wages.

'Slailstlrs not available for one quarter. Number reflects total of three quarters.

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROI hrilON BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION

The Immigrant Worker Outreach Project , in the third year since its inception, continued to make
headway. The Attorney General has long touted his support for fair treatment of immigrants in the
workplace; this project is one way to help ensure that all workers in the Commonwealth receive an
honest day's wages for an lionest day's work. To that end, FLBP continued to pursue immigrant worker
exploitation cases with vigor and expanded its translation efforts. In the past year, FLBP staff made 44
presentations to immigrant advocacy groups and their constituents. The program also began to make
presentations to employer groups in an effort to educate that group regarding their rights and responsibilities
concerning immigrant employees.

Outreach was conducted in other areas, as well. During Fiscal Year 2003, 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 ranged from nuts-
and-bolts primers on the Commonwealth's wage and hour laws, and employee and employer rights and
responsibilities under these laws, to sophisticated presentations on such topics as worker classification
under the prevailing wage law and the treatment of accrued vacation time as wages.

The FLBP Division has also sought to educate relevant communities about wage and hour issues
through the production and distribution of advisories and other publications, including a minimum
wage and workplace rights poster. FLBP also worked with the Commonwealths 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 construction projects.

FLBP has endeavored, in the past year, to convey information to the community through the Workeis'
Rights section of the Attorney General's Office's Web site. The FLBP portion of the Web site was
established to contain basic summaries of Massachusetts workplace law, many of the OAG's workplace-
related advisories and publications, and other resources. The Web site was accessed by callers to the
hotline as well as the general public, thus achieving its goal of serving as another means of providing
information to the people of the Commonwealth.

INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION

The mission of the Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division (lUFD) has been to investigate
and prosecute fraud against all types of insureis in Massachusetts and against the Commonwealth's
unemployment security system. lUFD prosecuted these crimes to protect Massachusetts businesses,
consumers, and taxpayers from the hidden tax that fraud on these systems imposes.

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION

lUFDs cases varied widely, including niulti-niillion-dollar workers' ronipensation preniiuiii fraud
cases, conspiracies by medical and legal professionals, fraud in auto repair businesses, staged motor vehicle
accidents, inflated claims against homeowners policies, cases involving claimants working while collecting
workei-s' compensation benefits, and fraud by businesses on the Commonwealth's unemployment security
fund. lUFD gave special attention to policing fraud by insurance industry insiders, including insurance
agents, claims adjusters, and damage appraisers, whose frauds could have had an especially corrosive effect
on public confidence in the insurance and unemployment compensation systems.

1 hroughout Fiscal Year 2003, lUFD received referrals from a number of sources. I he largest source
of referred cases was 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 received referrals from the Commonwealth's Human Resources Division, the
Governor's Auto Theft Strike Force, the Department of Industrial Accidents, the Workers' Compensation
Rating and Inspection Bureau, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, and the Social Security
Administration. lUFD also received complaints and referrals from concerned citizens, private attorneys,
and court personnel. The wide range of referrals helped exemplify that lUFD's efforts in fighting insurance
fraud are appreciated throughout the Commonwealth.

lUFD included the following staff members during Fiscal Year 2003: Eliot Green, Division Chief;
Jennifer Adams; Dave Andrews; Robert Benson; Julie Brady; Colleen Connor; Ronald Coutu; Jack
Crimmins; John Curseaden; Marty Flood; Julie Goodwin; Hannah Greenwald; Daniel Kornetsky;
Madeline Leone; Gloria Luk; Tim Malec; Lea May; Michael McNally; Shauna Neuhauser; John O'Leary;
John Talbot; Tracy Turner; and Cindy Walsh.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

The following are representative cases that were concluded in Fiscal Year 2003:

FRAUD BY PROFESSIONALS

• Gregg Doonan Peabody chiropractor whose license was revoked continued to practice and
submit claims, including for semces allegedly rendered while he was Incarcerated on drug charges.
Guilty plea resulted in two consecutive two-year sentences in the House of Correction, followed
by three years probation, and $21,912 restitution order. Essex County Superior Court. Andirws.

• Mario Moretti This was one of the last cases arising out of the Ellis & Ellis criminal
enterprise. Moretti. a physician, was indicted on multiple counts for assisting in a series of

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROI ACTION BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION

fraudulent insurance claims by providing false medical reports and information to insurers. Moretti
pleaded guilty to one count of Motor Vehicle Insurance Fraud and was sentenced to one year
probation and a $10,000 fine. Worcester Superior Court. Marks. O'Leary.

FRAUD BY INSIDHRS

• Salvatore Cortese During 1999 and 2000, Cortese worked as a claims adjuster for an
insurance adjusting agency. Cortese used his position to have 21 fraudulent checks issued to a
fictitious private investigation agency that he set up for the purpose of stealing money from his
firm. The checks were issued for surveillance work on workers" compensation files. Eighteen of
the checks, totaling almost $ 1 7,000, were cashed by Cortese. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced
to two years probation and ordered to pay full restitution. Middlesex Superior Court.

• Trevor Ganick Garrick, owner of an insurance agency, sold a workers' compensation and
employers' liability insurance to a construction company and pocketed the money rather than
obtaining the coverage. Garrick subsequently submitted false documents to the Division of
Industrial Accidents and the Division of Insurance when he was asked to prove the existence of a
valid workers' compensation policy. Garrick pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in
the House of Correction, suspended for three years probation, and restitution of $3,000. Tinner.

• Wilbur Withrow Insurance agent with Boston Mutual diverted over $35,000 in premiums
for his own purposes. Upon pleading guilty, he was sentenced to five years probation and ordered
to pay $25,285 in restitution. Suffolk Superior Court. McNally.

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE FRAUD

• Vincent Monahan "Operation Kodiak" case. These cases, referred by the Governor's Auto
Theft Strike Force, involved an undercover operation in which the Massachusetts State Police
uncovered nine separate instances of an insured's motor vehicle reported stolen days after the
same car had been given to an undercover officer. The insureds then collected claim settlements
from various insurance carriers. Eleven individuals were indicted on 53 charges, which had caused
seven insurance carriers to pay $58,000 in fraudulent claims. Monahan reported the theft of his
pickup truck to Canton Police and his insurance company, when, in fact, the vehicle had been
given away by Daniel Brunke to an undercover state trooper six days earlier. He pleaded guilty
and was sentenced to two years in the House of Correction, suspended for three years probation,
with an order to pay $10,400 in restitution. Criiwnins.

• Charles Bergen "Operation Kodiak" case. Bergen reported the theft of his pickup truck to
the Avon Police and his insurance company, when, in fact, the vehicle had been given away by
Daniel Brunke to an undercover state trooper nine days earlier. He pleaded guilty and was

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION

sentenced to six months in the House of Correction, suspended for three years of probation,
with an order to pay $7,842 in restitution and a $500 fine. Ciiimuins.

• Gary Kelly Conspiracy to commit motor vehicle insurance fraud with Newton Police Officer
Coakley. Kelly pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years probation with a $ 1 ,000 fine, per
joint recommendation. Middlesex Superior Court. Rkhlin. O'lemv.

• Leo Giovanni and loel Perez/King Auto Repair Giovanni and Perez were staging motor
vehicle accidents and collecting the insurance proceeds. Both defendants pleaded guilty on all
counts. Giovanni was sentenced to two years probation, with a $1,000 fine and a $5, 550 joint
restitution order. Perez was sentenced to 18 months probation with a $500 fine. Maiden District
Court, lumi'i.

WORKHRS' COMIMNSMTON 1 ^R.^UD

• lolm Greene/Custom Transportation Services Limousine company catering to corporate
clients engaged in over $200,000 workers' compensation premium avoidance through
mischaracterization of employees as independent contractors, use of phony shell subsidiaries, and
concealment of payments to alleged subcontractors. Guilty plea resulted in sentence of two years
probation, $251,000 in restitution, and $125,000 in fines. Plymouth Superior Court. Crimniim.

• leanne Meade Meade was one of several people who cashed blank checks that were stolen
in 1985 from the Salem office of the Division of Employment and Training (DET). This case
was charged in 1988, but the defendant defaulted in 1989. She removed that default on December
11, 2002. On March 10, 2003, the defendant pleaded guilty. Pursuant to an agreed plea
recommendation, Meade was sentenced to two years probation. Maiden District Court.

• Mary Ann Camilli (A.L. Corp.) A.L. Limited was formed to continue operations of A.L.
Corp. to escape its accrued liabilities, which included federal and state payroll tax withholding, as
well as nonpayment to DET. Camilli pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year in the House
of Conection. suspended for three years probation, and a $10,000 restitution order. Cooperation
agreement. Suffolk Superior Court. Cmseaden.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FRAUD

• Bruce Turner Ex-Taunton police officer, terminated from the Taunton Police Department
as a result of unrelated criminal indictments brought in Bristol County, was working as a cook
while collecting unemployment benefits. Turner pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months
in the House of Correction, committed, followed by three years probation with a $16,000
restitution order. Bristol Superior Court. Curseaden. Flood.

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION

• luan Hernandez Hernandez was involved in a scheme in which he collected another persons
unemployment checks. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 23 days in the House of
Correction, committed, with credit for the 23 days he had sei-ved while held on bail. Olea/y.

• lolin Feeley Feeley allegedly injured his back while working as a laborer on the Central

Artery Tunnel project. While receiving disability benefits, he worked at another job. He pleaded
guilty to workers' compensation fraud and was sentenced to one year probation with a $2,300
restitution order. Boston Municipal Court. Ma/ec.

• lulio Estrella Estrella worked while receiving workers' compensation benefits, using an alias.
He was sentenced to two years probation, $ 1 5,000 restitution. Brockton District Court. Juirm:

• lason Trombley Trombley worked while collecting workers' compensation for injury
sustained as an ironworker on the Central Artery Tunnel project. Pursuant to a plea
recommendation, Trombley was sentenced to two years probation, $1,000 restitution and a
$500 fine. Boston Municipal Court. Brady.

PERSONAL INIURY FRAUD

• Salvatore Ferrandi Ferrandi filed separate claims with two insurance companies for the
same injury, claiming they resulted from different accidents. Neither company was told of the
other incident or the other claim. He collected over $77,000. Upon pleading guilty, Ferrandi
was sentenced to one year in the House of Correction, committed, followed by three years of
supervised probation with restitution in the amount of $57,000, although Judge Quinlan ruled
that Ferrandi only had a present ability to pay $25,000 and would not be required to pay more
barring a change in his financial condition. Suffolk Superior Court. Ciimmins.

• Helen Biliouris One of the Ellis & Ellis series of prosecutions, Biliouris conspired with her
former husband and former son-in-law to fake a fall and injury while allegedly making a deliveiy
for her employer, a donut company. She pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years probation
with a $15,000 restitution order. Marks. Uleary.

• Franz Blass Phony hit-and-run claim. Guilty plea resulted in sentence of six months in the
House of Collection, suspended for two years probation with a $3,652 restitution order. Dedham
District Court. C'riinniim.

• Ashley Allen Slip and fall at an Ann & Hope store allegedly resulted in injuries, medical
expenses, and lost wages, the latter for jobs she did not hold. Sentenced to two years probation,
and $3,500 restitution. Wrentham District Court. Tunwr

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BURFALi INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

Referred C'omplaiiits 411

Investigations Opened 153

Investigations Closed without Prosecution 71

Cases Charged 28

Cases Disposed of 64

Cases Disposed with Coiiuiiitted Prison Time 7
Restitution & Fines Recovered $619,665

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS. AND ACTIVITIES

One major initiative undertaken in Fiscal Year 2003 was creating a private health insurance task force.
As health care costs continue to rise, it has become all the more crucial to stop criminals from perpetrating
fraud on private insurers as a means of ensuring that the majority of the privately insured do not pay the
increased costs that result from fraud. Working with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, and
Tufts, the task force established a joint case-identification working group. Several cases were being
considered to determine appropriateness foi prosecution within two quarters of the task forces inception.

lUFD also worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Health Care Fraud Unit. This relationship
was developed to facilitate the joint investigations and prosecutions of health care provider fraud cases
affecting the automobile insurance market. Massachusetts has some of the highest car insurance rates in
the country; all contributing aspects of this problem must be addressed to reach an adequate remedy for
consumers. At the end of Fiscal Year 2003, lUFD and the FBI had researched several cases that appeared
appropriate for prosecution.

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT

OUTREACH, EDUCATION. AND TRAINING

lUFD maintained its involvement with various industiy groups throughout the state, including the
Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB). Additionally, lUFD has worked closely with the Department of
Unemployment Assistance to investigate and prosecute fraud perpetrated upon that agency.

As in prior fiscal years, the lUFD staff uniformly attended continuing education classes on various
subjects with high frequency. Identity fraud, a crime that has become more prevalent in this age of the
Internet, is one area that lUFD personnel focus on, with the joint goals of prevention and prosecution.
In a similar vein, staff members were involved in the OAG Privacy Committee. Attorneys were also
active in the OAG Childrens' Protection Project and in the Citizen Schools Program, a program that
introduces inner-city students to the legal system through involvement with a mock trial.

MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT

The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) was established to protect the Massachusetts Medicaid
program, which administers over $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 was also responsible for prosecuting companies
and individuals who abused, neglected, or mistreated elderly and disabled residents of the Commonwealth's
550 long-term care facilities, most of which have been funded extensively, if not exclusively, by the
Medicaid program.

During this reporting period. Attorney General Tom Reilly's MFCU remained committed to
aggressively investigating and prosecuting Medicaid provider fraud and those who abuse, neglect, or
financially exploit elder, and disabled residents of long-term care facilities. The MFCU brought several
recovery actions utilizing the state's civil Medicaid fraud statutes and reviewed over 685 patient abuse and
neglect referrals. In addition to the indictments and convictions reported herein, the Massachusetts MFCU
returned $5,517,768.23 to the Medicaid program through resthution, fines, and penalties.

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

MFCU included the following staff members during Fiscal Year 2003: Nick Messuri, Division
Chief; Steve McCarthy, Deputy Division Chief; Mark Muldoon, Managing Attorney; Ann Ackil; Kris

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT

Barrett: Al Brown; Eileen Casey; Julie Cliattopadiiyay; Peter Clark; John Curley; Steve Devlin; Catherine
Fielding; Elizabeth Foley; Lai Ho Teresa Liu; Anthony Megathlin; James Pappaioanou; Bob Patten;
Jenny Prokopovich; Shirley Rokosz; Mike Russo; Susanna Snow; and Christine Soloperto.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS. AND ACTIVITIES

During Fiscal Year 2003. MFCU brought both criminal and civil enforcement actions against hospitals,
luiRing home owners, phannacies. physicians, dentists, home health care companies, billing intemiediaries.
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 Medicaids anti-kickback laws. As a result of its efforts, MFCU initiated
and completed approximately 500 investigations, obtained indictments, and secured convictions against
corporate and individual defendants.

In the past fiscal year, a great deal of MFCU attention was focused on prescription drug pricing, from
two very different perspectives: (1) manufacturer price inflation through average wholesale price (AWP)
fraud, kickbacks, and other schemes: and (2) diversion of prescription drugs for non-medical use by
physicians and other providers. Much of the work on the first set of investigations is being undertaken
with various MFCUs in other states, and the United States Attorneys Office. MFCU has also continued
to devote resources to its mission of protecting elders in nursing homes, through prosecution of abusers,
investigation of financial fraud by nursing homes and elder care facilities, and coordination with the
Department of Public Health's Division of Health Care Quality

In addition, MFCU investigated physicians and psychiatrists who prescribed controlled substances
for non-medical reasons or that were not supported by medical diagnosis or necessity MFCU investigated
dentists and durable medical equipment companies for upcoding and unbundling their services. MFCU
also looked at the area of pharmacy chains and pharmaceutical companies that overcharged the Medicaid
program and inflated the costs of prescription drugs. In Fiscal Year 2003, MFCU also investigated the
relationships between physicians, hospitals, and laboratories to detect illegal referrals, kickbacks, and
issues of sub-standard patient care.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Consistent with its mission to protect the Medicaid program on a statewide basis. MFCU made
extensive use of the Special Grand Jury sitting in Boston, as well as its statutoiy and regulatory discovery

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT

authority, to obtain indictments and convictions and to recover funds for the Medicaid program well in
excess of its budget.

With increased professional training and a multi-disciplinaiy approach to investigating and prosecuting
health care fraud and nursing home abuse, the Massachusetts MFCU is proud to highlight the following
significant case activities during this reporting period. These accomplishments represent a sampling of
activities during this period and do not reflect all cases handled by the Unit during Fiscal Year 2003.

BILLING IRAUD

• Merrimack Valley MRI Allegations of medically unnecessary documented services. Civil
settlement $278,711. Mukluon. Casey. Megathlin.

• Brigham & Women's Anesthesia Voluntary disclosure of Medicaid overpayments involving
anesthesia units. Civil settlement $143,1 13. Muldoon. Devlin. Megathlin.

• Tenet Metro West Healthcare Agreed to pay $92,000 to settle allegations that their
rehabilitation day program exaggerated disability levels of their disabled clients to obtain higher
Medicaid payments. Company immediately agreed to institute corrective compliance program.

Clark. Cuiley. Fielding.

• Mass. General Anesthesia Association Voluntary disclosure of upcoding of $268,000 of
anesthesia services resulting in a $1.5 million civil settlement. Problem was more widespread
than initially disclosed. Muldoon. Devlin.

• Texeira Registered nurse pleaded guilty to falsifying documentation for more than 600
patient visits while working as a psychiatric nurse for Home Health VNA, Inc. The defendant
was sentenced to four years probation and 500 hours of community service. The corporation
paid full restitution to Medicaid. Suffolk Superior Court. Pappaioanou. Ackil. Devlin. Casey.

PHARMACEUTICAL PRICING

• Pfizer, Inc. /Parke Davis/Warner Lambert As part of a $49 million settlement involving
48 state Medicaid programs, Massachusetts Medicaid settled for $2.2 million to resolve allegations
that Parke Davis concealed discounts and grants extended to Ochsner Health Plan, a Louisiana
managed care organization, in exchange for Ochsner giving Lipitor preferred formulary status.
The false pricing information resulted in the underpayment of rebates to Medicaid. Fatten.
Megathlin. Brown.

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT

• Mylaii Pharmaceuticals Inc. Working in cooperation with a multi-state antitrust investigation
to review Mylan's deliberate interference with competing pharmaceutical companies to manufacture
lorazepain and clorazepate, MFCU investigators recovered $246,270 in Medicaid program
damages. Mrssuii. C'ciruso. Brawn.

lilDh.R SKRV1C>:S

• United States v. loyce Godbout Operator of adult day care center who was convicted and
sentenced for Medicaid fraud pleaded guilty in U.S. Distiict Court for sending 18 anthrax hoax/
death threat letters to OAG prosecutors and investigators. Messuri. Muldoon. lidding, Curley.
Casey.

MiniCAl I'OUIPMHNT AND SUPPLY COMPANIES

• LifeScan. Inc. Following a criminal plea by LifeScan, Inc. on charges of ntarketing a defective
device to diabetes patients, LifeScan, Inc. paid 46 state Medicaid programs $5.1 million and
Massachusetts Medicaid $180,000. The California whistle-blower lawsuit led to a federal criminal
investigation in which LifeScan admitted that it had failed to advise consumers of a defect in
their blood sugar detection product. Pcittm. Mcgathlin. Riaun.

PHARMACIKS

• Maureen Forte Fraud on private insurer by wife of Osco pharmacy technician as part of
larger prescription reimbursement scheme. Guilty plea to misdemeanor charge lesulted in probation
and restitution of $4,300. Middlesex Superior Couit. Nalven. Muldoon. Brown.

PHYSICIANS

• Commonvvealtli v. Kennard Kobrin Fall River psychiatrist was convicted for prescription
fraud and ordering medically unnecessaiy services. Guilty verdict on three counts. Sentenced to
probation, suspension of prescribing privileges for two years, 750 hours of community service,
and $11,000 in fines. Potential administrative action by DEA, HHS, and BORIM. Bristol
Superior Court. Tto/c. .\ckil. Messuri. Rokos/. Curlov.

• Corrado DiMartino. MP Internist illegally prescribed and billed Medicaid for fictitious
appointments. Guilty plea, one year home confinement, and $335,000 in penalties and restitution.
As part of the sentencing, defendant's license to practice medicine anywhere in the United States
was revoked and defendant may not re-apply or practice. Muldoon. Messuri/Russo. McCarthy.

NURSINC; HOMES

• Blaire House Tewksbury nursing home agreed to pay Medicaid $4 1 ,529 to settle allegations
that it provided substandard and neglectful care to five of its residents over a several-month

BUSINESS AND lABOR PROTEC: HON BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD ( ON 1 KUL UNIT

period. Four patients developed painful skin ulcers when care plans were not followed. Ackil.
Devlin. Snow:

• Franvale Nursing Home Joint settlement agreement with the United States Attorney's
Office involving double billing on cost reports for Medicare Part B procedures. Civil settlement
$89,994. Ackil.

♦ Horizon Healthcare Corporation/The Greenery Nursing Home Nursing home provided
inadequate levels of skilled nursing sei-vices to ventilator-dependent patients. MFCU staff worked
in conjunction with consumer protection assistant attorneys' general during their investigation of
alleged violations of M.G.L. 93A nursing home regulations. Settlement included $625,000 in
penalties and $150,000 in restitution to Medicaid for reimbursement of skilled nursing sei-vices
not provided during the period of neglectful treatment. AckiJ. Curley. Devlin. Snow.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

Health Care Fraud Investigations 463

Formal Health Care Fraud Cases Opened 30

Formal Health Care Fraud Cases Closed 26

Patient Abuse Referrals Reviewed 685

Patient Abuse Investigations 33

Formal Patient Abuse Cases Opened 1

Formal Patient Abuse Cases Closed 7

Civil Dispositions U

Criminal Indictments 5

Criminal Dispositions 8
Restitution and Fines Recovered $5,517,768

HUSlNi:SS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT

OUTREACH. EDUCATION. AND TRAINING

The Massachusetts MFCU is committed to providing its personnel witli training and education
regarding current techniques and information pertinent to the objectives of the Unit. A substantive in-
house training program has been maintained to augment the staff's knowledge regarding administrative
and procedural operations.

riie MFCUs training directive is consistent with Attorney General Reilly's overall commitment to
enhancing the breadth, quality, and professionalism of services provided by the Office of the Attorney
General. In addition, assistant attorney generals, investigators, and support staff have participated in
training seminars and conferences offered by various state, federal, and national organizations. External
training opportunities provide a major vehicle through which the MFCU staff stay abreast of investigative
and prosecutorial techniques and developments, and allow for the exchange and discussion of information
and ideologies with colleagues from multi-disciplinary perspectives.

MFCU staff made numerous presentations on Medicaid fraud prevention and health care law to
outside groups, such as the Fiealthcare Corporate Compliance Conference; National Association of SURS
Officials; Colleges and Universities; and the Medical Payment Systems Association. Staff also gave
presentations on elder abuse and attended programs aimed at enhancing prosecution of this heinous
crime.

Outreach and education initiatives have served as integral components in maintaining MFCUs high
level of efficiency. MFCU staff had regular dealings with the Division of Medical Assistance, which
administers the Medicaid program, in connection with a range of issues, including working with the
Department of Public Health and the Pharmacy Board in an effort to ameliorate prescription drug abuse,
including OxyContin. MFCU also worked with the Department of Mental Health in connection with
patient abuse issues. In addition, staff were involved in a drug diversion task force with the Massachusetts
State Police and the DEA. MFCUs Director of Investigations continued to lead the Northeast Healthcare
Law Enforcement Associations efforts in coordinating joint investigations and training for the Northeast
MFCUs. MFCU staff also were actively involved with the Boston office of the FBI on a health care
fraud working group.

MFCU staff continued to take advantage of the rich training opportunities available nationwide to
health care law enforcement personnel, with several new investigators and lawyers attending multi-day
trainings and conferences. Staff also continued to attend in-house programs that targeted such areas as
improved courtroom techniques.

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT

During the next fiscal year, Attorney General Reilly will continue to target health care providers that
commit Medicaid provider fraud as well as caretakers who abuse and neglect elder and disabled citizens.

CRIMINAL BUREAU

Appellate Division

Corruption, Fraud, and
Computer Crime Division

Victim/Witness Assistance Division

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division

Environmental Crimes Strike Force

Criminal Justice Policy Division

Victim Compensation and Assistance Division

Financial Investigations Division

Sale Neighborhood Initiative Division

CRIMINAL BUREAU

Criminal Bureau

Tlie Attorney CJeiieral's Criminal Bureau lias lour hioad missions: investigate and prosecute violations
•of state criminal law. promote effective law enforcement and criminal justice, prevent crime, and provide
assistance to crime victims.

The Criminal Bureau is organized into the following 10 divisions, each of which reflects an area of
specialization and expeilise: Appellate: Corruption. Fraud and Computer Crime: VictimAA/itness Assistance;
Special Investigations and Narcotics: Environmental Crimes Strike Force: Financial Investigations;
Criminal Justice Policy: Safe Neighborhood Initiative: Victim Compensation and Assistance; and State
Police Detective Unit.

The Criminal Bureau's staff of experienced State Police detectives, investigatoi's. and assistant attorneys
general focus on investigating and prosecuting violations of state criminal law that result in or involve
significant economic loss or injury, harm to the environment, misconduct by public employees or elected
officials, crimes against public agencies, organized crime, large-scale drug trafficking, complex criminal
conspiracies, consumer fraud, and crimes involving computers and other forms of technology. The
majority of criminal cases prosecuted by the Criminal Bureau result from investigations conducted by
the bureau's 23 State Police detectives, three Environmental Police officers, and seven civilian investigators.
Cases are developed through citizen complaints and referrals from other local, state, and federal agencies.
During Fiscal Year 2003, the Criminal Bureau received more than 1 ,700 inquiries and complaints from
citizens and other agencies. Additionally, assistant attorneys general in the Criminal Bureau reviewed 1 26
rendition and extradition requests forwarded to the bureau by the Executive Office of the Governor.

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.

The Criminal Bureau promotes effective law enforcement through its Criminal Justice Policy Division.
This division reviews crime data and trends, proposes legislation, participates in training programs for
law enforcement officers and other criminal justice professionals, and maintains working relationships
with many local, state, and federal criminal justice agencies. Through these working relationships, bureau
members regularly convene or participate in multi-agency working groups dealing with criminal justice
issues such as anti-terrorism planning, drug and alcohol abuse, court and sentencing reform, prisoner re-
entry initiatives, domestic violence, juvenile justice, and child abuse. The Criminal Justice Policy Division
also publishes the Criminal Justice News, which is widely distributed to local, state, and federal criminal
justice professionals.

CRIMINAL BUREAU

The Criminal Bureau's Safe Neighboriiood Initiative Division promotes crime prevention in
communities by fostering partnerships between schools, community groups, prosecutors, police officers,
courts, and other ciiniinal justice professionals. Through these partnerships, the division helps communities
implement crime prevention programs and other initiatives to prevent and deter involvement in crime,
steer those involved in minor criminal offenses into prevention programs, and aggressively prosecute
those responsible for crimes that severely impact the community's quality of life. During Fiscal Year
2003, Safe Neighborhood hiitiative programs operated in Taunton, Brockton, Lawrence, Methuen,
Orange, and the Dorchester and Grove Hall sections of Boston.

An equally important mission of the Criminal Bureau is to provide support to victims of crime. The
bureau's Victim Compensation and Assistance Division provides financial support and social services
assistance to crime victims and relatives of homicide victims. The division reaches victims and their
families through outreach efforts and relationships with police departments, court officials, and social
service agencies. During Fiscal Year 2003, the division received more than 1 ,300 applications for financial
assistance from crtme victims and their family members, and distributed more than $4 million to these
victims and family members.

The Chief of the Criminal Bureau is Kurt N. Schwartz, and the Deputy Chief is Michele L. Adelman.

The Division Chiefs within the Criminal Bureau during Fiscal Year 2003 were: Appellate Division,
William J. Meade and thereafter Cathy Neaves; Corruption, Fraud and Computer Crime Division, John
A. Grossman; Victim/Witness Assistance Division, Kathleen Morrissey: Special Investigations and
Narcotics Division, William F Bloomer; Environmental Crimes Strike Force, Paul J. Molloy; Financial
Investigations Division, Paul Stewart; Criminal Justice Policy Division, James O'Brien; Victim
Compensation and Assistance Division, Cheryl Watson; Safe Neighborhood Initiative Division, Ellen
Frank; and State Police Detective Unit, Detective Lieutenant Stephen Matthews.

The Criminal Bureau also had two bureau attorneys during Fiscal Year 2003. Assistant Attorney
General Mary A. Phillips served as the bureau's Grand Jury Coordinator, and Assistant Attorney General
Beth Merachnik served as the Senior Litigation Counsel for the bureau.

APPELLATE DIVISION

The Appellate Division handles a wide variety of criminal, federal habeas corpus, state habeas corpus,
and other civil cases that impact crtminal prosecutions and the criminal justice system. The division's
caseload includes appeals and post-conviction matters in criminal cases prosecuted at the trial level by the
Attorney General's Criminal Bureau and appeals from convictions of criminal contempt throughout the

CRIMINAIRURFAU APPELLATE DIVISION

Comtnoinvealth: all habeas corpus petitions filed in federal r ouit that challenge Massachusetts convictions,
parole surrenders, civil coniinitinents, 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 litigation defending
judges, clerks, probation officers, and other court personnel sued civilly in state or federal court for
actions taken during the criinlnal justice process. I he 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: supenise agency staff attorneys handling litigation
involving the Department of Correction, the Parole Board, and the Commissioner of Probation; and
handle appeals and federal court litigation concerning the Parole Board.

In addition to their casework, division attorneys 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 their criminal justice expertise or perspective is important.
The division also works closely v\ ith 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 50 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 files ;iinicus briefs on behalf of the Attorney General in cases having broad impact and
importance to the criminal justice system, consistent with the Attorney Generals statutory responsibility
as the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth. The division also files in the United States
District Court approximately 130 substantive memoranda of law per year in opposition to federal habeas
corpus petitions.

The .Appellate Di\ ision included William Meade. Division Chief: James Arguin; Eva Badway; Annette
Benedetto: Olivia Blanchette; Maureen Giacoppo; David Lieber; Dean Mazzone; Cathiyn Neaves; and
Linda Wagner.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

• Commonwealth v. Gavin G. Commonweahh's appeal from an order of the district court
expunging a juvenile's probation record. On August 12, 2002, the Supreme Judicial Court
re\ersed the district court's order of expungement. Supreme Judicial Court

CRIMINAL BURKAU APPELLATE DIVISION

• lohn M. McCainbi idge v. Timothy Hall En banc appeal from First Circuit's grant of a writ
of habeas corpus in a 1995 Suffolk County manslaughter conviction. On August 27, 2002, the
en banc court reversed the panel's decision and affirmed the district court's denial of the petition
seeking a writ of habeas corpus. First Circuit Court of Appeals

• Commonwealth v. Marc Cacchiotti Appeal from conviction in the prosecution of an attorney
by the Attorney Generals Office, for various larceny and public integrity crimes. On August 28,
2002, the Appeals Court affirmed the convictions. Massachusetts Appeals Court

• Rashad v. lames T. Walsh Appeal from the district court's grant of a writ of habeas corpus
in a 1992 Suffolk County rape conviction. On August 14, 2002, the First Circuit reversed the
grant of the writ and reinstated the petitioner's conviction. First Circuit Court of Appeals

• Theodore Trigones v. Lynn Bissonnette Appeal from the denial of a habeas corpus petition
challenging a 1984 Middlesex County conviction for first-degree murder. On July 10, 2002, the
First Circuit affirmed the denial of the writ. First Circuit Court of Appeals

• Sheriff of Suffolk County v. Pires Appeal on a reservation and report of a G.L. c. 211, § 3
petition filed by the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of the sheriff to challenge the use
of state habeas corpus as a mechanism to review bail revocation orders. On November 5, 2002,
the court held that state habeas corpus could not be so used, and vacated the judgment of the
Superior Court granting the petition. Supreme Judicial Court

• lames Lattimore v. Larry DuBois Appeal from district court's grant of a writ of habeas
corpus in a 1983 Suffolk County murder conviction. On November 14, 2002, the First Circuit
reversed the grant of the writ and reinstated the petitioner's conviction. First Circuit Court of
Appeals

• Francesco Campiti v. lames Matesanz (First Circuit) Appeal from district court's denial of
petition for writ of habeas corpus in 1989 Hampden County convictions for trafficking in
cocaine. On June 27, 2003, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition.

• Charles Fiyar v. Lynn Bissonnette Appeal from denial of federal habeas petition challenging
petitioner's Hampden County first-degree murder conviction. On February 5, 2003, the Fiist
Circuit affirmed the denial of the petition. First Circuit Court of Appeals

CRIMINAL BUREAU

APPELLATE DIVISION

• Arthur lackson v. William Coalter Appeal from denial of federal habeas corpus petition
challenging 1998 Suffolk County conviction for armed robbery. On July 28, 2003, the First
C ircuit affirmed denial of the petition. First Circuit Court of Appeals

• lames Rodwell v. Peter A. Pepe, Ir. Appeal from district courts determination that
petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion constituted a second and successive petition. On April 1, 2003,
the First Circuit affirmed the district court's determination. First Circuit Court of Appeals

• Paul E Walsh, Ir. v. Dortch-Okara. et al. Petition under G.L. c. 211. § 3 by the District
Attorney, reported to the full court for administrative consideration, seeking an order to
immediately establish a second criminal session in Bristol County to tiy a particular criminal
case, and to maintain that session on a monthly basis. On July 19, 2002, the court released an
unpublished memorandum and order denying the petition, finding that the District Attorney
failed to make an adequate showing to support his requests, and that the judges had not abused
I heir discretion in the assignment process. Supreme Judicial Court

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

CASES CASES

OPENED DISPOSED TOTAL CASES HANDLED

Federal Habeas

153

244

469

Federal Civil

State Civil

State Habeas

Criminal

211 §3 and Other

Single Justice Cases

TOTAL

238

432

783

CRIMINAI BURF.AU

APPELLATE DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

In addition to the large caseload iiandled by the division, the division was involved in a number of
significant initiatives. Among these efforts were the following:

Elder Task Force

Clerk, American Middle Eastern Lawyers Association

Volunteer Reader, Paul McLaughlin Center

Council Member, Criminal Justice Section Council of Massachusetts Bar Association

Panelist, Clerks" Seminar Series, Administrative Office of the Trial Court

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

The Appellate Division devoted a substantial amount of energy and resources to training and outreach.
These efforts included the following:

Massachusetts District Attorneys Association Conference

Commonwealth Appellate Attorneys Action Project

Lecturer and Clinical Coordinator at Hai"vard Law School

Comments Editor, Massachusetts Law Review

Associate Editor, Massachusetts Law Review

National Advocacy Center, Training on Appellate Advocacy

National Advocacy Center, Training on International Rendition/Extradition

Governor's Commission on Sexual and Domestic Violence

Attorney General Representative on the Massachusetts Citizen Corps Council

Tutor, Paul McLaughlin Center

Co-chair, BBO's September 11"' Victim Compensation Fund Committee

Committee Member, Regaining One's Self-Esteem (violence prevention organization)

(RIMINALBURHAU ( ( )RRUPT10N. FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION

CORRUPTION, FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION

The mission of tiie Coiiuption, Fraud and Computer Crime Division (CFCC) is to assure that
individuals who leside and work and businesses that are run in tiie Commonwealth and choose to "play
by the rules" are protected. Accordingly, the division focuses on:

• "Corporate Community Prosecution," responding to the priorities of the corporate
community, primarily by addressing cases of insider theft, computer intrusions, and theft of
intellectual property:

• High Priority Consumer Protection Cases, such as (a) fiduciaiy embezzlement— particularly
those targeting the elderly, (b) Internet crimes— particularly those targeting children, and (c)
immigration cons and other multi-victim swindles; and

• Public Corruption Cases, whether they involve officials betraying the public trust or
companies and individuals stealing from the government.

Additionally, CFCC handles cases that involve threats to the public order, whether related to domestic
terrorism or less-organized attempts to commit crime against the Commonwealth,

In addition to investigating and prosecuting criminal cases, CFCC consults with and provides training
to other law enforcement agencies: is involved in corporate associations and other public education efforts
that promote the prevention of and, failing that, efficient response to, white-collar and computer crime:
and drafts and sponsors legislation where the current statutes fall short.

CFCC included the following staff members at year-end: John Grossman, Division Chief: Jennifer
Austin and Lillian Cox, support staff: Katliy Chen, Eric Hightower, Dana Leccese, Madeline Leone,
Phillip McGovern, and Molly Parks. Assistant Attorneys General: and Eric Lundberg, Computer Forensic
Specialist, A significant number of CFCC's cases were handled by the Criminal Buieaus representative
in Western Massachusetts, Assistant Attorney General Matt Shea, and by Senior Trial Counsel Beth
Merachnik. The cases, however, were in no way pursued alone: CFCC worked as an integrated team
with the members of the Financial Investigations Division, the State Police High Tech Unit, the State
Police White Collar and Public Corruption Unit, and the Victim/Witness Assistance Division. On
various occasions. CFCC also collaborated with the Criminal Investigation Bureau of the Department of
Revenue, the Criminal Investigations Division of the Office of the Inspector General, the State Auditor,
and a number of federal and local law enforcement agencies.

CRIMINAI BURKAU CORRUPTION, FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

• Coninionwealth v. Gaspard Francois (Suffolk Superior Court) This defendant targeted
working inuiiigrants, who hoped to expedite their applications with the INS, by posing as an
Immigration official, and milked his victims for thousands of dollars. On several occasions,
when his victims questioned him, he threatened to have them deported. He pleaded guilty to
multiple counts of larceny and is now serving two to three years in state prison.

• Commonwealth v. leffrey Walls (Essex County Superior Coui1) We began an investigation
of the defendant based on information that he had downloaded child pornography to his work
computer. During the course of the investigation, the team discovered that the defendant had
sexually assaulted a young boy on numerous occasions between the victim's fifth and eighth
birthdays. State Police also identified a second young boy whom the defendant also sexually
assaulted on several occasions. The defendant pleaded guilty to rape of a child, indecent assault
and battery on a child, and possession of child pornography. He is now serving five to six years
in state prison.

• Commonwealth v. Robert Whitty (Barnstable Superior Court) For many years, Whitty
was the Town Assessor in Barnstable. A routine audit of the town's computer system revealed
that he had stored child pornography on his network share. Citing our expertise in the area, and
the high profile of the target, the Barnstable Police requested our assistance. Our investigation
showed that Whitty was operating Internet chat rooms devoted to the trading of child pornography
from his home and work computers. He pleaded guilty to dissemination and possession of child
pornography and dissemination of obscene material, and received a sentence of two and one half
years in the House of Correction, with six months to serve, and the balance suspended for 10
years.

• Connnonwealth v. Nancy lane McDonald (Cambridge District Court) At the height of
the anthrax mailings in the fall of 2001, ENDECA, a Cambridge-based high-tech business,
received a number of anthrax-related threats through their Web site. On Friday, October 19,
2001 , the victim contacted the Office of the Attorney General. By that evening, we had identified
the source of the threats, executed a search warrant, and seized a computer. On Tuesday, October
23, 2001, Nancy Jane McDonald surrendered herself to the Cambridge District Court to face
charges of threats to commit a crime and assault. On April 9, 2003, after the Commonwealth
answered ready for trial, she pleaded guilty to making threats to commit a crime, was placed on
probation for two years, and was ordered to perform 40 hours of community service.

(RIMINAI. BUREAU CORRUPTION. FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION

• Coninioiiwealth v. Bruce HoUis lliis rase began as an investigation of a relatively minor
liarassinent rase that we took on because the target was using a technology Voiceover IP (the
Internet) ^ that few, if any, other local law enforcement agencies have the capacity to deal with,
and we saw it as an opportunity to learn the technology — a goal we reached by arranging a
briefing from the experts at Genuity. We did not expect a significant |)ublic safety impact.
Because of the outstanding work by the |)rosecution team, however, we learned that I lollis was
an incorrigible harasser with multi|)le victims, who continued his behavior even after being placed
on probation by the Court. As a result, he was sentenced to 14 months committed at the House
of Correction, concurrent with a six-month sentence that had originally been continued without
a finding. Quincy District Court

• Commonwealth v. lohn I.Wilbur and Commonwealth v. Luis Vasquez Wilbur and Vasquez
each filed multiple false tax returns — 30 and 107 respectively — with the Commonwealth, and
as a result of their fraudulent conduct, received substantial refunds that they were not entitled to
— over $40,000 and $70,000, respectively They each pleaded guilty Vasquez received a sentence
of two and one half years in the House of Correction, with nine months to sei-ve, and the balance
suspended for three years. Wilbur received a sentence of two and one half years in the House of
Correction, with three months to sei-ve, and the balance suspended for three years. Each was
ordered to pay restitution. Suffolk Superior Court

• Commonwealth v. Tina Ross and Commonwealth v. Sonya Grant Ross, a Trial Court
employee, and Grant, a Department of Probation employee, each pleaded guilty to bribery and
CORI violations for using their positions to access and sell confidential criminal record information
to a private iiwestigation firm. Each received a sentence of two years in the House of Correction,
suspended for two years, and Grant paid a $1,250 fine, and Ross paid a $2,500 fine. Suffolk
Superior Court

• Connnonwealth v. Douglas Boudreau Boudreau, at one time a Boston College (B.C.)
senior, pleaded guilty to wiretap violations, unauthorized access to computer systems, breaking
and entering to commit a felony, larceny over $250, and other charges in connection with his
scheme to place secret keystroke logging software on over 200 computers around the B.C. campus.
This software would allow him to gather personal information from over 5,000 members of the
community and then to use some of that data to burgle B.C. buildings to further his scheme, to
attempt to change his grades, and to steal from the B.C. bookstore by using stolen identities.
Boudreau was placed on probation for five years and was ordered to pay restitution and attend
counseling. Middlesex Superior Court

CRIMINAL BUREAU CORRUPTION. FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION

• Commonwealth v. Lauren Gazzola, et al. In the early part of the year, we began an
investigation of a campaign of fear against a Back Bay family orchestrated by an extremist animal
rights group known as SHAC (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty). We allege that they targeted
the family in question because one of its members happened to work for a company that brokered
insurance to Huntington (an animal testing lab). The investigation led to indictments against 10
individuals and a complaint in juvenile court against an H"' for charges ranging from extortion
to threats to commit a crime. Our prosecution is emblematic of the corporate community
prosecution model that CFCC strives to pursue. We learned of a significant problem that was
affecting a member of the community and were able to act rapidly, aggressively, and responsibly
to protect the community, and to do so working cooperatively with various law enforcement
representatives (our State Police department, State Polices Criminal Intelligence Section, and the
FBI) and the private sector. These cases are now scheduled for trial. Suffolk Superior Court, and
Boston Juvenile Court

• Commonwealth v. Barry A. Tobins Barry Tobins was charged with two counts of willful
failure to pay state income tax returns and three counts of willful failure to file state income tax
returns for failing to pay taxes on the substantial income he received annually from an off-shore
family trust. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to pay
a fine of $25,000 or provide 1,000 hours of community service. He also agreed to work with
the Department of Revenue (DOR) to resolve his outstanding tax liabilities. Suffolk Superior
Court

• Commonwealth v. lames Pallone Pallone pleaded guilty on the day of trial to conning 1 2
people in an unusually brazen case of home improvement contractor fraud. He was placed on
probation for five years, was banned from running a home improvement business, was ordered
to pay restitution, and perform 50 hours of community service. Middlesex Superior Court

• Conmionwealth v. Stephen Holt Holt pleaded guilty to embezzling over $2 nullion from
his employer to finance day-trading losses. Due to outstanding sentencing advocacy on the part
of the prosecution team. Holt received an unusually stiff (and appropriate) sentence for a white-
collar crime adjudicated in state court: three to five years in state prison, followed by 10 years on
probation during which time he is to pay restitution. Suffolk Superior Court

CRIMINAIBURFALi CORRUPTION. FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

During Fiscal Year 2003, CFCC charged 3G individuals with various crimes, inchiding stalking, rape
of a child, larceny over $250, unauthorized access (computer hacking), identity fraud, criminal liarassment,
making false entries in corporate books, and dissemination of child pornograpliy. Twenty-six people
pleaded guilty or othenvise admitted to sufficient facts in Superior or District Courts across the
Commonwealth.' Twelve of these defendants were ordered to serve time in state prison or in a county
House of Correction. Additionally, these defendants have been ordered to pay in excess of $2.5 million
in restitution, and nearly $35,000 in fines. CFCC prosecutors also worked on cases outside of the
division. For example, two prosecutors devoted a substantial amount of time to the investigation of the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

The following chart summarizes the case referrals that CFCC screened for possible investigation and
prosecution during Fiscal Year 2003, and the number of those referrals that matured into formal
investigations. When a case fell into more than one category, we tried to place it based on the prospective
lead charge.

CASE DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF NUMBER OF CASES
REFERRALS OPENED

Auction/Internet Fraud

(not from IFCC) 25 5

Auction/Internet Fraud

(from IFCC)' 133 2

' Some of the rases ( liaiged this year remain pending, just as some of the rases resolved this year were ciiarged previously.

' The Internet Fiaud Complaint C enter (IFCC) is ajoint prnjert of the National White Collar Crime Center (of whirh the
OfRce of the Atloi ncv ( .eneial is a member) and the FBI that seeks to ronsolidate all Internet fraud complaints in one
database. IF("C refers to ([-((eveiycomplaint (a) that conrerns a Massachusetts target oris leceivedfiom a Massachusetts
victim: and (b) where the dollar amount in aggregate is ovei $ 10,000 or there are more than three victims. CFCC then
scieens the referrals and targets the most compelling cases, most of which involve targets in the Commonwealth who have
defrauded a substantial number of people. Other cases are referied for review by the Public Protection Bureau's Consumer
Protection Division.

CRIMINAL BURKAU

CORRUPTION, FRAUD, AND COMFUl F.R (RIME DIVISION

Child Exploitation 37

Computer Intrusions/Hacking 42

Purchase of Explosives/Illegal Goods 5

Threats/Harassment 17

Spam 10

Miscellaneous 9

Forensics Assistance 6

Legal Advice or Assistance 16

17
15

2
6

N/A
N/A

TOTAL

300

ECONOMIC CRIME

CASE DESCRIPTION

NUMBER OF

NUMBER OF CASES

REFERRALS

OPENED

Fiduciary and Insider Einbezzlenient

Home Improvement Fraud

Identity Fraud

Immigration Fraud

Securities Fraud

Other Consumer Fraud

Other Larcenous Schemes

CRIMINAI BLIR1:AU CORRUPTION. FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION

Theft of Trade Secrets or

Other Intelleftual Property 13 3

Miscellaneous 1

Legal Advice or Assistance 2 N/A

TOTAL 246 55

PUBIIC CORRlJi'iiON

CASE DESCRIPTION

NUMBER OF

NUMBER OF CASES

REFERRALS

OPENED

State Employee Corruption

Municipal Employee Corruption

Procurement Fraud and Other

Theft from the Commonwealth

Perjury

Tax Fraud

Miscellaneous

Legal Advice or Assistance

N/A

Auditor's Reports and Ethics
Notifications Reviewed 24

TOTAL 166 51

CRIMINAL BUREAU CORRUPTION. FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

CASE DESCRIPTION

NUMBER OF

REFERRALS

CASES OPENED

Other Crimes

Legal Advice or Assistance

N/A

TOTAL

CFCC FISCAL YEAR 2003 TOTAL

743

161

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS. AND ACTIVITIES

The division has historically been involved in encouraging and coordinating efforts between the
public and private sectors to promote Internet and computer security. In Fiscal Year 2003, together with
the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division of the Public Protection Bureau, Bentley's McCallum
School of Business, and the Massachusetts Software and Internet Council, we convened a highly successful
conference that representatives from law enforcement, industry, academia, and consumer advocacy groups
attended to consider how to better secure "the weak link in cyberspace " — small business and home
Internet users. Additionally, division members continued to play a leadership role with Infragard Boston
— the FBI's public/private cybersecurity outreach program — the Anti-Terrorism Task Force's Public/
Private Working Group, and the Secret Services New England Electronic Crimes Task Force. The
division chief also was asked to speak at a town hall meeting convened at MIT by the White House's
Critical Infrastructure Protection Board to talk about the Draft National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.
Also on the panel of three were Richard Clark, the Chairman of the Critical Infrastructure Protection
Board, and the President's advisor on cybersecurity.

We also have made a major commitment to prosecuting computer crime that targets children by
formalizing our relationship with the state's Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force and
appointing our first dedicated ICAC prosecutor. This assistant attorney general will spend a significant
amount of her time on outreach and training in the field, both inside the Commonwealth and throughout
the country, as well as on providing legal advice to the Task Force and prosecuting cases.

r RIMINAL BUREAU CORRUPTION. FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION

In the areas of public corruption, we have worked hard to maintain and renew relationships with
otiier agencies working in similar areas, and now have regular meetings with the Office of the State
Auditor, the Inspector General, and the State Ethics Commission. Additionally, in a cross of our focus
on both public corruption and computer crime, at the suggestion of CFCC, the Enterprise Security
Board of the State's Information Technology Department (ITD) has passed a policy requiring all users of
the state network (the largest in the Commonwealth) to report criminal or other inappropriate use of the
network to ITD, which will in turn alert CFCC.

Finally CFCC prosecutors worked closely with staff from the Executive Bureau to research, draft,
and/or promote various legislative changes. The changes included amendments to the administrative
subpoena and search warrant statutes that would assure that local law enforcement has the tools to
protect its constituencies from computer crime and money-laundering legislation.

OUTREACH. EDUCATION. AND TRAINING

In addition to the cases that we investigated and prosecuted within CFCC, the division assisted other
divisions within the Office of the Attorney General and District Attorneys' Offices in over 41 separate
matters. In some cases, this assistance consisted of legal advice and reviewing search warrants, and in
others, it was performing computer forensics. As the capacity for computer forensics grows throughout
the Commonwealth, the number of times we are asked to assist in other people's cases has decreased.
This decrease allows us to devote more energy to developing cases of our own and reflects a positive trend
in Massachusetts law enforcement that is, at least in pail, attributable to our outreach and training efforts.

CFCC also devoted a substantial amount energy and resources to more formal training and outreach
efforts, particularly in the area of computer crime. These efforts allow us to leverage our relatively
limited resources to: (a) teach people and institutions to avoid becoming victims of high-tech cnmes; and
(b) where we cannot prevent the crimes from happening, assure them that law enforcement has the
capacity to respond.

Among the highlights in this area over the last year were:

• Participation in a number of law enforcement training conferences focused on computer crime
that were sponsored by various entities, including the High Tech Criminal Investigatoi's Association,
the Northwest District Attorney's Office, and the National Association of Attorneys General
(NAAG):

CRIMINAL BURfiAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION

• Safe and Ethical Internet Use presentations made at schools around the Commonwealth to students,
parents, and educators; and

• Trainings within the Office of the Attorney General on fraud targeting elders.

We also participated in various programs to ensure that we remain current in the dynamic field of
computer crime, including NAAG classes, seminars sponsored by the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, and computer forensics training.

VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION

The Victim/Witness Assistance Division (VWAD) of the Attorney General's Criminal Bureau was
developed to meet the following goals: (1) to provide crisis assessment and intei-vention to crime victims
and witnesses to facilitate their emotional, psychological, physical, and financial recoveiy from victimization:
(2) to reduce 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). Advocates provide victim advocacy and witness management services
to the following divisions in the Criminal Bureau: Appellate; Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime;
Criminal Justice Policy; Environmental Crimes Strike Force; Financial Investigations; Special Investigations
and Narcotics; and the State Police Detective Unit.

Advocates are occasionally assigned to prosecutions in other bureaus of the Office when the prosecutor
identifies the need for victim/witness services. The nature of these cases varies depending on the referral
source. Advocates also provide victim/witness coverage on conflict cases referred to the Office by the 1 1
District Attorneys' Offices across the Commonwealth. These referrals typically involve cases of violent
crime. The Victim/Witness Assistance Division, in an effort to build community partnerships and to
address victim issues identified as mandated priorities of Attorney General Tom Reilly, participates in a
number of initiatives relating to children, safety in our schools, elders, fraud, health care, high-tech and
computer crime, domestic violence, diversity, and curative legislation.

During Fiscal Year 2003, VWAD staff included Kathy Morrissey, Director; and Kelly McDonough,
Victim/Witness Advocate.

rRIMlNAL. BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Six cases of particular note illustrate work in priority areas set by Attorney General Tom Reilly:
consumer protection, guns, high-tech and computer crime, identity theft, and immigrant outreach.

• Commonwealth v. lames Pallone (Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime Division) In
April 2002. the defendant . James Pallone. was indicted and suijsequently arraigned on 36 criminal
violations of tiie Home Improvement Contractors Act. Pallone, despite not being licensed as a
home improvement contractor, had provided either one service or partial service to over 30
identified victims. Indictments were returned relating to 1 2 victims. His victims paid him over
$100,000. Throughout the pendency of the case, Pallone repeatedly, though unsuccessfully,
sought bankruptcy protection in order to avoid creditors.

On May 5, 2003. Pallone pleaded guilty before Judge Elizabeth Donovan in Middlesex Superior
Court to the following 36 criminal violations of the Home Improvement Contractors Act: (1) Operating
as an Unlicensed Home Improvement Contractor (12 counts); (2) Taking Excess Deposits on Home
Improvement Contracts (12 counts): and (3) Failing to Specify Starting and Completion Dates on
Home Improvement Contracts (12 counts). Judge Donovan sentenced the defendant to five years of
probation. Additionally, Judge Donovan ordered the defendant to pay restitution to six of the 12 victims
in the amount of $ 1 4, 100 within the first year of his term of probation. Special conditions of probation
included that the defendant: (1) have no direct or indirect contact with the victims; (2) obtain Home
Improvement Contractors certification per M.G.L. c. 142A (19); (3) not solicit or perform any work
requiring a Construction Supervisors license; (4) not solicit or perform any home improvement work
without Home Improvement Contractors certification; (5) submit all Home Improvement Contractors
contracts to the chief administrator of the Board of Building Regulations and Standards; (6) complete
250 hours of community sei-vice over the five-year probationary period (50 hours per year); and (7) pay
a $90 Victim/Witness Assessment Fee.

The advocate was assigned to the Pallone case in June 2001. Throughout the pendency of the
investigation and the trial process, the advocate provided victim advocacy, witness management, and
ongoing notification of case updates to over 30 victims (12 of whose cases were eventually indicted),
including many elder victims, as well as court accompaniment at the time of the defendants change of
plea. The advocate, together with the prosecution team, conducted many one-on-one meetings with the
victims and assisted them with the completion of Victim Impact Statements, many of which were read
in court at the time of sentencing. Following disposition, the advocate assisted several victims with
creditor intercession and provided post-conviction consultation with the probation department regarding
restitution.

CRIMINAL BURKAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION

• Commonwealth v. Noel Roberts (Corruption, Fraud and Computer Crime Division) The
defendant, Noel Roberts, ran Freedom Trails Travel Group, a non-profit organization in Amesbury,
Massachusetts, which marketed and organized sober trips for recovering alcoholics. In late 2001
and early 2002, Roberts (Freedom Trail Travel Group) advertised a cruise to Bermuda on his Web
site and accepted payment of approximately $1,000 each from over 100 victims. Roberts paid
$45,000 to National Leisure Group, the agency that booked the cruise, and then failed to pay the
remaining amount of $57,000 due to the agency. Roberts converted this money to his personal
use. As a result, the victims were not able to attend the Bermuda cruise and forfeited their
payments. While Roberts embezzled at least $57,000, his victims lost over $100,000 collectively.

On his Web site, Roberts also advertised a trip to Hawaii which was scheduled for November 2002
and a trip to Disney which was scheduled for January 2003.

On October 18, 2002, the defendant, Noel Roberts, pleaded guilty to one count of Larceny over
$250 by a continuous scheme. The defendant was sentenced to one year in the House of Correction,
three months to sei^ve, the balance suspended for three years. As conditions of his probation, Roberts was
ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $78,479.70, to the victims and to attend Alcoholics
Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous five times a week. The defendant also was ordered to remove all
references to trips from his Web site, wvyw.freedomtrails.com . and to pursue no employment in the
travel industry

The advocate was assigned to the Roberts case to provide victim advocacy and witness management.

• Commonwealth v. Philip O'Neill and Commonwealth v. Kevin O'Neill (Special
Investigations and Narcotics Division) The above-captioned defendants were arrested as a result
of an undercover investigation of numerous OxyContin robberies by a nine-plus member ring
operated out of Charlestown, Massachusetts. The investigation was led by the Massachusetts
State Police Narcotics Unit in the Office of the Attorney General.

On January 30, 2003, the defendants, Philip O'Neill and Kevin O'Neill, pleaded guilty before
Judge Catherine White in Middlesex Superior Court.

Philip O'Neill pleaded guilty to the following charges: (1) Armed Robbeiy while Masked; (2)
Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery while Masked (2 counts); (3) Attempt to Commit Armed
Robbery while Masked; (4) Unlawful Possession of a Firearm; (5) Possession of an Assault Weapon; (6)
Possession of a Large Capacity Weapon; (7) Possession of a Large Capacity Feeding Device: (8) Assault
with a Deadly Weapon; (9) Trafficking of Opium Derivative; and (10) Conspiracy to Commit Trafficking.

(RIMINA1.RURF.au VIC'TIM/VVITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION

Judge White sentenced Philip ONeill to a State Prison term of 10 to 12 years with three years of
probation from and after the term of incarceration. Judge White also ordered the defendant to pay a $90
Victim Witness Assessment Fee.

Kevin O'Neill pleaded guilty to tiie following charges: (1) Conspiracy to Commit Armed Robbery
while Masked: (2) Attempt to Commit Armed Robbery while Masked; (3) Larceny of a Motor Vehicle:
(4) Unlawful Possession of a Firearm: (5) Possession of Ammunition without Firearms Identification:
(6) Possession of an Assault Weapon: (7) Possession of a Large Capacity Weapon: (8) Possession of a
Large Capacity Feeding Device: and (9) Oi)literated Serial Number. Judge White sentenced Kevin O'Neill
to a state prison term of three to five years with three years of probation from and after the term of
incarceration. Judge White also ordered tiie defendant to pay a $90 Victim Witness Assessment Fee.

The advocate assigned to the O'Neill cases provided victim assistance and witness management to
the numerous victims and witnesses present during the commission of the robberies. The advocate,
along with the Massachusetts State Police, conducted many in-person meetings with the victims (pharmacy
employees and customers) to discuss the status of the case and to address safety concerns. In particular,
the advocate assisted two originally reluctant victims, a customer of the pharmacy and her 12-year-old
son, both of whom were present during the robbery and were threatened with a gun by one of the
defendants. The advocate provided counseling referrals and notification regarding case updates. The
advocate also provided notification of disposition and post-conviction follow-up.

• Commonwealth v. Nancy lane McDonald (Corruption, Fraud and Computer Crime
Division) In October 2001, the defendant, Nancy Jane McDonald, was arraigned in Cambridge
District Court and charged with Threatening to Commit a Crime relating to messages she left on
her former employers Web site. The messages included several references to the Taliban and the
World Trade Center attacks and also threatened the lives of the employer and sexeral of his
employees with the use of anthrax.

On April 9, 2003, McDonald pleaded guilty before Judge Brian Merrick in Cambridge District
Court to Threatening to Commit a Crime. Judge Merrick sentenced the defendant to two years of
probation. Special conditions of probation included that the defendant complete 20 weeks of anger
management counseling and perform 40 hours of community service. Additionally, Judge Merrick
ordered the defendant to pay a $60 Victim Witness Assessment Fee.

This case was sensitive in nature in the wake of the September 1 1''' terrorist attacks and the heightened
sense of fear and alann across the nation due to the ongoing threats of future terrorist attacks and biological
warfare attacks. The advocate assigned to the McDonald case provided victim advocacy and witness

CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION

management to the former co-workers of the defendant, whose threatening actions compromised the
former co-workers' perception of safety, both in and out of the workplace. Tlie advocate provided
support and ongoing notification of case updates to the victims and witnesses.

• Commonwealth v. lohn Driscoll (Corruption, Fraud and Computer Crime Division) The
defendant, John Driscoll, a former State House employee, created online profiles of the victim,
a former co-worker of Driscoll's, using several different computers. The online profiles contained
the victim's full name, age, and address. The profiles also portrayed the victim as being interested
in older men and couples, and included an option users could click on to contact the victim at her
legitimate e-mail address. As a result of the defendant's actions, the victim was inundated with
sexually explicit e-mails and telephone calls.

The advocate assigned to the Driscoll case provided victim assistance to the victim, whose perception
of safety was compromised as a result of Driscoll's actions. The advocate provided numerous services,
including: multiple conference telephone calls with the prosecution team to help alleviate the victim's
fears and concerns, counseling referrals, creditor intercession as a result of the identity theft, and ongoing
notification of the case status.

• Commonwealth v. Gaspard Francois (Corruption, Fraud and Computer Crime Division)
On May 13, 2003, the defendant, Gaspard Francois, pleaded guilty to five counts of Larceny
over $250, before Judge Regina Quinlan in Suffolk Superior Court. Francois stole $26,578
from five recent immigrants by telling them that he was somehow employed by or connected
with INS and promising to expedite their applications for green cards. He persuaded his victims
to produce money by manufacturing fraudulent INS documents, and if they questioned him, he
would explicitly or implicitly threaten to use his power to have them deported.

On June 2, 2003, Judge Nonie Burns sentenced the defendant to two to three years of State Prison,
committed. A $90 Victim Witness Assessment Fee was also imposed.

The advocate was assigned to the Francois case to provide victim advocacy to five especially vulnerable
illegal aliens from Costa Rica. Due to the nature of the crime, the critical task early on was to build a
relationship with the victims because they mistrusted the government. For many of the victims, English
was their second language. The services that the advocate provided included: arranging for interpreter
sei-vices: ongoing case notification: crisis counseling; accompaniment during trial preparation: guidance
during the completion of victim impact statements: court accompaniment: and accompaniment at the
Attorney General's press conference immediately following sentencing. This was a significant case given
the defendant's decidedly egregious behavior perpetuated on exquisitely vulnerable victims.

( HIMINAI.BURRAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

III Fiscal Year 2003 (he Victim/Witness Assistance Division provided services to a liigli volume of
victims and witnesses. Victim advocacy and witness management services were provided by the victim/
witness advocates on 63 cases across the Commonwealth. The case breakdown is as follows:

REFERRAL SOURCE NUMBER OF CASES

Appeals Division 4

Corruption, Fraud and Computer Crime Division 39

Environmental Crimes Strike Force 2

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division 14

Conflict Cases 4

TOTAL 63

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

During Fiscal Year 2003. members of the division were involved in significant activities and initiatives
in an effort to respond to issues of critical import.

The WVAD Director participated as a panelist at the Fint Annual Victim AVitness Advocate Conference
at Bentley College. Waltham. Massachusetts. The director collaborated with the Parole Board and the
Suffolk District Attorney "s Office on a panel titled "Dealing with the Past in the Present: New Challenges
for Survivors and Their Advocates." The panel was designed to engage advocates to think about all of the
issues involved when reaching out to victims/survivors years later in light of DNA hits, cold cases, and
federal habeas corpus cases.

The VWAD Director attended the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance's planning meeting
for the 2003 Victim Rights Conference and also attended the International Women's Day Leadership
Breakfast at Simmons College, Boston, Massachusetts.

CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION

On the heels of the clergy abuse scandal, the division provided ongoing consultation to calls from
survivors of clergy abuse. The division coordinated with the Massachusetts Office of Victim Assistance,
each of the 1 1 District Attorneys' Offices, and collateral service providers to identify resources and refenals.
The division also provided ongoing in-liouse consultation to prosecutors, investigators, and State Troopers
by screening and responding to duty calls and correspondence from the public when victim/witness issues
were identified.

OUTREACH. EDUCATION. AND TRAINING

During Fiscal Year 2003, the division's advocates maintained numerous outreach efforts in community
activities, and both taught and attended training classes inside and outside of the Office of the Attorney
General, including:

Attending bi-monthly meetings of the Victim and Witness Assistance Board chaired by Attorney
General Tom Reilly;

Attending regular meetings for statewide VictimAVitness Directors sponsored by the Massachusetts
District Attorneys Association;

Seizing as the Attorney General Liaison at bi-monthly meetings of the Boston Area Sexual Assault
Coalition at Massachusetts General Hospital;

Continuing to provide telephone consultation to clergy abuse sui-vivors;

Attending the Annual Victim Rights Conference in April 2003, sponsored by the Massachusetts
Office for Victim Assistance, the Victim and Witness Assistance Board, Attorney General Tom
Reilly, and the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association;

Attending and participating as a panelist at the Fii-st Annual VictimAVitness Advocate Conference,
Bentley College, Waltham, Massachusetts;

Attending 1 8 educational training seminars across the Commonwealth relating to victim/witness
issues; and

Conducting training related to the implementation of the Victim Rights Law and the role of the
Victim/Witness Assistance Division to the Criminal Bureau summer interns.

CRIMINAL nURFAU SPF-.CIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION

The Special Investigations and Narcotics (SI&N) Division coordinates and prosecutes a variety of
complex, inulti-jurisdictional criminal cases. Tiie 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 street gangs and armed robbeiy rings. A priority of
the division is to identify and prosecute individuals and groups involved in the illegal sale or possession of
nrearms. SI&N prosecutors are also responsible for providing assistance in the drafting of legislation
pertaining to electronic surveillance, racketeering and corruption, narcotics, firearms, and child protection.
Division members are encouraged to participate in the conception and iniplementation of comiriunity
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
as well as gaming violations. Funds recovered by the Unit are distributed 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 2003 were the following: armed robbery, narcotics trafficking and related offenses, armed
career criminal violations, perjury, armed assault with intent to murder, theft of controlled substances,
larceny of motor vehicles, larceny of construction equipment, gaming, extortion and loan-sharking,
habitual criminal offenders, and a variety of conflict cases from District Attorneys' Offices across the
state.

Attorneys, State Police Officers, and investigators assigned to the SI&N Division also continued to
work with and provide technical, legal, and other forms of investigative support and assistance to federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies. These agencies included the Drug Enforcement Administration,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Suffolk County
Sheriff's Department, the Department of Corrections, District Attorneys' Offices, and various state and
local police departments and task forces throughout the Commonwealth, and in some circumstances
across the country. These joint undertakings included investigations of large-scale drug distribution and
money laundering organizations, organized larceny rings, and armed career criminals.

Members of the division for all or part of Fiscal Year 2003 included Assistant Attorney General
William E Bloomer, Chief; Kelly Burns: Aloke Chakravarty: Carole Conley; Joanna Kennefick: Alexandra
Moffatt: Eileen O'Brien: Peter Paulousky; Mary P Phillips: Peter Russell: and Matthew Shea (Western
Massachusetts Division). Approximately 10 Massachusetts State Troopers are assigned to the SI&N

CRIMINAI, BUREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION

Division within the Office of the Attorney General. During Fiscal Year 2003, Detective Lieutenant
Stepiien Matthews oversaw tlie coniniand of all State Police Detectives assigned to the Office of the
Attorney General including SI&N Troopers. Lieutenant Francis Matthews, with Sergeant Richard Prior,
formed the central core of the remaining command structure for SI&N Troopers.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

• Coninionwealth v. Anthony Rizzo (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts);
Conunonwealth v. Anthony Cardillo (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts);
Commonwealth v. Paulo Tizzano (Suffolk Superior Court): Conunonwealth v. Pasquale
Regnetta (Suffolk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Richard Moretto (Suffolk and Middlesex
Superior Courts); Commonwealth v. William Meehan (Suffolk Superior Court);
Commonwealth v. Andrew Arineilo (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts); Commonwealth
v. Dean Rosati (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts); Commonwealth v. Louis Carpinto
(Suffolk Superior and Peabody District Courts); Commonwealth v. Wilberto Pag an (Middlesex
Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Norge Olivero (Middlesex Superior Court);
Commonwealth v. Frank Coscarelli (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Scott
Lindberg (South Boston District Court); Conunonwealth v. Mark Regnetta (Boston Municipal
Court); Commonwealth v. Cristina Gaudin (Boston Municipal Court); Conunonwealth v.
Steven Distefano (Boston Municipal Court); Commonwealth v. Ray Mondello (Boston
Municipal Court); and Connnonwealth v. Robert Alex (Chelsea District Court). On December
19, 2002, over 130 state, federal, and local police officers executed 17 search warrants at locations
in the North End and throughout Greater Boston following the SI&N Division's investigation
into the criminal activities of "La Cosa Nostra." Police seized 13 guns, explosive devices, hundreds
of Percocets, trafficking quantities of cocaine and marijuana, and approximately $132,000 in
drug money. The 15-inonth investigation, dubbed "Operation Neighbor Hoods." involved the
electronic surveillance of seven telephones and the placement of a bugging device and GPS Tracking
System in a target's vehicle. Eighteen individuals were arrested or charged, including the primary
target, Anthony Rizzo, an alleged "made" mafia soldier. As a result of the concerted efforts of the
State Police and Assistant Attorney General Patrick Lee, five of the defendants have already pleaded
guilty to a variety of offenses, including conspiracy to traffick in a controlled substance and
possession of a firearm, in state courts.

• Commonwealth v. Frank Fister (Worcester and Suffolk Superior Courts) ; Commonwealth
V. Ronald Cavaliere (Worcester Superior Court). These cases illustrated the outstanding work

CRIMINAI RURF.AU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION

{ioMf Oil a daily basis by State Police investigators and prosecutors assigned to the SI&N Division.
In the spring of 2002, State Troopers assigned to the SI&N Division received information from
the New Hampshire State Police informing them that a large quantity of marijuana would be
delivered to Cavalieres residence in Milford. Upon corroborating this information through
surveillance, troopers seized over 350 pounds of marijuana from Fister's vehicle as well as an
additional 1 10 grams of cocaine and several thousand dollars. During the booking process, Fister
made several statements that alerted investigators to the possible removal of evidence from a
realty business on Beacon I fill in Boston. The follow-up investigation resulted in the seizure of
an additional five pounds of cocaine, and six pounds of marijuana that had been removed from
Fister's office by an accomplice. Assistant Attorney General Peter Paulousky tried the marijuana
trafficking case against Cavalieie before a jury in Worcester Superior Court during Fiscal Year
2003. Cavalieie was convicted, and a judge sentenced him to a term of six to 10 years in state
prison. Fister is scheduled to enter a change of plea to trafficking offenses in Fiscal Year 2004.
Following the arrests of Fister and Cavalieie, State Police and prosecutors assigned to the Office
of the Attorney General pored through volumes of documentaiy evidence and, as a result of their
efforts, initiated contact with the Drug Enforcement Administration in Virginia, Massachusetts,
and Colorado. What happened next was an intense national investigation that ultimately led to
the seizure of over 300 kilograms (more than 600 pounds) of cocaine in the State of Maine. This
seizure represented the single largest seizure of cocaine by law enforcement in the histoiy of New
England.

• Commonwealth v. Philip O'Neil (Middlesex and Suffolk Superior Courts) : Commonwealth
v. Kevin O Neil (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Paul Allen (Middlesex and
Suffolk Superior Courts): Commonwealth v. lason Souza (Middlesex Superior Court);
Commonwealth v. Jeffrey Houlihan (Middlesex. Suffolk, and Essex Superior Courts);
Commonwealth v. Nelson Baez (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Norberto
Delesus (Middlesex Superior Court) ; Commonwealth v. Larry Mulcahy (Essex Superior Court) ;
Commonwealth v. Sean Noonan (Essex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. lames Garvey
(Suffolk Supenor Court); Commonwealth v. William W^adman (Suffolk Supenor Court);
Commonwealth v. Brendan Houlihan (Suffolk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Gerald
Poliskey (Suffolk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Daniel Feeney (Somerville District
Court); Commonwealth v. Nelson Perez (Suffolk Superior Court); and Commonwealth v. A
luvenile (Cambridge District Court). In 2001. police and prosecutors were confronted with a
rash of pharmacy robberies targeting the theft of OxyContin pills — a highly addictive, opiate
pain killer. Facing a public safety and public health emergency due to the escalating numbers of
pharmacy robberies. Attorney General Reilly formed the "OxyContin Task Force" in August of

CRIMINAL BUREAU SPt-X lAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION

2001. The Task Force consisted of members of the Massachusetts State Police, tiie Boston
Police, local police departments, federal law enforcement agencies, and prosecutors assigned to
the SI&N Division, and district attorneys' offices throughout Eastern Massachusetts. The initial
goal of the Task Force was to identify and apprehend the most violent repeat offenders who, if
not stopped, posed a significant risk of killing or seriously injuring someone. These perpetrators,
after carefully casing targeted pharmacies, committed the robberies in organized groups armed
with guns while disguising their physical features. The Task Force spent several months actively
gathering intelligence through a variety of means, including electronic and physical surveillance,
undercover police work, and cultivating informants. This process led Task Force members to
identify several loosely affiliated groups that resided in or had ties to Charlestown. By the end of
Fiscal Year 2003, Task Force members had arrested and charged 12 individuals in connection
with six armed robberies of pharmacies, which occuned in Suffolk, Middlesex, and Essex Counties;
and an additional four people, including a Suffolk County Deputy Sheriff, for drug-related
offenses. Firearms, including a "Tec 9 " large-capacity weapon and handguns with obliterated
serial numbers, knives, a bullet-proof vest, masks, gloves, thousands of dollars, and hundreds of
OxyContin pills and other narcotics were seized by Task Force members. During Fiscal Year
2003, as a result of the efforts of Assistant Attorney General Eileen O'Brien and Assistant Attorney
General William Bloomer, 11 of the 16 individuals pleaded guilty in a number of courts to
charges ranging from Armed Robbery While Masked to Trafficking in OxyCodone to Armed
Career Criminal violations. Three of the leaders of the organized armed robbery rings — Sean
Noonan, Paul Allen, and Philip O'Neil — received sentences of more than 10 years in State
Prison for their offenses. The results of Attorney General Reilly's task force initiative represented
an outstanding coordinated effort between state and local law enforcement, including Sheriffs'
Departments, to combat this newly evolving threat to the public.

• United States v. Meraldo Lizardo (U.S. District Court, Boston, MA). From September
27, 1999, through Januai7 10, 2000, 40 wiretap warrants were issued by a Massachusetts Superior
Court judge authorizing troopers and prosecutors in the division to secretly intercept and record
certain wire communications occurring over a variety of electronic devices in the Greater Lawrence
area. At the conclusion of the wiretap investigation, a federal grand juiy indicted Carios Bello
and Meraldo Lizardo, an Essex County Deputy Sheriff, for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. In
June 2003, Lizardo was tried before a jury in Boston Federal Court by Assistant Attorney General
William Bloomer (sworn in as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney) and Assistant U.S. Attorney
Heidi Brieger. The jury convicted Lizardo of conspiring with Bello, a multi-kilogram cocaine
dealer, as well as several counts of unlawful use of a teleconmiunication facility. In February

2002, Bello pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiring to distribute 49 kilograms of cocaine.

(H1MINALBURF.au SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION

• Commonwealth v. Timothy VVIiile and Robert Crisafulli (Noifolk Superior Court). On
January 27, 2003, Sergeant Timothy VViiite of the Massachusetts State PoHce was arrested at his
home of 65 Southworth Court, Stoughton, Massachusetts, after he allegedly assaulted his wife,
Maura White, with his sei"vice weapon — a .40-caliber Sig Saur handgun. At the time of his
arrest, Sergeant White was assigned to the Narcotics Inspection Unit (NIU) of the State Police.
Subsequent investigations revealed approximately 1 3 kilograms of cocaine and other narcotics as
missing from the NIU storage facility in Framingham. After interviews of witnesses and search
warrant executions, Sergeant White was indicted for, among other things, the theft and distribution
of nearly all of the missing cocaine as well as varying amounts of marijuana and ecstasy taken
from the bunker. An acquaintance of the Whites named Robert Crisafulli allegedly sold multiple
ounce quantities of cocaine for White from October through December 2002. On February 28,
2003, troopers searched a storage bin rented by Crisafulli in Hyde Park and discovered
approxiniately 700 grams of cocaine. These cases came to the Office of the Attorney General,
specifically to the SI&N Division, upon requests from the Massachusetts State Police and the
Norfolk County District Attorneys Office.

• Commonwealth v. Tehran Lewis (Hampden Superior Court): Commonwealth v. $12,553.
One 1993 BMW and One 1993 Ford Explorer (Hampden Superior Court). Following an
intense investigation the State Police assigned to the Western Massachusetts Office and the SI&N
Division, Tehian Lewis was arrested and charged with several counts of trafficking in over 100
grams of cocaine. Assistant Attorney General Matthew Shea tried the case to a conclusion before
a jury in Hampden Superior Court. Lewis was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to 10
years in State Prison. In what is a "typical" example of the coordinated efforts of SI&N prosecutors,
the Asset Forfeiture Unit then successfully moved to forfeit the defendant's drug proceeds as well
as the vehicles he used in plying his illegal trade.

• Commonwealth v. Luis Cotto (Middlesex Superior Court): Commonwealth v. jason King
(Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Antonio Centeno (Middlesex Superior Court);
Commonwealth v. George Milliard (Middlesex Superior Court): Commonwealth v. David
Texeira (Middlesex Superior Court): Commonwealth v. Marcial Cubi (Essex Superior Court):
Commonwealth v. Maria Cubi (Essex Superior Court) : Commonwealth v. Diego Rojas (Essex
Superior Court): Commonwealth v. Kurt Weldon (Lowell District Court): Commonwealth v.
Alex Ortiz (Lowell District Court): Cotnmonwealth v. Felix Baez (Lowell District Court).
During a six-month investigation, prosecutors and troopers from this division assisted the Drug
Enforcement Administration and Lowell Police Department in conducting a wiretap investigation
of an organization that was responsible for importing sizable quantities of cocaine and heroin
into the Lawrence and Lowell areas from New York City. Six cellular telephones and two residential

CRIMINAL BUREAU SPECIAL INVES1 IGATIONS AND NARC () I'lrS DIVISION

telephones were nioiiitoied pursuant to court orders during this investigation. At the conclusion
of the investigation, 18 search warrants were executed at locations in Middlesex and Essex Counties.
Approximately one kilogram of cocaine, iieroin, ecstasy pills, steroids, and tens of thousands of
dollars were seized by police and federal agents. The primary targets of the investigation, Luis
Cotto and Jason King, and five others were arrested. Four additional individuals were indicted
following a grand jury investigation. To date, as a result of the efforts of Assistant Attorney
General Aloke Chakravarty, all but one of the defendants has pleaded guilty to a variety of
offenses, ranging from trafficking in cocaine to conspiracy to distribution of controlled substances.
The remaining defendant is scheduled for trial in Fiscal Year 2004. This investigation exemplified
the successful cooperative efforts of three separate law enforcement entities working together
with one prosecution entity to attain one goal.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

At any given time, the division generally has in excess of 100 cases pending in various courts throughout
the Commonwealth, over 15 ongoing investigations, and a handful of post-trial motions that require
written responses and court appearances. The statistical breakdown of the number of arrests, criminal
cases initiated, and cases disposed during Fiscal Year 2003 is set forth below.

GHNERAL CASE INFOKMAllON

Felony Arrests 70

Criminal Cases Initiated 65

Cases Disposed 108

Approximately 98 cases initiated in previous fiscal years were disposed of during Fiscal Year 2003.

From July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, State Police assigned to the SI&N Division made
approximately 70 felony arrests. Prosecutors in the division in turn successfully disposed of 108 pending
cases in the Massachusetts Superior and District Courts (approximately 98 cases initiated in previous
fiscal years were disposed of during Fiscal Year 2003), while initiating approximately 65 new cases in
those same courts. Of the number of drug cases investigated by the division in Fiscal Year 2003, about
15% of these involved two controlled substances rapidly growing in popularity among young adults:
oxycodone, a highly addictive painkiller (the active ingredient in pharmaceutical OxyContin): and

CRIMINAL RURI-.AU SI'KCIAI- INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION

Metliylpiiedioxy-N-Methylamphetamine (MDMA), otherwise known as the designer drug "ecstasy."
Tlie remaining percentage of narcotics cases included the more common street drugs such as heroin,
cocaine, and marijuana. Tlie vast majority of these cases involved trafficking quantities of these drugs.

IIREARMS

Guns Seized or Purchased 16

Individuals Charged with Firearms Offenses 8

From July 1 , 2002, through June 30, 2003, State Police assigned to the SI&N Division seized at least
16 guns ranging from an Intratec 9 mm semi-automatic firearm to several weapons with obliterated serial
numbers, and a .357 magnum handgun. During a number of raids, the state police also seized explosive
materials, such as blasting caps and stun grenades. Based upon these seizures as well as undercover purchases
of weapons, prosecutoi^ in the SI&N Division charged eight individuals with a variety of firearms offenses,
including armed career criminal violations, possession of large-capacity weapons, and receiving firearms
with obliterated serial numbers.

ASSKl FORFEITURE

Civil Forfeiture Cases Initiated 8

Civil Forfeiture Cases Disposed 44

Approximately 17 cases initiated in previous fiscal years were disposed of during Fiscal Year 2003.

During Fiscal Year 2003. the Asset Forfeiture Unit initiated eight new civil forfeiture actions (not
including forfeitures pursued by means of criminal motions) and concluded 44 actions involving money,
cars, and jevveliy. By way of example, the unit conuuenced civil actions against cars that were used to
facilitate the distribution of narcotics or were purchased with the proceeds from the distribution of
narcotics, including one 1997 Mercedes, one 1996 Mercury Marquis, one 2000 Toyota Camry, one
1994 Infiniti, one 1998 VW Jetta, and one 1993 Audi. In addition, the Asset Forfeiture Unit has
referred a case involving a house and a parcel of land in Somei\ille to the DEA/DOJ for prosecution.

In addition to prosecuting their pending criminal cases, assistant attorneys general in the SI&N
Division responded to six post-trial motions. These motions, filed by convicted felons, sought new
trials or sentence reductions. Of the number of post-trial motions filed, five were denied, and one
remains outstanding.

CRIMlNAl.BURt'AU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS. AND ACTIVITIES

Assistant attorneys general assigned to the SI&N Division continue to provide sei-vice and assistance
both in and out of the office ttiat exceed the scope of traditional prosecutorial responsibilities. Some of
tiiese extracurricular contributions include: service on the Youth Violence Task Force; "The Law and You "
presentation to eighth-grade students at the Curtis Middle School; the Citizens School Community
Outreach Program, which allows students an opportunity to participate in a "mock" trial as prosecutors
and criminal defense attorneys: Northeastern University's Moot Court Competition; the Springfield
Task Force addressing inner-city drug and gun problems; the South Asian Bar Association: the Governor's
Racial Profiling Task Force: Suffolk Law School's Career Symposium; Massachusetts Continuing Legal
Education; the Attorney General's Loan Forgiveness and Assistance Program for Public Employees; and
the Massachusetts Law Review. In addition, a new wiretap legislative proposal was drafted by Assistant
Attorney General Eileen O'Brien and testimony was submitted in support of that bill by Assistant Attorney
General William Bloomer to a legislative committee.

During Fiscal Year 2003, attorneys in the SI&N Division were also required to act as point persons
for the office on a variety of topics that require specialized knowledge in certain areas of law. For instance,
prosecutors in the division provided advice and assistance to attorneys and police officers across the state
in rendition matters. In addition, all public record inquiries directed to the division are fielded by an
assistant attorney general. Prosecutors also served as the division's intern coordinators, supervising and
monitoring the progress of law student interns assigned to the division.

OUTREACH. EDUCATION. AND TRAINING

Members of the division attended trainings both inside and outside the office during Fiscal Year 2003
in an effort to keep abreast of important current issues and trends in the law. These trainings encompassed
a variety of topics including ethics, anti-discrimination, computer forensics, international investigative
issues, and trial advocacy techniques. Some of the trainings attended by assistant attorneys general in the
division included Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education's program on Attacking and Defending
Search Warrants: NAAG's Trial Advocacy Training; the National District Attorneys Associations Computer
Forensics and Cyberstalking Investigations Training; the National District Attorneys Association's Cross
Examination Course: the Massachusetts District Attorneys Associations DNA Training; the National.
District Attorneys Associations International Issues Seminar; and a conference sponsored by the Office
of the Attorney General that related to shaken baby syndrome. In addition, Assistant Attorney General
Patrick Lee arranged for an office-wide training on gangs in Southeastern Massachusetts, which included

CRIMINAL RURFAU ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE

a guest speaker from the Department of Corrections, while Assistant Attorney General William Bloomer
participated in an information exchange program with representatives from the Bench and the Bar in
Tomsk, Siberia.

Assistant attorneys general in the division also served as faculty for the National Association of Attorneys
General. Trial Practice Academy: the National Advocacy Center for the National District Attorneys
Association; and Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education. In 2002, Assistant Attorney General Bloomer
also was appointed Associate Editor of the Massachusetts Law Review.

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE

The Massachusetts Environmental Crimes Strike Force (ECSF) is a unique interagency enforcement
tool used in the investigation and prosecution of the Commonwealth's environmental enforcement efforts.
Through the cooperation of the Attorney General, the Secretaiy of Environmental Affairs, the Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the Massachusetts Environmental Police, the ECSF brings
specialized prosecutorial, technical, and police resources under a single umbrella. The ECSF thus provides
the legal, scientific, and investigative expertise necessaiy to identify environmental violations, evaluate
their impact on public safety and the environment, and develop the evidence necessary to prosecute
environmental crimes. Among the general categories of environmental crimes the ECSF investigated
and/or prosecuted during Fiscal Year 2003 were the following: illegal treatment and disposal of hazardous
waste: discharging pollutants to the waters of the Commonwealth: illegal dumping: open burning of
hazardous wastes: illegal removal of asbestos: and filling or altering of wetlands. In addition the ECSF
division iinestigated or prosecuted traditional white-collar crimes like larceny by false pretense, procurement
fraud. Identity fraud, and conflict cases from District Attorneys' Offices from across the state. In addition,
division attorneys often worked with local police and fire departments, federal law enforcement officials.
Attorney Fenerals" Offices from neighboring states, District Attorneys Offices from across the state, and
investigators assigned to other state agencies.

Members of the division for all or part of Fiscal Year 2003 included Paul J. Molloy, Divisioti Chief:
Jennifer Doherty: Nicholas Kosiavelon: Kevin Plante: and secretaries, Jenny Prokopovich and Nancy
Rojas. Three Massachusetts Environmental Police Officers were assigned to the ECSF within the Office
of the Attorney General. Lieutenant Gail Larson and Environmental Police Officers Pat Haley and
Michael Moore comprised the investigative staff

CRIMINAL BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

• Coininonwealth v. Norman Reno (Worcester Superior Court) The defendant, the owner
and president of A&W Metal Fabricators, Inc., pleaded guilty to illegally treating and disposing
of hazardous waste that resulted in an employee and two firefighters sustaining second-degree
burns, was sentenced to five years probation, and was fined $75,000.

• Commonwealth v. leff Masciadrelli (Worcester Superior Court) The defendant, the general
manager of A&W Metal Fabricators, pleaded guilty to seven counts of illegally treating and
disposing of hazardous waste, was sentenced to five years probation and 300 hours of community
service, and was fined $25,000.

• Commonwealth v. R.M. Packer Co. (Edgartown District Court) The defendant, a Marthas
Vineyard corporation that was the sole supplier of petroleum products on the island, admitted to
sufficient facts that it failed to notify Department of Environmental Protection of releases of oil
resulting in oil slicks on Edgartown Harbor and Lagoon Pond. The defendant was fined $ 1 00,000,
$50,000 in fines suspended, and placed on probation for two and a half years.

• Conmionwealth v. BATG Environmental, Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) Alleged that the
defendant, a Big Dig subcontractor, misrepresented that environmental health and safety plans,
which were submitted to the CA/T Project, had been prepared by a certified industrial hygienist.
The defendant was indicted on four counts of Identity Fraud and four counts of Procurement
Fraud.

• Commonweath v. Richard Denham (Suffolk Superior Court) Alleged that the defendant,
a BATG Environmental employee, prepared environmental plans purportedly prepared by a
certified industrial hygienist and submitted them to the CA/T Project. The defendant was
indicted on four counts of Identity Fraud, four counts of Procurement Fraud, and two counts of
Attempted Larceny by False Pretense.

• Commonwealth v. Richard LaBelle (Hampden Superior Court) Conflict Case - After a
three-day jury trial involving the deaths of two small children, the defendant was found guilty of
Reckless Operation of a Motor Vehicle. He was sentenced to two years probation.

r RIMINAI. BURHAU ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

Opened Investigations 19

Closedlnvestigations 26

Indicted in Superior Court 2

Disposed in District Court 1

Disposed in Superior Court 3

During Fiscal Year 2003, the Environmental Crimes Strike Force opened 19 investigations and closed
26 (some of which were opened in the prior fiscal year). There was one corporation charged in District
Court, and one corporation and one individual indicted in Superior Court. There was one Superior
Court trial that resulted in a conviction. Three cases resulted in guilty pleas. Of the three pleas, two were
handled in Superior Courts and one in District Court. In addition, the environmental police executed
two search warrants.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

In addition to the cases that we investigated and prosecuted, division members undertook significant
initiatives. ECSF attorneys worked closely with the Executive Bureau to draft the Environmental
Endangerment Act and testified in support thereof before the legislature. The Act became law in July
2003. The ECSF assisted the United States Attorneys Office in the investigation of the Buzzards Bay oil
spill by coordinating the investigations conducted by the Massachusetts Environmental Police and the
Department of Environmental Protection. The ECSF assisted the New Hampshire Attorney Generals
Office by executing search warrants in Massachusetts that resulted in New Hampshire indictments of a
Massachusetts developer for violating the New Hampshire Clean Air Act. A division member participated
in the Attorney Generals Citizen Schools - 8"' Grade Academy as a coordinator and volunteer writing
coach. Another division member was the Criminal Bureau representative for the Employee Benefits
Committee. In addition, the Division Chief also became the Criminal Bureaus member of the Attorney
Generals Institute (an internal program designed to enhance training to all staff members) .

CRIM1NALBURF.au CRIMINAL. JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION

The Criminal Justice Policy Division (CJPD) was created in July 2002, in conjunction with the
consolidation of the Community-Based Justice Bureau into the Criminal Bureau. The mission of CJPD
is to understand and assess topical criminal justice policy issues, and to advise the Attorney General and
his staff so that they can effectively carry out the Attorney General's leadership role as the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer in the Commonwealth. Through collaborative relationships with all members of
the criminal Justice community, CJPD is uniquely positioned to use its knowledge and experience to
further decision-making that is in the public interest. Toward this end, CJPD responsibilities fall into
five broad categories: 1) liaison to external criminal Justice and law enforcement agencies and organizations:
2) criminaljustice legislation: 3) criminal justice education: 4) crime prevention initiatives: and 5) policy-
based appellate briefs, amicus briefs, investigations and prosecutions, and various other special assignments.

The Criminal Justice Policy Division included James O'Brien, Division Chief: Pamela Hunt, Senior
Counsel for Criminal Justice Matters: Emily Paradise, Assistant Attorney General: Catherine Sullivan,
Assistant Attorney General: Marsha Cohen, Staff Writer: and Jean Fanning, Administrative Assistant.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

• Commonwealth v. Diemer (Appeals Court) Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on consular
relations requires law enforcement officials to notify a detained or arrested foreign national of the
right to contact his or her consulate office. Diemer, a foreign national, was arrested in Florida for
a Massachusetts crime and returned to Massachusetts. It was conceded that he was not advised of
his right to contact his country's consular officials either at the time of his arrest or before he
made statements to Massachusetts police officers. Defense counsel moved to suppress certain
evidence on this basis. The Norfolk County District Attorney's Office opposed the motion. A
trial judge agreed with the District Attorney's Office, and after his conviction, Diemer appealed.
CJPD identified this appeal as one of substantial potential significance to law enforcement ofTicers
in Massachusetts. Division members prepared and filed an cimicus curi^ichvief in support of the
Norfolk District Attorney's Office and the important law enforcement interests at stake. The
Appeals Court ruled it did not need to decide whether the treaty creates rights enforceable by an
individual in a criminal case, because even if it did, suppression of evidence would not be an
appropriate remedy for a violation. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) denied the defendant's
application for further appellate review. The defendant has filed a petition for certiorari in the
United States Supreme Court.

rKIMINAI,BlJRI-:Ali CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION

• Andrew, A luvenile v. Department of Youth Services and Coniinoiuvealth v. Andrew. A
luvenile (Supreme Judicial Court and Lynn Juvenile Courts) These two cases involve constitutional
rights and legal challenges to the statutory process for extending a juvenile's commitment to the
Department of Youth Services (DYS) beyond his or her 18"' birthday. In addition to defending
the statutes and cases, CJPD staff worked closely with DYS legal counsel and (lualified examiners
contracted to perform evaluations and also assisted DYS in developing a process to handle these
types of cases that would pass constitutional muster. The two cases are now pending in the SJC.

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston Grand lury Investigation (Suffolk Grand Jury)
The division chief was involved extensively as a member of the Office of the Attorney General's
team that investigated the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston (RCAB). The investigation
consisted of two phases: 1) assessing whether clergy/RCAB personnel with a history of sexual
misconduct involving a minor remained in positions that presented a current risk for committing
such misconduct; and 2) historical review of management knowledge and decision-making
regarding clergy/RCAB personnel accused of sexual misconduct involving a minor, and whether
the management conduct rose to the level of criminal misconduct. As of the close of Fiscal Year
2003, the RCAB team had determined that indictments were unlikely and had drafted a lengthy
report detailing the investigations findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Public release
of that report was expected in early Fiscal Year 2004.

• Commonwealth v. William Rodriguez, et al. (Middlesex, Essex, Norfolk, and Hampden
Superior Courts) This case involved the prosecution of a burglary ring that targeted retail stores
around the state. One hundred sixteen indictments were returned against nine men on six break-
ins that took place in four counties (Middlesex, Essex, Norfolk, and Hampden). Four of the
defendants have pleaded guilty, receiving sentences of incarceration, followed by probationary
supervision. The remaining cases are pending.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS. AND ACTIVITIES

An important role of the division's attorneys is serving as liaisons to external law enforcement agencies
and organizations. The meetings and personal contacts are some of the primary means by which CJPD
learns of and becomes knowledgeable about, the important criminal justice issues of the day. During
Fiscal Year 2003, CJPD attorneys were actively involved with the Anti-Terrorism Task Force, Boston Bar
Association Criminal Justice Section, Coalition on Underage and Problem Drinking, Commonwealth's
Appellate Attorneys Action Project, Commonwealth's Criminal Justice Research Group. Criminal History

CRIMINAL BURKAU CRIMINAL. JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION

Systems Board, Department of Public Health Emerging Drugs Task Force, Equal Justice Partnership,
Governors Advisory Council on Alcoholism, Interagency Drug Diversion Task Force, Massachusetts
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association,
Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, Massachusetts Bar Association Collections and Sentencing Practice
Group, Massachusetts District Attorneys Association (MDAA) Clergy Reporting Working Group, MDAA
Legislative Subcommittee, MDAA Juvenile Justice Subcommittee, MDAA DNA Working Group,
MDAA Sexually Dangerous Person Working Group, Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency,
Municipal Police Training Committee, National Association of Attorneys General Violence Against
Women Group, SJC Standing Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules, Statewide Child Fatality Review
Team, and the Trial Court Criminal Standing Committee of the MassCourts Project.

Criminal Justice legislation is another core function of CJPD. It works closely with, and serves as the
Criminal Bureau's primary liaison to, the Attorney General's Intergovernmental Affairs Division. In
Fiscal Year 2003, CJPD played a coordinating role in soliciting ideas and making recommendations on
the Office of the Attorney Generals slate of criminal bills. It drafted and testified on behalf of various
proposals. In addition to the Attorney General's own bills, CJPD also: 1) participated on the MDAA
Legislative Subcommittee and shared information, ideas, and respective priorities within and between a
variety of law enforcement agencies; and 2) reviewed and made recommendations on a wide array of
criminal justice bills, which were not sponsored by the Office of the Attorney General but which had
potentially significant criminal justice implications.

During Fiscal Year 2003, significant bills that either were sponsored by the Office of the Attorney
General or were the subject of noteworthy CJPD involvement included: Sentencing Guidelines;
Partnerships for Children's Safety/Information Sharing; Terrorism (Terrorist Threats, Use of Biological
and Chemical Weapons, Hoax Substances, Statewide Grand Jury, Administrative Subpoenas); Firearms;
Identity Theft; Enticement of a Minor; 51A Penalties; Environmental Endangerment; Hacking; Identity
Fraud; Money Laundering; Wiretap Statute; and Witness Intimidation.

Three important pieces of legislation sponsored by the Office of the Attorney General were enacted
into law during this period:

• Enticement of a Minor — criminalizes enticing a child under 16 (either directly or
through a medium such as the Internet) with the intent to commit a sex crime against the child.

• Terrorist Threats — piovides protections against terrorism, including creating the crime
of communicating a terrorist threat. Allows restitution for costs incurred by the city or town.

CR1M1NAI.BURF.au CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION

• Environmental Endangernient makes it a crime to knowingly or recklessly commit
an environmental violation which thereby causes serious bodily injury to another, or which causes
a substantial risk of more than $25,000 in damages to natural resources or the property of another.

CJPDs primary function is policy not |)rograms. Notwilhstanding, from lime to time CJPD
becomes involved in crime prevention initiatives, either because the program started as a policy idea
within the division or because there is a particular interest or expertise in that area. Noteworthy crime
prevention initiatives included:

Liaison to Anti-Terrorism Task Force (ATTF), ATTF Working Group, and the various
ATTF regional sub-groups established to prevent, disrupt, and respond to terrorist acts;

• Post September Uth Hate Crimes Working Group: CJPD worked closely with the
OfRce's Civil Rights Division to coordinate and advance the Attorney General's work in protecting
people who were targeted, or were at risk of being targeted, for hate crimes in response to the
September 1 1th terrorist attacks;

• Massachusetts Alliance for the Promotion of Sportsmanship (MAPS) Initiative: This
joint project of the Attorney General's Office/Suffolk District Attorney's Office brought together
an "alliance" of key stakeholders, including all of the major professional sports teams in the state,
to address issues of sportsmanship and violence prevention. Leadership for the initiative was
transitioned to Northeastern University's Center for the Study of Sport in Society and the
Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, whose representatives now co-chair MAPS
and have taken the lead in moving the Alliance's initiatives forward; and

• Coalition on Underage and Problem Drinking: In partnership with the Department of
Public Health, brought together the Commonwealths colleges and universities to address problems
of alcohol abuse and binge drinking by students.

OUTREACH. EDUCATION. AND TRAINING

Another core function of CJPD is to educate and inform about issues of importance to the criminal
justice community. This goal is accomplished in three distinct ways: I) through publication of the
Criiniinil Jusikv Nc\\s(CJN)\ 2) through formal educational training; and 3) through informal educational
training.

One of the top priorities of CJPD was to redesign and produce the Attorney Generals Criminal
Justice Nmx which replaced the former I aw luifonvment Neus/crrpi. All division members played an

CRIMINAL BUREAU CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION

active role in this project, including stoiy development, research, writing, editing and proofreading,
design and layout, compilation of the e-mail list, and distribution. Both the objectives of the newsletter
and its target audience were redefined. The new C/A^ focused less on case law updates and more on
emerging and significant criminal justice news, events, trends, data, and related information of general
interest to the broader criminal justice community. During Fiscal Year 2003, the inaugural 16-page issue
was produced and distributed via e-mail to prosecutors, police, sheriffs, public defenders, the courts,
other state and local law enforcement agencies, and a number of private or non-profit entities whose
work impacts the criminal justice system. The division also began the researcli/story development process
for the Fall/Winter 2003 issue, analyzed and refined the e-mail distribution process, and began planning
a special four-page issue focusing on the topic of "consular notification."

The four attorneys in the division are experienced prosecutors — two have trial backgrounds, while
the other two have appellate backgrounds. They frequently are invited to serve as faculty/staff for formal
training programs. These trainings afford CJPD lawyers the opportunity to share their expertise with
other criminal justice professionals. Significant trainings included:

• Annual Prosecutors' Conference presentation on proposals for sentencing reform and
how sentencing guidelines would impact the daily lives of prosecutors

• Appellate Prosecutors' Group presentations on the proposed criminal rules amendments,
and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA law) and how it would
affect prosecutions and investigations

MDAA DNA Training Conference

Boston Foundation Focus Group on Prisoner Re-entry

• NAAG Trial Advocacy Training

• Plymouth District Attorney's Office Ethical Issues Training for Prosecutors

MDAA Annual Conference on Handling Sexually Dangerous Persons Cases

In addition to the more formal educational assistance and training, the division attorneys routinely
fielded legal queries and an array of other requests for information and guidance from professionals
throughout the criminal justice community. Without giving formal legal opinions, division members
provided objective guidance and assistance. A large part of eveiy workweek was spent providing this
service to law enforcement officials and others within the criminal justice network. During Fiscal Year
2003, particular assistance was provided to the Criminal History Systems Board, DYS, the Commissioner
of Probation, the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, Boston and numerous other local police
departments, and the Sex Offender Registry Board on a broad variety of subjects, including the propriety

CRIMINAL BUREAU VIC1 IM CXJMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION

of putting warrants on the Internet, putting civil rights restraining orders on the domestic violence registry,
information sharing, engaging in education on how to read and use CORI records, gun licenses, the
impact of the new law requiring schools, camps, and youth groups to conduct CORI checks on volunteers
and employees, sexually dangerous persons. DNA, possible crimes involved in assisted suicide, licensing
of private detectives, the HIPAA law. and sentencing and probation matters.

VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION

The Victim Compensation and Assistance Division provides financial 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, mental health
counseling, 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 detemiined through a litigation-
based process in the district courts. In addition, since 2002, the Office of the Attorney General has
assumed responsibilitv for the payment of claims, having taken over that responsibility from the State
Treasurer's Office.

There was significant staff turnover during Fiscal Year 2003 as well as the division transition to the
Criminal Bureau. Division staff included Cheiyl Watson, Division Director: Sandra Clark: James Clarkin:
Erica Johnson: Joanna Kennefick: Julie King: Delkel Lynch: Linda McDonough: Lauia Michalski; Susan
Ragucci: and Jennifer Wilson.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

CLAIM INFORMATION TOTAL NUMBER OF CLAIMS

New Claims Received 1.392

New Claims Opened 1,113

Supplemental Claims Opened 864

Administrative Review 81

CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION

Decision Affimied 60

Modified or Reversed 21

Homicide Claims 224

Judicial Review 4

In Fiscal Year 2003, the Victim Compensation and Assistance Division received 1,392 new claims.
This number represents an approximately 20% decline from the 1,742 new claims received in Fiscal Year
2002. During Fiscal Year 2003 the division received 224 homicide claims, down from the 287 claims
received in Fiscal Year 2002, but higher than the 1 94 received in Fiscal Year 200 1 . The division continued
to work on claims submitted by family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks and paid
21 claims in Fiscal Year 2003.

EXPENDITURES

During this fiscal year, the total compensation awarded to victims was $4,076,957.00. Approximately
$2.1 million came from state funds, and the remainder was from federal funds. This represents an
approximate 25% increase over awards issued last year. This is the eighth consecutive year in which the
division had adequate funding to support expenditures.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Each claimant is sent an application with the decisional letter. The division received 510 completed
sui^veys from claimants. Sui"veys were overwhelmingly positive, with approximately 87% of claimants
agreeing or strongly agreeing that the application was easy to fill out, the letters were easy to understand,
and the victim compensation staff treated them with respect. In spite of the periodic understaffing, most
claimants agreed that their phone calls were returned promptly and they were satisfied with the amount
of time it took to process their claims.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES. EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

GRAN r Aci ivn Y

The division applied for and received a continuation grant for Fiscal Year 2003 from the Executive
Office of Public Safety through the Department of Justice, Violence Against Women Act funds in the
amount of $50,000. These funds continue to support Julie King, an investigator/victim advocate who
provides specialized services to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking victims who seek
compensation and services from the division.

C'RIMINAI MURFAU VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION

The division applied for an annual grant for Fiscal Year 2003 from the Department of Justice through
Victims of Crime Act Funds (VOCA) in the amount of $1,142,000. This increase in VOCA funding
represents the Department of Justice's percentage increase in funding for compensation from 40% of
what was spent in state-generated funds to 60%. Due to late distribution of the grant applications from
the Department of Justice, the deadline forsubmissionof the annual grant was June 30, 2003.

FFDF.RAi, RFPORIING RKOUIREMHN IS

The division submitted its annual Certification Report and Quarterly Reports to the Department of
Justice. Ofllce for Victims of Crime for the Victims of Crime Act. In addition, the division submitted
quarterly reports to the Executive Office of Public Safety for the grant under the Violence Against
Women Act, referenced above. Finally, an annual Performance Report and Grant Application were
submitted requesting continuation funding from the Department of Justice through the Victims of
Crime Act.

AUrOMATION

The division continued to work with the Genoa Group in Colorado to correct problems with the
new victim compensation software. Many of the problems have been resolved, and staff are pleased with
the ease and efficiency of the program. The division director will continue to work with the software
de\ eloper to enhance reporting capabilities in order to eliminate the need to manually compute infonnation
necessary to complete the quarterly and annual reports to the Office of the Attorney General and the
federal government.

DIVISION MATERI.ALS

For the second year, in recognition of Victim Rights Week, division staff developed a new calendar
using posters created by art students at the Paul McLaughlin Youth Center. The calendar was distributed
at the annual Victim Rights Conference in Marlboro, held in April.

Using funding available in the Victim Assistance Witness Assistance grant, the division developed
small 'palm' cards, which contained information about the Victim Compensation program. The cards
included division contact information as well as the Domestic Violence Safelink 24 Hour Hotline number.

The implementation of the HIPAA law necessitated the development of an additional Authorization
for Release of Information. The release cites G.L. c. 258C, section 5 (a)(2), which directs all service
providers to cooperate with the division in the investigation of claims.

As a result of a division investigation regarding a mental health provider, the division also developed
a new mental health verification and treatment fonn. The form requests more comprehensive information

CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION

about the mental health tieatinent being provided to victims. The form was created after reviewing a
number of forms that are used by otlier victim compensation programs across tlie country.

OUTREACH. EDUCATION. AND TRAINING

Outreach and training about the program and its benefits continued to be a major focus during Fiscal
Year 2003. Victim compensation training was provided to:

• SAFEPLAN domestic violence advocates in Worcester, Gardner, and Marlboro, Massachusetts

• Administrators of VOCA Funded programs, sponsored by MOVA

• Univei-sity of Massachusetts Medical Fair. Norfolk District Attorney's Children's Advocacy Mental
Health Providers, Brockton Family Resource Center, Rape Crisis Counselor training at Tufts
University, On the Rise staff training

• Participation on a panel for the Leadership and Healing in Times of Crisis Conference sponsored
by Simmons College

• Public Protection Bureau's workshop on Hate Crimes

• Division-sponsored training for National Victims' Rights Week provided by the Good Grief
Program on working with children who suffered traumatic loss

Division staff also represented the Attorney General at a number of committee meetings througiiout
Fiscal Year 2003. These included:

Governor's Domestic Violence Commission

Massachusetts District Attorneys Association Domestic Violence Subcommittee

Norfolk District Attorney's Children's Advocacy Advisory Board

MOVA Victim Witness Assistance Board

Executive Office of Public Safety Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kit Advisory Committee

Staff were also active on the Office of the Attorney General's Employee Benefits Committee and the
Diversity Committee.

rRlMlNAI RURI'.AU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

Division staff attended the NACVB national conference in New Orleans, the Massachusetts District
Attorneys' Association Training for Experienced/ Advanced Advocacy, and the NACVB regional conference
in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

The Financial Investigations Division provides the Criminal Bureau with seven experienced civilian
investigative professionals who investigate and assist in the prosecution of white-collar criminal cases.
These investigations include larceny, identity theft, public corruption, securities fraud, tax fraud, and all
other white-collar frauds that are referred to the division. The investigators bring 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 Investigations Division work as part of the bureau's team
approach to criminal investigative work. Division members become involved in matters at the start of
the investigation and work closely with Criminal Bureau prosecutors and Massachusetts State Police
assigned to the bureaus Criminal Investigation Division.

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

As part of the investigation and prosecution team, division investigators assist in the design and
iniplementation 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 involve prolific documentaiy evidence, and require division investigator
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 summaiy witness testimony before special grand juries and
at trial. Further, utilizing modern computerized technology', investigators are able to scan a wide array of
informational databases as well as the Internet to track and profile potential subjects of criminal
investigations.

The majority of the division's investigative assignments come from the bureau's Corruption, Fraud,
and Computer Crime Division. The division works closely with the Division Chief of the Corruption.

CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS LIIVISION

Fraud, and Computer Crime Division during the screening process and then with the assigned assistant
attorney general when a matter has been accepted for formal investigation.

During Fiscal Year 2003 the division also committed investigative resources to the Special hivestigations
and Narcotics Division. Since the division's formation in 1995, it also has performed investigative
assignments for the bureau's Environmental Crimes Strike Force and the Appellate Division.

This fiscal year, division personnel included two Certified Fraud Examiners (CFE) and five investigatoi-s
with backgrounds from the banking and insurance industries. Members of the division for all or part of
the year were: Paul Stewart, Division Director, Certified Fraud Examiner CFE; David Baker; Jennifer
Chaves; Michael Guarin; Jen Hollingsworth; Brendan Kelleher; Jim McFadden, CFE; Jon Murphy; and
Sallyann Nelligan.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Division members served as Commonwealth sunnnaiy witnesses in the grand juiy for a number of
matters indicted during the year. Additionally, division members were scheduled to serve as summary
witnesses at trial for matters that reached a final disposition as a result of guilty pleas. The Corruption,
Fraud, and Computer Crime Division requested the involvement of the Financial Investigations Division
in each matter, and more specific information about each of these matters can be found by referring to
the Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime Division's section in the bureaus report. A statistical
summary of matters investigated by the Financial Investigations Division immediately follows the case
summaries section.

Three of the indicted matters involved attorney embezzlement:

• Commonwealth v. Stephen I. Milstein

• Commonwealth v. Roberta Golden

• Commonwealth v. Neil Cola

Two were matters with multiple small business or consumer victims:

• Connnonwealth v. David Gill

• Commonwealth v. Noel Roberts

CRIMINALBIRI Al I IN ANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

Tfiis ginii|) (il iiulii led iiuillcis involved lax (r;ui(l. idciiiiis thcli. ;iiul ciiiploype eml^ez/lemciit.
respectively:

• Commonwealth v. Luis Vasquez

• Commonwealth v. Kevin Bruce White

• Commonwealth v. Richard Anzivino

The fnllowing matters reached a final disposition as a result of guilty pleas and included an immigration
matter involving multijile victims, an employee embezzlement, and an identity fraud case:

• Commonwealth v. Gaspard Francois

• Commonwealth v. Stephen Holt

• Commonwealth v. Zachary Hildreth

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

REFERRING SOURCE NUMBER OF CASES

Corruption. Fraud, and

Computer Crime Di\ ision 59

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division 1

TOTAL 60

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

The division also perfoims many administrative duties for the l)uieau with respect to cars, seized
evidence, and the spending of forfeited funds. The rlivision is responsible for the assignment, reporting,
and maintenance of all bureau cars. The div ision maintains a log of all money seized by the State Police
in association with any arrest. The seized money is kept in safety deposit boxes, and the contents are

CRIMINALBURF.au FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

inventoried on a quarterly basis by division staff. Additionally, the division prepares an accounting of all
funds forfeited through the Special Investigations and Narcotics Division, which subsequently are disbursed
in accordance with the Commonwealth's forfeiture laws. The accounting system is designed as a
management tool for the bureau, not only to retrospectively track spending, but also to project future
needs.

The division also works with State Police connnand to assist with background and warrant checks
and NCIC inquiries.

Division members also take a turn in the rotation as duty officers. The daily duty officer's duties
involve dealing with all citizen inquiries for that particular day.

OUTREACH. EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

As an integral part of the bureau's outreach to referral agencies, the staff maintains contact with the
BBO's Senior Financial Investigator and CIB's Chief Investigator by updating them periodically on the
status of all referrals from their respective agencies to the bureau. BBO and CIB cases are referred
through the Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime Division. Our outreach efforts are designed to
complement those of the Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime Division Chief.

Division members maintain memberships in many external organizations, including: the Boston
Clearing House Association-Check Fi-aud Subcommittee (Boston Clearing House) . High Tedi Crime Investigators
Association (HTCIA). International Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. International Association of
Financial Crimes Investigatois (lAFCI). and die International Association of law Enforcement and Intelligence
Analysts. The division member with the lAFCI membership helped plan the curriculum and coordinate
lAFCI's 2002 International Conference, which drew more than 1,000 lAFCI members from around the
world to Boston in September 2002.

Internally, division members are members of the Attorney General's Benefits Committee, Elder Task
Force, Office- Wide Health Care Committee, and Public Records Office. They also have volunteered as
tutors at the Paul McLaughlin Center.

As part of the Attorney General Institute {AG Institute) . division members have prepared and taught
training sessions to their colleagues as well as personnel from outside referral agencies and groups such as

Arson Investigators Association. Boston Chapter of the International Association of Certified fraud txaminers.
Boston Clearing House, and the Southeastern Massachusetts Fraud Investigators Association.

CRIMINA1.BURF.au SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

Presentations iiu Iiidecl:

• Financial Investigative Techniques

• How to Acquire Bank Records and Wliat Information They Provide

• Interview and Report Writing Techniques

During the 2003 Fiscal Year, division members attended the following trainings:

AG Institute Grand Jury Practice

Bentley College Cyberspace

CFE Electronic Organized Crime

Communicating with Crime Victims with Disabilities

Encase Computer Forensics

HTCIA Forensic and Operational Security

Kroli Financial Statement Training

National White Collar Crime Committee Financial Investigations Practical Skills

United States Custom Electronic Funds Tracing

Westlaw

The divisions Intern program seeks to provide a valuable one-semester training experience for interested
students who have a backgiound 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
bom graduate and undergraduate programs throughout New England.

SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

The first Safe Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) partnership was established in Dorchester in February
1993 by the Office of the Attorney General, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, the Mayors
Office of the City of Boston, and the Boston Police Department. Based on the premise that no single
entity alone can solve all problems faced by a community the SNI Division provided a framework for
community residents and serv ice providers to work collaboi atively with law enforcement and government
agencies to identify and address priority public safety and quality-of life issues in the community. The
SNI model has been replicated in a number of communities across the Conunonwealth — each using a

CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFF. NEIGIIFSORHOOD INITIATlVt: DIVISION

somewhat different approach. Some are law enforcement-driven while others are community-driven,
but all are organized around these core principles of coordinated law enforcement: neighborhood
revitalization, and prevention, intervention, and treatment. During Fiscal Year 2003, the Office of the
Attorney General participated in active SNI partnerships in Taunton, Brockton, Orange, and the Grove
Hall and Dorchester neighborhoods of Boston. In addition to maintaining its various ongoing SNI
partnerships, the SNI Division embarks on a number of innovative community-based activities, many of
which are described in the sections below, to prevent crime and promote public safety.

During Fiscal Year 2003, division staff included Division Director Ellen Frank; Assistant Attorneys
General Jennifer Adreani, Linda DelCastilho, Katherine Hatch, Cheryl O'Connell, and Neil Tassel; and
staff members Helena Almeida, Jennifer Grigoraitis, Kristen Palma, Christina Ruccio, and Lenell Silva.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Community prosecution is critical to the coordinated law enforcement component of the SNI model.
As a result of their close and ongoing work with community partners, the assistant attorneys general
assigned to SNI establish roles beyond those of traditional prosecutors. They participate in regular
community meetings and special events, and serve as valuable resources for law enforcement, residents,
and local service providers. As a result of their direct community involvement, the SNI prosecutors are
able to assess issues of importance to the community, and help determine how resources from the Office
of the Attorney General, local District Attorneys' Offices, and other agencies are best utilized to address
those concerns. The Superior Court assistant attorneys general for the Dorchester and Grove Hall SNIs
prosecute major felonies consisting primarily of serious drug offenses (and repeat offenders) , large-scale
drug seizures, armed robberies, armed career criminals, and firearm offenses. The District Court assistant
attorneys general for the Grove Hall and Lawrence/Methuen partnerships prosecute primarily narcotics,
firearms, prostitution, and other quality of life offenses that are priorities for the respective communities.
The district court prosecutor for Orange prosecutes all district court cases arising from the Town of
Orange as well as other cases in the Orange District Court Jurisdiction involving defendants from Orange.
Summaries of examples of cases handled by SNI prosecutors are included below.

• Commonwealth v. Dawon Williams (Suffolk Superior Court) This defendant was well-
known to the police as a drug dealer and was thought to be moving operations into the downtown
area by squeezing out smaller dealers through violence and threats. An undercover officer was
introduced to him and purchased some cocaine. Because of the defendant's histoiy with firearms,
the police stopped him immediately and found him to be in possession of additional cocaine and

(RIM1NA1.BURF.au SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

a loaded Taurus firearm. He was indicted as an armed career ( rimiiial. After a plea, he was
sentenced to 10 to 12 years in State Prison.

• Cotnmonuealth v. lames Chariey (Suffolk Superior Court) Within 30 days after release
from an eight- to 1 2-year State Prison sentence for robbery, this defendant committed the first of
three robberies; the second and third robberies were committed less than two weeks later. All
three victims were women, and two were walking with small children at the time they were
robbed.

Robbery One: A woman was walking home from work after getting off a bus when the defendant
grabbed her by the jacket and said. "Give me the money or I'll shoot you." The defendant took
six rings, a compact disc player with earphones, and two $20 bills.

Robbery Two: A woman was walking on the street with her 3-year-old daughter when she was
approached by the defendant, who said, "Don't scream. I just want your purse." The victim was
fearful and gave the defendant her purse, which contained approximately $60, three social security
cards, and other personal items.

Robbery Three: Later that same day, another woman was approached by the defendant as she was
walking home from church with her 7-year-old daughter. The defendant demanded her money,
and when she refused, he hit and then kicked her. Police officers arrived on the scene and saw the
defendant running with a handbag under his arm and the victim chasing after him and screaming
for help.

The three robberies were joined for trial. There was a second trial on the habitual offender counts.
The defendant was found guilty as a habitual offender. He was sentenced on the robbery counts to three
concurrent life sentences.

• Commonwealth v. Fedley lean-Charles and Martel Horton (Suffolk Superior Court)
The gas station located on Blue Hill Avenue and Quincy Street had been the scene of numerous
violent incidents and disruptions in the community. Therefore, officers routinely checked plates
of cars going in and out of that location. At 3:40 one morning, officers stopped a motor vehicle
with a revoked license plate, and that vehicle was being operated by Martel Horton. As the first
ofilcer approached the operator, several other officers who had arrived to assist observed the
backseatpassenger, Fedley Jean-Charles, making a number of movements. Upon observing this
behavior, the officers removed Mr. jean-Chades from the vehicle. After a loaded .25-caliber
firearm was observed underneath the drivers seat, an inventory search was completed. In the
trunk, inside a bag placed on top of mail addressed to Mr. Horton, was a fully loaded 9mm

CRIMINAI, BURF.au SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVF- DIVISION

fireanii with a high-capacity clip (with 11 rounds in the clip and one in the chamber). Mr.
Horton also had three rounds of .25-caliber ammunition on his person while at the booking
desk.

Mr. Horton was indicted on two counts of Possession of a Firearm (under c. 269, § 10(a) for the .25-
caliber and 9iiim firearms; Possession of a High-Capacity Feeding Device; and three counts of Possession
of Ammunition. After trial, the defendant was found guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to two to
two and a half years and one day in State Prison for possession of the high-capacity clip and two additional
two to two and a half years and one day for possession of the .25-caliber and the 9mm firearms. All three
sentences were to run concurrently. For the three counts of possession of ammunition, he was sentenced
to two years probation from and after the State Prison sentence with the following conditions: seek and
maintain employment; obtain GED; and undergo random urine screens. Tiiis defendant was 22 years
old with no prior adult record.

Mr. Jean-Charles was indicted on one count of Possession of a Firearm (under c. 269, § 10(a)) for the
.25-caliber firearm and one count of Possession of Ammunition. After trial, the defendant was found
guilty on the fireami charge. He was sentenced to two to two and a half years in the House of Correction,
one year to serve and the balance suspended for two years, with the following conditions: seek and
maintain employment; complete two-year program at Roxbury Community College; and undergo random
urine screens. This defendant was 20 years old with no prior record.

• Commonwealth v. Christopher Chicoine (Orange District Court) The defendant was charged
with Entering a Dwelling in the Nighttime, Placing a Person in Fear, and Assault & Battery. The
defendant forced his way into his former girlfriend's house, where he assaulted her and her new
boyfriend. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two and a half years in the House
of Correction.

• Commonwealth v. lose Muniz, Ir. (Orange District Court) The defendant was charged
with Domestic Assault & Battery. The victim, his girifriend, was uncooperative with the
prosecution. The prosecutor filed a motion to have the defendant determined dangerous under
c. 276, § 58a. The victim testified in support of the defendant. The prosecutor proceeded on the
basis of the police report. The prosecutor also obtained copies of police reports from another
jurisdiction demonstrating the defendant's violent history of assaults involving guns and knives.
The defendant was determined to be dangerous under 58a and was held pending trial. The
victim continued to be uncooperative. On the day of trial, the defendant pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to 18 months in the House of Correction; 75 days to serve, the balance suspended for
one year.

CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFF NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

• Coriimoiivvealtli v. luvenile (Yoiitliful Offender) (Lawrence District Court) This 16-year-
oid juvenile and another boy approaciied three teenage boys who were standing outside a variety
store. The juvenile pointed a gun at the boys and demanded money and the items they had just
purchased. Wiien the boys refused and ran, the juvenile fired the gun several times, hitting one of
the Ijoys in the bark three times. The gun turned out to be a BB gun. Based on the serious and
violent nature of this iiuideiit, the age of the juvenile, and his prior record, this juvenile was
indicted as a youthful offender on charges of Armed Assault with Intent to Rob, Assault &
Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, and Assault. The matter is still pending at the time of this
report.

• Conmionwealth v. Inez lones (Roxbury District Court) At 1:20 AM officers from the
Boston Police Department responded to Brookledge Street upon report of an armed robbery.
On arrival, the officers spoke with the 73-year-old victim, who stated the defendant, a friend,
Ms. Inez Jones, put a 14-oz. can in a sock and began swinging it at the victim, hitting the walls
inside the apartment. Ms. Jones then grabbed a kitchen knife and yelled to the victim. Til kill
you for your money. " Jones then pushed the victim over a dining room table and chair, and
while holding the knife toward the victim in a threatening manner, reached into his pants pocket
and took $185. She then took the victim's keys and fled the apartment. The defendant was
arrested and charged with Armed Robbery, two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon on
a Person Over 60, and Assault & Battery. The victim was subsequently uncooperative with the
prosecution of the case and did not appear on the trial date.

The day of trial, the defendant pleaded guilty on all counts. She was sentenced to 18 months in
the House of Correction, 140 days to sei-ve (time sei-ved), the balance suspended for one year
with probation, and the following conditions: a mentoring program, drug and alcohol treatment,
and an order to stay away from the victim. The defendant had a serious prior record and
approximately 12 aliases. Without the cooperation from the victim, however, it would have
been difficult if not impossible to proceed to trial.

• Commonwealth v. Edelmiro Vasquez (Roxbury District Court) At approximately 8 PM
one evening, officers from the Boston Police Department Drug Control Division (DCU), with
the assistance of the Entiy and Apprehension team, went to execute a search warrant at 51
Holworthy Street, basement apartment. As the officers arrived at the address, two males ran
from the driveway next to the apartment building to the back porch area. There were three back
porches, one on top of the other, and a window next to each. The two males (one being the
defendant) climbed up to the second floor porch and tried unsuccessfully to enter through the
porch door. He then climbed through the window next to the porch and into a stairwell.

CRIMINAL BURHAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

Officers then observed the defendant open the third-floor window (located directly above the
window he had gone through previously) and attempt to throw an object up onto the roof,
which fell to the ground at the officers' feet. The object was a Ruger Onini semi-automatic
handgun with one live round in the chamber.

The entry team entered the building and secured the occupants. In the rear stairway (the same
stairway the defendant entered the building from the second-floor window, and the same stairway
that accessed the third-floor window from where the defendant was seen throwing the gun),
officers found a 9mm magazine for a Ruger handgun with 10 rounds of ammunition. The
defendant was located in the third-floor apartment. He was bleeding from his hand, and officers
found blood on the second-fioor window, from which he had entered the building. The search
warrant was executed in the basement apartment, where the defendant allegedly lived. Officers
recovered five bags of heroin, small zip-lock bags, a plastic bag with numerous smaller plastic
bags in it, a hand-held scale, a gun cleaning kit, one live round of 9inm ammunition, house keys,
and personal papers in the defendant's name.

The defendant was arrested and charged with Possession of a Firearm; Possession of a Firearm
With an Obliterated Serial Number; Possession of Ammunition; Possession of a High-Capacity
Feeding Device (this charge was dismissed when it was determined that the case would stay in
district court); and Possession of Class A with Intent to Distribute.

After trial, the defendant was found guilty on the firearms charges (the high-capacity charge was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) and was found not guilty of the drug charge. On the three
counts that the defendant was convicted of he was sentenced to two and a half yeare in the House
of Correction, one year to serve, balance suspended for three years.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS. AND ACTIVITIES

BROCKTON SNI

The Office of the Attorney General supports the position of the SNI Community Liaison, who is
based in the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office, and works closely with that office and the
other principal partners from the City of Brockton and the Brockton Police Department as well as with
community residents and service providers. The Brockton SNI Advisory Council meets monthly to
identify and address community concerns primarily related to crime and public safety. The Brockton
SNI collaborates with community service providers and public agencies on a number of initiatives. Two

CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

examples of initiatives from this year are listed below. Additionally, a description of the Dhcniiyaiid
( uliuial ( })ni/)rfrnn' (}}uii Pinjcci appears ill the section " Byrne Memorial Grants. "

Vacant Lot/Neighborhood Clean-Ups: Ihis initiative is a partnership among the
Plymouth County District Attorneys Office, the Mayor's Office, the Office of Community
Corrections, and the Department of Public Works. The purpose of the project is to provide
community residents with assistance in cleaning vacant lots and neighborhood streets in the SNI
that may pose crime or health and safety hazards when not maintained.

Landlord Notifications: The purpose of this initiative is to provide notification to
landlords whose tenants have been charged with drug-related offenses. Landlords are given
information regarding their obligations to maintain the safety of their properties. The SNI
Community Liaison works with the District Attorney's Office on this initiative and is responsible
for implementing the system for notifications.

rJQRCHFSl Fl^ SNI

The Dorchester SNI Advisory Council continued to meet monthly to identify and address the most
pressing issues, including those that have consistently plagued the community such as youth violence,
truancy, and a lack of job and training opportunities. The Boston Police Department and other law
enforcement partners focused primarily on "impact players' and quality-of-life issues, while other service
providers focused on providing after school programming that offered recreational, educational, and job
training programs. In order to help bolster the capacity of community agencies to address these issues, the
Office of the Attorney General allocated $200,000 of its Fiscal Year 2003 budget to seven community-
based agencies and the Boston Police Department for crime prevention initiatives in the SNI target area.
Additionally, with $187,500 in Byrne Memorial Grant funds from the Executive Office of Public Safety,
the SNI Division and Dorchester SNI partners implemented the first year of the Dorchester Youth and
Family /'/w/Vrrdescribed in the "Byrne Memorial Grant" section later in this report.

GROVF. HAil SNI

In October 2002, the Grove Hall SNI entered its seventh year as an officially recognized Weed and
Seed site as designated by the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Weed and Seed. At that time,
the Department of Justice, through the the Office of the Attorney General, awarded $225,000 to the
Grove Hall SNI/Boston Weed and Seed Site to support its activities centered on the four core Weed and
Seed principles: (1) Law Enforcement: (2) Community Policing: (3) Neighborhood Restoration: and (4)
Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment. The Attorney General sub-contracts all Weed and Seed funds
to the Boston Police Department and other community-based agencies serving the neighborhood.

CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

Each year the Grove Hall SNI/Boston Weed and Seed Site's Coordinating Council holds seven
regular meetings and five community meetings attended by dozens of community residents, in addition
to representatives from law enforcement, government agencies, courts, service providers, and faith-based
organizations.

On January 15, 2003, Attorney General Reilly was sworn in to his second term in Office at the
Jeremiah E. Burke High School in Grove Hall. Several hundred staff from the Office of the Attorney
General and numerous guests attended the event. The Attorney General selected the Burke High School
as the location for his inauguration in order to recognize and honor the successful collaboration among
community residents, government agencies, sewice provider, and law enforcement in their crime prevention
and community development efforts.

ORANGE SNI

The newly formed Orange SNI is a collaboration of the Office of the Attorney General and the
Northwestern District Attorneys Office, with the Town of Orange, the Orange Police Department,
community residents, educators, government agencies, and service providers. The Orange SNI Advisory
Council meets on a monthly basis and this year worked toward identifying priority public safety and
quality-of-iife issues. The assistant attorney general assigned to the Orange District Court prosecutes
criminal cases occurring in the Town of Orange and offenses committed by Orange residents in other
towns in the court's jurisdiction. Her caseload primarily involves offenses including domestic violence
and other assaultive conduct, breaking and entering, and substance abuse involving both alcohol and
narcotics.

TAUNTON SNI

The Taunton SNI continues to focus on law enforcement, prevention, and neighborhood restoration
through its sub-committees and collateral activities (i.e., Criminal Justice, Treatment and Prevention,
Education, Neighborhood, Crisis Intervention Team, Community Crisis Spiritual Care Response Team) .
The City ofTaunton plays a pivotal role in leading the efforts of SNI. In addition to participating on the
SNI Advisory Council, this year, the SNI Division continued to facilitate the collaboration of the Office
of the Attorney General with the City ofTaunton and Pro-Home, Inc. on the rehabilitation of the
previously abandoned single-family home on Highland Street. The rehabilitation was completed during
the year. The property was scheduled to be sold below cost to a qualified first-time home-buyer selected
by lottery in August 2003.

LAWRENCE AND METMUEN WEED AND SEED SITES

SNI staff represent the Attorney General on the steering committees of both the Lawrence and
Methuen Weed and Seed Coalitions, each in its second year as an officially recognized Weed and Seed site

CRIMINAL BURRAU SAFF. NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

as designated by the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Weed and Seed. Additionally, the
Office of the Attorney General supports the Lawrence and Methuen Weed & Seed efforts through tlie
provision of the Lawrence/Methuen Arlington Safe Neighborhood Initiative Community Prosecutor
and through Generating New Capacity as described in the section below on "Byrne Memorial Grants."

SNI lOlJS FOR YOU ill

One of the major SNI Division efforts aimed at prevention and intpiientioii is the SNI JOBS FOR
YOUTH Program. The program, which started in 1996. has grown from employing 23 youth in five
communities in that year to employing more than 60 young people in nine communities throughout the
state in Fiscal Year 2003. JOBS FOR YOUTH sites offer job opportunities throughout the year. Each
of the JOBS FOR YOUTH sites is described below.

• Boston Twenty-four youths from the Grove Hall and Dorchester SNI target areas were employed
through the City of Boston's Centers for Youth and Families. The goal is to provide employment
opportunities, hands-on training, safe havens, and adult support. Partnering with local businesses
and agencies. Bostons Centei^s for Youth and Families placed young people in a variety of positions,
enabling theni to learn skills related to entrepreneurship, leadership, and civic duty. Placements
included local conununity centers, private businesses, and neighborhood social sei-vices agencies.

• Holyoke Holyoke's JOBS FOR YOUTH program is administered by the Teen Resource Project,
which serves youths from low -income neighborhoods, particularly in downtown Holyoke. This
program reinforces literacy skills, education, and responsible work behavior, and over the course
of the year, helps five youths aged 13 to 15. Youths assisted as readers and mentors, and read to
younger children at sites including family shelters and after-school programs.

• Worcester The JOBS FOR YOUTH program in Worcester, run by the YMCA of Greater
Worcester, serves at-risk youths in the Worcester area. Ten youths, aged 15 to 18, participated
during the year and were employed as computer tech assistants, office assistants, camp counselors,
and medical assistants. The participants also completed a 19- week employment training program
and perfornied 100 hours of volunteer work.

• Brockton The Old Colony YMCA in Brockton just completed its seventh year as a JOBS FOR
YOUTH site. The program serves teens in the Brockton area who are enrolled in school or
another educational program. The programs goal is to provide job opportunities, educational
trainings, and recreational activities. This year the three teens aged 1 5 to 1 7 worked at an after-
school community center.

• Lynn Lynn's program is administered by the City of Lynns Office of Economic and Community
Development and serves disadvantaged and at-risk youths. During this fiscal year, the program

CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

employed five teens wlio worked in various positions at after-school programs and community
arts programs.

• Taunton Six youths aged 16 to 19 were placed through the Taunton Department of Human
Sei-vices during this fiscal year. The youths were assigned to various city agencies, including the
Taunton Public Schools, Taunton Public Library and the Department of Human Services. The
program's goal is to provide employment and educational opportunities to youths to build skills
and future employment capability.

• Springfield The Springfield SNI JOBS FOR YOUTH program is administered through the
Springfield Southwest Community Health Center and seiA/es youths from low-income families.
The program provides youths with opportunities to increase their employability self-esteem,
and knowledge and skills in the area of health promotion. Five youths aged 13 to 18 were
employed as Youth Health Liaisons during this fiscal year. They participated in delivering health
education information, including violence prevention, to other youths at local community centers
and assisted with MassFiealth and Health Center enrollment.

• New Bedford Eleven at-risk youths aged 17 to 20 from 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 youths to become employed and to continue their
education. Internship placements included local businesses, courthouses, colleges, social senice
agencies, and the City of New Bedford.

• Chelsea Thisyearmarked the City of Chelsea's eighth year as a JOBS FOR YOUTH site. In
addition to employment, the program offers opportunities for recreational team-building and
for helping youths develop skills that enable them to choose challenging careers. This fiscal year,
the program provided positions for seven Chelsea teens at several area businesses and city agencies,
including the Chelsea Public Library and Chelsea Cable TV.

BYRNE MEMORIAL GRANTS

• Diversity and Cultural Competency Court Project: More than 100 participants from the
Brockton Trial Court took park in this one-year pilot project. Six 90-minute lunchtime diversity
and cultural competency workshops were held at the Brockton courthouse during the months of
February and March. In June, Brockton's Cape Verdean Association hosted a workshop where
staff from the Brockton Trial Court volunteered to describe their respective courts and how the
community can access court resources. Staff from the association described their mission and the
services they provided to the Brockton community. During the next year, the Brockton SNI will
extend this second component by facilitating additional workshops where volunteer panelists
from the court participate in workshops hosted by other organizations in the community that

CRIMINAL. BURKAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

serve divene populations. The Office of the Attorney General fontril)iiteci the required 25%
hard cash matching funds for this project.

• Dorchester SNI Youth and Family Project: The Dorchester Youth and Family Project began its
first year and complemented the ongoing efforts of the Dorchester SNI, focused on the diverse
youth in the SNI target area. Funding and programming supported a variety of programming to
coordinate enrichment and recreational activities for youths and a middle-school tiuancy initiative.
Additionally, a Byrne fund also supported training police officers on issues related to child w itnesses
and violence, and expanding therapeutic resources for adolescent witnesses to violence. The sub-
grantees contributed the required 25 percent hard cash matching funds for this project.

• Generating New Capacity: Generating New Capacity was a one-year project aimed at bolstering
the capacity of small community-based organizations to build meaningful collaborations with
law enforcement entities in order to plan effective and fundable programs. More than 40
community agencies participated in parallel workshop series that consisted of training on program
development and evaluation, and grant-writing. One series was geared to agencies in the Dorchester
and Gro\ e Hall SNI/Boston Weed and Seed Site target areas, and the other was geared to agencies
serving the Lawrence Weed and Seed Site target area.

• Lawrence/Methuen Arlington Safe Neighborhood Initiative Community Prosecutor: In
December 2003. an assistant attorney general was assigned to the Essex County District Attorney's
Office to provide a district court community prosecution component to Lawrence and Methuen
Weed and Seed initiatives. The SNI community prosecutor maintains a caseload consisting
primarily of priority quality-of-life offenses arising from the targeted Arlington neighborhood,
which spans the cities of Lawrence and Methuen. The prosecutor also seeks to improve
coordination and communication between law enforcement and the community through regular
attendance at relevant public safety and community meetings in both cities. The Office of the
Attorney General contributed the required 25 percent hard cash matching funds for this project.

• SNI Community Re-Entry Project: The Re- Entry Project began its second year of funding
during Fiscal Year 2003 and is integrated with the efforts of the Dorchester and Grove Hall SNIs.
There are two project components: (I) the Grove Hall component focuses on juvenile offenders
1 4 years old to 2 1 years old returning to the Grove Hall neighborhood upon release from custody
in a Department of Youth Services secure treatment facility: and (2) the Bowdoin-Geneva
component focuses on offenders 17 years old to 24 years old returning to the Bowdoin-Geneva
neighborhood, following a period of incarceration at the Suffolk County House of Correction.
Both components utilize an enhanced case-management model to provide the necessary assistance
for participants to successfully return to their communities. Re-entry coordinators for each
component manage a caseload of 20 to 30 offenders over the year.

CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

The principal partners coordinating with the Office of the Attorney General on the Grove Hall
component are: the Department of Youth Services; Roxbury Youthworks, Inc.; the Boston Police
Department, and tiie Suffolk County District Attorney's Office. The principal partners coordinating
with the Office of the Attorney General on the Bowdoin-Geneva component are: the Suffolk County
Sheriff's Department, Community Resources for Justice, Inc., the Boston Police Department, and the
Dorchester District Court Probation Department. The sub-grantees and the Boston Police Department
provided the required 50 percent hard cash matching funds for this project.

• YES Project; The YES Project was established in the fall of 2000 in response to a need for after-
school and violence prevention programming, as identified by the Dorchester Safe Neighborhood
Initiative. The YES Project established a partnership between the Office of the Attorney General
and the Colonel Daniel Marr Boys and Girls Club/Paul R. McLaughlin Youth Center in
Dorchester. The Project aims to provide teens with supervised after-school activities that offer
meaningful life skills education to help youths overcome the negative influences that can lead to
school failure, substance abuse, involvement in the criminal justice system, or victimization by
crime. The YES Project also provides training and educational programming for McLaughlin
Center staff.

The YES Project Manager, in collaboration with McLaughlin Center staff, continued to develop and
implement the YES Project curriculum. More than 100 volunteers, mostly from the Office of the
Attorney General, participated in implementing YES Project activities this year. Examples of the YES
Project activities for youth continued this year were:

• Weekly one-on-one academic tutoring for approximately 30 youths:

• Workshops on topics ranging from Internet safety to substance abuse prevention to health and
safety for working teens;

• A two-day workshop for peer leaders on conflict resolution and mediation skills;

• A college preparation program, including: college alumni panels, application workshops, financial
aid sessions, college tours, and essay-writing workshops:

• Ballet and tap dance classes taught by volunteers from the Office of the Attorney General; and

• A holiday toy drive.

Each of these activities was implemented with volunteers from the Office of the Attorney General.
Staff trainings included topics such as: the juvenile justice system; conununications skills; 5 1 A mandatoiy
reporting and family violence prevention; health and safety for working teens; and child labor laws.

(RlMINAl.BUHKAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION

A major focus of the YES Project dui iiig this tliiid and final year of Byrne funding was development
and filing of Undvisi^unling Violence, a documentary created to help youth explore the underlying causes
and consequences of violence. The film was developed in collahoration with the Gang Unit of the
Suffolk County District Attorney's Office and The Mirror Project. It will be a part of a six-session
violence prevention curriculum also developed by the YES Project this year. Ihe film and curriculum
will eventually be distributed to Boys and Girls Clubs and other youth-serving agencies across the
Commonwealth. Additionally, to ensure the sustainability of the YES Project beyond Byrne funding,
the YES Project Manager began development of a comprehensive YES Project curriculum, which
documents the many YES Pioject activities and provides materials so activities may be replicated. The
YES Project curriculum will also be distributed to Boys and Girls Clubs across the Commonwealth.

The Office of the Attorney General provided the required 50 percent hard cash matching funds for
the YES Project.

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

The philosophy of the SNI is predicated on partnering with community stakeholders to enhance
public safety and quality of life for neighborhoods. As such, all SNI staff regularly participate in formal
and informal outreach activities to solidify existing working relationships as well as to build new ones.
Moreover, SNI staff serve as a resource, providing technical assistance and training, both formally and
informally, to community partners. Many of the SNI Divisions outreach, education, and training activities
are described in the previous sections of this lepoit.

GOVERNMENT BUREAU

Administrative Law Division
Trial Division

(;0\'F,RNMF.NT BUREAL'

Government Bureau

The Coxcrnnicnt Bureau provides representation tor the C^oniinonwealrh and its agencies and
ofUcials in all tj'pcs of civil litigation, and tor employees of the (ionimonwealth 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 litigation. As in previous years, the buieau in Fisc.il Year 2(30.i continued its efforts to
develop and maintain close working relationships with agency counsel, and to provide them with
intorni.ition and atlvice on matters ot broad common interest.

The Ciovernment Bureau consists ot an Administrative law Division and a IVial Division. During
Fiscal Year 2003, several attorneys were a.ssigned to work permanendy 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. Both divisions initiated affirmative litigation on behalf of state agencies and the
Commonwealth and submitted 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 also is responsible for the 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 i.s.sues 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 t]uestions are of
the t\pe that may lawfully appear on the ballot.

Lhe Trial Division defends suits seeking damages or tnher relief for alleged wrongful acts of
government officials or employees, particularly torts, real estate matters, contract-related disputes,
employment disputes, civil rights violations, 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.

During Fiscal Year 2003. the Government Bureau included the following staffmembers: Stephanie
Lovell, Chief; Sherrie Costa; Peter Sacks; and Ernest Sarason. Staff members assigned to particular
divisions within the Government Bureau .ire listed below.

GOVERNMENT BUREALl

AFFIRMATIVE LITIGATION

Both the Administrative Law Division and the Trial Division initiate affirmative Htigation on behalf
of the Commonwealth, when such litigation is in the public interest; furthers the Attorney General'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
litigation in Fiscal Year 2003 to protect the public interest and the interests of its state agency clients.
Highlights of this affirmative litigation were as follows:

• Commonwealth v. Dolphin Forw arding, Inc. and Mary M. White (Suffolk Superior Court)
The Attorne)' General filed suit on behalf of the state Department of F'ducation against a
storage compan\' and its owner for allowing $ 1 .6 million of iood owned by the department and
local school districts to become contaminated. 1 he United States Department oi Agriculture
had donated the food to the department for school lunch programs.

• Commonwealth v. Eligia Ratchell (Suffolk Superior Court) The Attorney General filed
suit on behalf of the State Board of Retirement to recover $28,600 mistakenly overpaid to a
former state employee.

• Metropolitan District Commission v. T Equipment (Suffolk Superior Court) After filing
suit on behalf of the MDC to recover rent from tenant who continued to use the propert)' after
it had been acquired for park purposes, the Attorney General entered into an agreement for
judgment ret]uiring the defendant to pay $100,000.

• Griffin v. Heck (Suffolk Superior Court) A former state emploj'ce filed a lawsuit against
the owner of the office building where she had allegedly become ill. On behidf of the State
Board of Retirement, the Attorney General intervened to recoup some of the disabilit)' retirement
benefits previously paid to the plaintiff

• Commonwealth and CityofEasthampton v. William Chicoine (Hampshire Superior Court)
The Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, filed suit to enforce the
terms of an Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR). The defendant had allegedly violated
the APR by subdividing the subject parcel into two lots of property.

• Criminal History Systems Board v. Harold E. Archambeau. Jr.. Chief of Police of the
Town of Becket. and Pittsfield District Court (Berkshire Superior Court) On behalf of the
Crimiuid History Systems Board, the Attorney General intervened in an action in Pittsfield
District Court seeking judicial review of the decision of the Becket licensing authorit}' to deny

102

govi-.rnmi-:n 1 bi-'real- admimst rativf law division

a license to earn- a firearm to an applicant who had a scaleJ criminal record. After the Oistrict
(lotirt reversed the licensiiii; authority s decision, the Board a[i[iealed to the Superior Court,
which restored the decision of the licensing aiithorit}' deiu'ing the license.

• Total Highway Services, Inc. v. Smith v. Metropolitan District Commission (MDC)
(Middle.sex Superior Court) After the MDC had been named a third-party defendant in a
motor vehicle negligence action, the Attorney General on behalf of the MDC filed a counterclaim
against the construction company for damaging the MDC's bridge. At a jury trial, the MDC
was awarded $106,000 in damages plus interest.

• Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) v. Hodgdon d/b/a Blue Hills Adventure

(Suffolk Superior C'ourt) Prior to Fiscal Year 20{)3> the Attorne\' Ceneral, on behalf of the
MDC;, had obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the defendant from advertising,
conducting, and charging his customers for adventure outings on MDC property without
having first obtained the necessary permits from the MDC. In Fiscal Year 2003, the Attorney
Cieneial returned to Suffolk Superior Court to obtain an amended preliminar}' injunction after
it became evident that the defendant was violating the spirit of the original injunction by
.seeking donations for his outings.

• Commonwealth v. Young Dimensions Day Care (Suffolk Superior Court) On behalf of
the (Office of Child Care Services (OCCS), the Attorne)' Ceneral filed a lawsuit against a day
care pro\ider which had allegedly misappropriated $750,000 of state contract funds.

C.overnment Bureau attorneys also litigated cases through the Attorney Generals Abandoned
Housing Project. The project is designed to assist communit)- groups in choosing and appointing their
own people to take over abandoned houses that, due to the absentee owners' indifference, have created
a health, safety, and crime hazard for the community. The Attorney General assists the communit}'
groups by petitioning the appropriate court for an order that permits the community group 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 communit\' group work together on the actual repair and
rehabilitation of the propert}-.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

The Administrative l.aw Division has four principal functions: ( 1 ) to defend lawsuits against state
officials and agencies concerning the validity of statutes and regulations and the legalirv- of governmental
t)perations, particularly those seeking injunctive or declaratory relief; (2) to defend suits for judicial

GOVERNMFNT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW rMVISION

review of adjudicatory decisions of state administrative agencies; (3) to undertake a leg;iJ review of
newly enacted town by-laws; and (4) to prepare 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 2003, significant events occurred in each of these areas, as set forth below.

During Fiscal Year 2003, the Administrative Law Division included the following staff members:
Judith Yogman, Division Chief; William Porter, Division Chief; James Arguin; Luna Bacon; Dena
Barisano; Thomas Barnico; John Bowman; Krin Browne; Romeo Camba; Judith Cassino; Julie Collins;
Pierce Cray; Daniel Hammond; John Hitt; Quinette Littleton; Bernadette Lovell; Maite MacDonald;
Maria Makredes; Pauline O'Brien; Susan Paulson; Anthony Penski; Christopher Quaye; Robert Quinan;
William Reynolds; Juliana Rice; Deirdre Roney; Adam Simms; Ginny Sinkel; Amy Spector; Steven
Thomas; Peter Wechsler; Richard Weitzel; Jane Willoughby; and Sheila York.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Highlights of some of the most significant cases handled by the Administrative Law Division in
Fiscal Year 2003, grouped by subject matter, are as follows:

ELECTIONS

• First v. Attorney General (Supreme Judicial Court) The court rejected a claim by registered
voters that the Attorne)' Generals ballot summary of an initiative petition concerning bilingual
education was unfair and should therefore disqualif)' the measure from the ballot.

• Pawiick V. Birmingham (Supreme Judicial Court) Plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring
that the Senate President, in his individual capacity, acted unlavvhill)- in tailing to cause a joint
session of the Legislature to vote on a proposed initiative amendment to the state constitution.
The Court reaffirmed its prior holding that declaratory relief is not available against a Senate
President in his official capacit)- with respect to a joint sessions action on proposed initiative
amendments to the Constitution. The Court also held that declarator)' relief was not available
against the Senate President in his individual capacity, because in that capacity he had no duties
with respect to the proposed amendment.

SEPARATION OF GOVERNMHNTAl. POWERS

• First Justice of the Bristol Division of the Juvenile Court Department v. Clerk-Magistrate
of the Bristol Division of the Juvenile Court Department (Supreme Judicial Court) Two trial

104

(X^VERN.VIENT BUREAL' ADMINISIRAHS E LAW DIVISION

court justiu-s .isscrtc-d th.u recently cn.Ktcil statutes luicoiisiituiioii.illy unilcnninctl the ability
ni the juchci.uy to control and super\ise trial court clerks, assistant clerks, and probation officers.
The Stipreme Judicial C^oiut held that: (I) the statutes, when narrowl)' construed, did not
unconstituiionally i.lepri\e tii.il cotirt judges oi their inherent judicial .uithority to supervi.se
and control personnel, ,ukI (2) en.ictnient oi the cli.illenged prosisioiis in "outside .section.s" in
a geneial .ippropriation bill ilid not violate Amemlment Article (^^ oi tiie Massachuscrt.s
Constitution.

DELIVERY OF LEGAL. SERVK.F.S

• Brown V. Legal Foundation of Washington (LLS. Supreme Court) Legal clients argued
that the Interest on l..i\\yers' IVust Accounts (lOLTA) program in the State of Washington
violated the lakings Clau.se of the Fifth Amendment. Under the Washington lOLl'A program
(and similar programs in ever\' other state), interest earned on pooled client trust accounts
holding only short-term or nominal funds is used to fund civil legal services for indigent persons.
Ihe Supreme Clourt upheld the program, finding that clients whose funds were pooled suffered
no pecuniar)' loss. The Attorney (ieneral co-authored an amicus brief signed by 36 states in
support of the position adopted by the Court. After the Brown decision was issued, a similar
challenge to the Massachusetts lOLTA program pending in U.S. District Court in Boston was
dismissed.

• Ruci V. Clients Security Board (Appeals Court) The Appeals Court affirmed in part and
remanded in part a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing a claim by a convicted tinirderer
that he was entitled to reimbursement from the Clients' Security Fund because of misconduct
by his defense attorney.

EDUCATION

• Student No. 1 v. Board of Education (United States District Court and Suffolk Superior
Court) Cases were filed in both federal and state courts on behalf of several students in the
high school Class of 2003 seeking to block implementation of the Board's new requirement
that students must pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive As.sessment S\'stem (MCAS) test or
its equivalent in order to graduate from high school. Both courts denied the students" motions
for a preliminar)' injunction against the graduation requirement. In the state court case, a
Superior Court judge rejected the students" claim that the graduation requirement conflicted
with the state Education Reform Act. In the federal case, the Court denied a preliminar}'
injunction motion asserting that the graduation requirement violated the Due Process Clause
of the United States Constitution. As a result of these two rulings, the graduation requirement
went into effect as scheduled in June 2003.

GOVERNMENT BUREALI ADMINI.STR.ATIVE LA'X' ni\'lSIO\'

• Comfort V. Lynn School Committee (U.S. District Court) After a bench tri;il, the Court
held that the Ct)mni()nwealth'.s voluntary public school desegregation law and the public school
student assignment plan, adopted by the City of Lynn pursuant to the law, did not violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the I4th Amendment. Plaintiffs have appealed.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

• Philip Morris, Inc. v. Reilly (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) The Court, sitting en
banc , held that the Massachusetts Tobacco Ingredients and Nicotine Yield Act violates the
Takings Clause ot the Fifth Amendment because it allows public disclosure of trade secret
tobacco ingredient information.

• Rosie D. V. Swift (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) In this action by Medicaid-eligible
minors diagnosed with severe psychiatric or behavioral disorders, the Court held that the
plaintiffs' attempt to enforce in court their claim of entitlement to particular medical services
under the federal Medicaid act was not barred by sovereign immunity, notwithstanding that
the Medicaid statute expressly prescribes a limited remedial scheme for such claims in the form
of a fair hearing process.

• Roiland v. Romney (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) In this class action brought by
nursing home residents with mental retardation or otiier developmental disabilities, the Court
held that the defendant state agencies had a dut\' under federal law to provide "specialized
services" to the plaintiffs in a way that results in active treatment when combined with services
provided by nursing facilities and others, if screening deems such services necessary.

• McGuire v. Reilly (U.S. District Court) In this action, anti-abortion advocates challenged
a state law that requires those engaged in protest, education, or counseling to observe a six-foot
"buffer zone" around persons entering reproductive health care facilities. The Court held that
the law does not, on its face, violate the First Amendment, but decided that the plaintiffs
should be permitted an opportunity to attempt to prove that the law is unconstitutional "as
applied" to the plaintiffs' activities, and so the Court scheduled additional time for further
discovery.

• Atlanticare Medical Center v. Commissioner of the Division of Medical Assistance
(Supreme Judicial Court) After concluding that the federal Medicaid act mandates that the
state itself seek payment from third parties who are liable for Medicaid expenditures, the Court
held invalid a state regulation that required health care providers to reimburse Medicaid payments
the providers had received from the state and re-bill liable third parties who were belatedly
discovered.

106

GOVF.RNMKN r Bl RKAL' ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

• Hingham Healthcare Limited Partnership v. Division of Health Care Finance and Policy

(SiiprcnK- judicial (lourr) ihe (.'ourt upheld the division's dccisidu to implfnicin the l'^98
and 2()()() amendments to the Medicaid reimbursement rate methodoloi;y. 1 he ( !ourt conckided
that ( 1 ) substitution of a uniform capital payment for a cost-based approach was not in excess
of the division's statutory aiuhority; and (2) the division's use of a peer group cost analysis to
determine an efficiency-promoting uniform rate was not arbitrary or capricious, and actually
increased the rates of reimbursement of both of the plaintiff nursing homes.

• Athol Memorial Hospital v. Commissioner of the Division of Medical Assistance (Supreme
Judicial Court) In this appeal from denial of Medicaid reimbursement for services the division
deemed not medically necessary, the C^ourt held that the plaintiff medical providers were required
to exiiaust tiieir administrative remedies, even though they ( 1 ) st}'led their claims as breach-of-
contract; and (2) asserted that administrative review would have been confined to a c]uestion of
law, namely the validity of the agency's regulations.

• Doe V. Commissioner of Transitional Assistance (Supreme Judicial Court) The Court
held that a state law imposing a six-month residency requirement on qualified aliens seeking
benefits under a newly created supplemental program of transitional aid to families with
dependent children (TAFDC) did not violate equal protection. The Court concluded that the
statute was consistent with national policies regarding alienage, that it placed no burdens on
aliens be\'ond those imposed by federal law, and that the six-month residency requirement had
a rational basis in ensuring that aliens first attempt to be self-sufficient before applying for
state-funded welfare benefits.

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

• Department of Revenue v. Mason M. (Supreme Judicial Court) The Court held that
child support payments to a non-marital child were required to be increased so that there was
no di.scrimination between the father's non-marital and marital children under the Child Support
Guidelines. The Court also held that the trial judge erred: ( 1 ) in basing the support order on
the fathers presumptive income under the guidelines, instead of his greater actual income; and
(2) in refusing to consider his wile's income, since she had a duty to contribute to the support
of the two marital children and shared household expenses with the father.

• In re Emily (Appeals Court) The Court held that the trial court could not terminate the
parental rights of a parent for failure to ensure her child's attendance at school, when that child
was over age 16, the maximum age at which children are required by law to attend school.

GOVERNMENT BUREAl! ADMINISTR.\TIVE LANX' DIVISION

• Adoption of Rhona (Appeals Court) The Court vacated a decree terminating parental
rights, holding tliat a two-year delay between the end of the trial and issuance of the decree
called into question the accuracy ot the Juvenile Court's tactual findings.

�� Adoption of Roni (Appeals Court) In this termination-of-parental-rights case, the Court
held that ( 1 ) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the parents and their
interpreter from the courtroom during the children's testimon)'; and (2) in the circumstances,
the failure to complete the "72-hour hearing" (following removal of the children from the
parents' custody) within the statutorily prescribed period did not violate the parents' right to
due process.

EMPLO\TvlENT AND RETIREMENT

• State Police for Automatic Retirement Association v. DiFava (U.S. Court of Appeals, First
Circuit) The Court affirmed dismissal of a complaint by an association of state police officers
seeking to compel the Department of State Police to enforce a law requiring state police officers
to retire at age 55, where enforcement of that law had been enjoined by the U.S. District Court
in 1992. The Court held that the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
applied to the Commonwealth, barring enforcement of the state mandatory retirement age of
55, and did not provide plaintiffs with a private right of action to enforce the mandatory
retirement age under an ADEA "grandfather" clause.

• Greaney V. Colonel, Department of State Police (Supreme Judicial Court) Relying on the
state veterans' tenure act, a State Police major challenged his demotion to the rank of the
captain. The Court held that the act does not apply to a demotion of a major in the department.

• Hertz Corporation v. Acting Director of the Division of Employment and Training

(Supreme Judicial Court) In an employer's challenge to the division's award of unemployment
compensation to striking employees, the Court agreed with the division that because the main
business of the employer continued uncurtailed during the strike, the evidence supported a
finding that there was no "stoppage of work" such as would disqualify' striking employees from
receiving unemployment compensation.

• Athol Daily News v. Division of Employment and Training (Supreme Judicial Court)
The Court held that adult newspaper carriers who controlled the mode, means, and manner of
their delivery services and were free to deliver newspapers for other publishing companies were
not "employees" of Athol News entitled to imemployment compensation.

108

go\'ERNmf.ntbi:reai' administrativu law [:)ivisk)n

• Boston Bicycle Couriers. Inc. v. Deputy Director oFDivision of Employment and Training

(Appeals C^oiirt) The C^ourr iielcl rliat a bicvcle courier was an employee ofilie plaiiuifT courier
company, not an independent contractor, and that the compan\' was theiefore required to
make payments to the state unemployment compensation fund, '['he (^oiirt noted that the
courier was not an independent businessman with other customers and did not advertise his
services or maintain a separate place of business or telephone listing.

• Houde V. Contributory Retirement Appeals Board (Appeals Court) The Court affirmed
the denial of an application for accidental disability retirement benefits, rejecting the plaintiff's
claim th.it the physicians on hei medical panel were financially biased because the\' were associated
with an entir\- that did business with claimant's emplo\'er, the ("ity of C^ambridgc.

INSURANCE

• Bowler V. Hawke. as United States Comptroller of the Currency (LI.S. C'ourt of Appeals.
First Circuit) The Ma.ssachusetts Commissioners of Insurance and Banks filed a petition
challenging a ruling by the United States Comptroller of the Currency that federal law pre-
empts state laws governing the sale of insurance by banks. The petition wa.s dismissed on the
ground that it did not present a "regulatory conflict" within the meaning of the federal law that
authorizes expedited rexiew in the courts of appe;il.

• Ruthardt v. United States (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit ) The Court held that the
federal statute granting a priority to the United States in the distribution of insurance guaranty
funds pre-empted the claim-filing deadline established under Massachusetts law for claims by
creditors in insurance liquidation proceedings in state coiut.

T\X.\TION

• Circuit Cit\ Stores v. Commissioner of Revenue (Supreme Judicial Court) The Court
held that tangible personal property purchased at a Massachusetts store and picked up by a
customer at an out-of-state location is subject to Massachusetts sales and use tax, where tide
passed to the customer in Massachusetts.

• Sherwin-Williams v. Commissioner of Revenue (Supreme Judicial Court) Reversing the
Appellate lax Board, the Court held that ro\'alty payments to wholly owned subsidiaries for use
of trade names and trademarks were not sham transactions, but rather were motivated by valid
business purposes and were therefore deductible as business expenses.

• Route One Liquors v. Secretary of Administration and Finance (Supreme Judicial Court)
Parking lot owners challenged the constitutionality of an excise tax on the privilege of operating

GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

commercial parking lots near (jiilette Stadium in Foxboro. 1 he Court held that the tax was
constitutional because the operation of a commercial parking lot is a commodity subject to an
excise, and the tax statute had a public purpose and benefit, did not unreasonably treat parking
lot owners unequally, and was not facially invalid based on the amount of the tax. The Court
also held that the tiLx was not an unconstitutional taking of property.

• Tenneco v. Commissioner of Revenue (Appeals Court) The Court affirmed the Appellate
Tax Board's decision that monthly management fees received from the taxpayers corporate
subsidiaries were "net income" to the taxpayer.

UTILITIES

• Greater Boston Real Estate Board v. Department of Telecommunications and Energ y
(DTE) (Supreme Judicial Court) The Court held that the D IK lacked statutory authorit)' to
require apartment building owners to allow competing telecommunications carriers access to
attach wires and cables to such apartment buildings. The Court concluded that the buildings
were not "utilities" within the meaning of the relevant statute and therefore could not be subjected
to the non-discriminatory-access requirements applicable to utilities.

• City Council of Agawam v. Energy Facilities Siting Board (Supreme Judicial Court) 1 he
Court affirmed the Board's grant of approval for an electric utility to store fuel oil at its power
plant in Agawam. The Court also affirmed the Boards jurisdiction to issue the requested
approval, deferring to the Board's interpretation of the statutes it is charged with enforcing.

ALCOHOL AND FIREARM.S REGULATION

• Miller Brewing Co. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (Appeals Court) The
Court upheld the Commission's decision that (I) a beer manufacturer's extension of more
lenient credit terms to one wholesaler than to other wholesalers constituted unlawful price
discrimination, and (2) the manufacturer's sale of alcoholic beverages to a ship chandler that
lacked the required wholesaler and importer's license violated Massachusetts law.

• Dupont V. Chief of Police of Pepperell (Appeals Court) The Court held that a statute
under which a person convicted of a misdemeanor punishable b\' imprisonment for more than
two years is disqualified from obtaining a license to carry firearms should be construed to
include convictions that predate the enactment of the statute.

• Sullivan v. Department of State Police (Appeals Court) Relying on a regulatory prohibition
against selling guns from a residence, the Court affirmed the denial of a gun-sales permit to the
plaintiff, who was using garage space located under his home as the site for his gun-sales business.

110

GOVERNMENT BUREAr ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

I'lic Court rejected plaintiff's argument that the le^ulation thtl not .\pp\Y where there was a
separate entrance to the garage.

ADMINlSTRAlIVi: AND iUDICIAl. r'ROC:F.l)l'RF

• Paquettev. Department of Environmental Protection (Appeals Court) This case presented
the reciuring procedural cjuestion whether an appeal from an administrative agency decision is
timely where the appealing party files in court, moves for reconsideration before the agency,
and then does not refile in court after the agency denies the motion for reconsideration. The
Appeals (]ourt held that dismissal was inappropriate on the facts of this case because of the
preference for adjudication on the merits, the absence of prejudice to defendants, and the
unlikelihood ihat judicial review would disrupt the agency decision-making process.

• Putignano v. Treasurer and Receiver General (Appeals ('ourt) Due to plaintiff's contributor}'
negligence, the Court affirmed the dismissal of her cLiims against the Land C^oiut Assurance
Fund arising from the loss of title to her land.

PUBLIC RECORDS

• Globe Newspaper Company v. District Attorney for the Middlesex District (Supreme
judicial Court) The Court held that docket numbers on criminal cases that were not correlated
with an\' defendant-specific information were public records subject to mandatory disclosure.
The Court reasoned that this information was not protected under the Criminal Offender
Record Information (CORI) statute because docket numbers were within CORIs express
exception for chronologically maintained court records of public judicial proceedings.

• Globe Newspaper Company v. Commissioner of Education (Supreme Judicial Court) A
newspaper claimed that it should have received access to raw data concerning the Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment S\'stem (MCAS) in less than the 10 davs prescribed b\' statute for
responding to public records requests. The Court held that the release of public records within
10 days of receipt of a request is presumptively reasonable and that the newspaper had failed to
overcome the presumption in this case.

• Donahue v. City of Boston (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) The Court rejected
plaintiff's claim that various state officials had violated his civil rights by withholding certain
documents in alleged violation of the state public records law.

Ill

GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

During Fiscal Year 2003, the Administrative Law Division opened 832 cases and closed 497 cases.
At the close of the fiscal year, 1,617 cases were pending in the division. Cases handled by the division
resulted in 20 reported decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, 15 reported decisions of the
Massachusetts Appeals C^ourt, seven reported decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, and four reported decisions of the United States [district Cxiurt for tlie District of
Massachusetts. In addition, division attorneys were involved in numerous cases in those courts and in
state trial courts that resulted in unpublished decisions.

MUNICIPAL LAW UNIT

The Administrative Law Divisions 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 cit)' and town Home Rule Charter amendments (G.L. c.
43B).

During Fiscal Year 2003, the Municipal Law Unit included the lollowing staff members: Robert
Ritchie, Director; Sandra Giordano; Kelli Lawrence; and t^va Wanat.

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 or 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 ainendments, G.L. c. 43B prescribes that municipal charters
and charter amendments from any of the 33 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
afi:er receipt of a proposed charter amendment. The Attorney General is not required to review mimicipal
charters or charter amendments enacted by the Legislature in special acts.

During Fiscal Year 2003, the Municipal Law Unit reviewed: (a) 718 general by-laws, ofwhich 6S1
(93.9%) were approved, 42 (6.1%) were approved with partial deletion, 1 1 (1.6"(i) were disappro\ed,
and 14 (2.0%) were returned with a finding that no action b\' the Attorne)' (jcneral was required by

112

(.;(1\'tLRNMENT BUREAL' A[)MINIS I RAl IVK LAW l)l\'ISION

State law, (b) 88 1 zoning by-laws, ot which 825 (9S.4"'()) were approved, 40 (4.6%) were approved with
partial deletion, 13 (1.5".)) were disappro\ed, and three (0. ]"'()) were returned with a finding that no
action by the Attorney (ieneral was required by state law; (c)16() zoning map .uncndnients. .ill but one
oi which were approved; (d) five historic district by-laws, ot which all (100%) were approved; and (e)
24 charter aniendnients, of which all (100%) were found lo be consistent with state law.

Diuing Fiscal Year 2003, the authority conlerred b)- (diapter 299 of the Acts of 2000 was exerci.sed
in over 6S instances, an increase of 24 from the previous year. In all instances, no objection was filed to
the Attorney (ienerals waiver ot minor [iroceduriil deficiencies. There was one disapprov;il, howe\'er,
for a town's non-compliance with (Ihapter 299 and a partial disapproval of another town's submission
because of a substantive reason. Chapter 299 was also irsed on four occasions to e.\'tend the 90-dav
re\iew period b\- mutual consent of the town coimsel and the Attornev ( ieneral.

Abo\e and beyontl what is lequired by statute, b\- choice the Attorne)' Genera] has extended the
services and resources of his Mimicipal law Llnit b\- providing, time permitting, voluntary informal
review of proposed town by-law amendments, and — even though not subject to review by the Attornev
CJeneral — proposed cit)' ordinances. During Fiscal Year 2003 the unit experienced an increase in the
nimiber of calls from local public officials and members of the general public, many of which related to
anticipated changes in local laws and charters.

During Fisc.ij Year 2003, the imit experienced an increase in the number of cases in litigation in
which mimicipal law issues were involved. Flven where the Attorne\' General initialK' elected not to
intervene or otherwise participate in such cases, the unit monitored developments so that the Attorney
General could become involved if warranted by developments in the case. At the close of Fiscal Year
2003, unit attorneys were monitoring approximately 60 such matters, a slight increase over the previous
)'ear.

The most prevalent subjects of local regulation during Fiscal Year 2003 were by-laws regulating
affordable housing, telecommunications facilities, wetlands, open space, agricultural uses and structures,
and sexualh' oriented businesses. Inclusionar)' zoning by-laws were more in evidence this year than in
previous years.

Over time, unit personnel h.ive gradually incre.ised the units outreach efforts by writing and speaking
to groups all around the C^ommonwcdth. 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. Unit personnel participated in dozens of outreach and educational events during

Fiscal Year 2003.

113

GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION

Form 6 required for the submission of all by-laws was completely revised, and was presented and
explained at the town clerks conferences and meetings. Unit personnel attended the Massachusetts
Town Clerks Conferences to hold classes and to explain the necessity of the changes in the form used
for submitting the by-law packets. The unit also participated in the 3rd Annual Municipal Law Update
Conference.

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 that 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 wisciom of legislation or
administrative or executive policies are not addressed. Generally, formal opinions will not be issued
regarding 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 believes the question raised is one
that requires resolution by the Attorney General, the secretaiy then makes or approves the opinion
recjuest. During Fiscal Year 2003, no formal opinions were issued.

During the same time period, the Attorney General issued 27 letters providing informal advice,
providing a certification or designation to a federal agenci' in connection with the C^ommonwe.ilth's
participation in a federal [irogram, or declining to give advice.

TRIAL DIVISION

The Trial Division is responsible for defending the Commonwealth in civil cases brought against
the Commonwealth and its departments, agencies, and employees in a variety of actions primarily
consisting of tort, eminent domain, employment, contract, civil rights, and land registration actions.
Members of the division anah-ze each case at the outset to see if the case should be resolved through

114

COVERNMENTBLIREAL! TRIAL. DIMSION

settlement or in f.ivor of the ( 'onimonwe.illh hy elis|iositi\e motion. II Hot, the cise (iroecetls rliiough
the discovery phase, .ukI the tlivision eontiiuies to ti-\' to lesolve the e.ise thioiif^h setllement or b\- tiling
a suminan- judgment motion. Alteiiiative dis[nite resolution approaches are always considered and are
utilized at any appropriate .stage oFthe case. The experience of the Tri.il Division in lepreseiiiing rhe
(^ommonweaJth in civil hiw.suits is consistent with private practitioners in this aiea of law in that the
majority ofciises resolve prior to a trial. If the case goes to trial, the Trial Division aggressively defend.s
the Cxjmmonvvealth aiul its employees. The Trial Division also handles any appeals arising from its
cases, whether brought in state or federal court. Several appeal decisions are highlighted below. The
Trial Division has enjo\ed impressi\e results hy defending the C^ommonwealth and its employees in its
trials, resiiltitig in tiiiliions ot dollars in savings to the C^ommonwealrh and the public reserves.

During Mscal Year 2003, the Trial Division included the following staff metnbers: David Kerrigan,
Division C^hiet; jason Barshak; Matthew Herge; Oispin Birnbaum; John Bowen; Ratijatia Burke; Joseph
Callanan; Stephen (dark; Rosetiiary Connolly; Stephen Dick; Janet Elwell; Lisa Fauth; Susan Caeta;
Noritie Clatinoti; Salvatore Ciorlandino; Franco GoBourne; Mary Tiall; Michelle Kaczynski; Ronald
Kehoe; Jentiifer Tespinasse; Lucinda MacDonald; T^owaid Meshnick; Alicia Oladayiye; Maite Parsi;
Fran Riggio; Peter Rus.sell; A. Tom Smith; Mark Sutliff; James Sweeney; Marini Torres- Benson; Theresa
Walsh; Doris White; Je.ssica Wielgus; Nathaniel Wright; and Charles Wj^ianski.

TDRTS

Most of the trials conducted b\' tnembers of the Trial Division involve claims that the Commonwealth
or one of its employees breached a dut}- of care owed to a member of the public, resulting in injury or
property damage. The following cases are tj-j^iical of the tort cases tried by members of the division
tluring the course of the }-ear.

• Vann V. MDC (Suffolk Superior Court) The Commonwealth obtained a defense verdict in
this case in which plaintiff claimed that she slipped and fell while riding her biq'cle on a path
near the Hatch Shell. Plaintiff argued that the MDC was responsible because it had failed to
maintain the path in a safe manner. The division defended the case on the basis that the
recreational use statute barred the claim and based on the tact that the plaintiff tailed to show
what caused her tall. After a two-day jur\' trial, the jury returned a verdict for the C^ommonwealth.

• Bohne v. Cape Cod Community Colleg e ( Barnstable Superior Court) The plaintiff claimed
she was itijured as a result of a slip and fall on college property After the C'otnmonwealth
demonstrated that it was not liable for the condition that allegedl)' caused the tall and subsequetit
injuries, the jury returned a verdict for the Commonwealth.

lis

GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION

Many of the tort cases are also resolved through other means, such as dispositive mcnions or
settlement. The following cases are examples of resolutions achieved through those means:

• LaSaiie v. State Police (Essex Superior Court) The Commonwealth obtained dismissal on
the basis that the plaintiff had failed to make proper service of process, as required by the Rules
of Civil Procedure, within the allotted 90-day period.

• Mahoney v. MDC (Suffolk Superior Court) The plaintiff claimed that she was injured
after falling at an MDC rink due to hazardous conditions at the rink. The Commonwealth
obtained summary judgment on the basis that the recreational use statute barred plaintiff's
claim.

• Carle, Admininstratrix v. Department of Mental Health (Suffolk Superior Court) The
estate of a DMH patient on leave from a state hospital claimed that the Commonwealth and
several of its employees were negligent and violated the decedent's civil rights by not properly
monitoring him when he left the hospital. The patient was later found drowned in the Charles
River. The Commonwealth obtained summar}' judgment on the basis that the G.L. c. 258
immunities applied and that plaintiff could not meet her burden of proving causation.

• Lembryk v. Salem State Colleg e (Essex Superior Court) Plaintiff a soccer player from a
visiting team, sued after being injured at a soccer match b)' a Salem State phn^er. Plaintift
claimed that the college encouraged rough play, resulting in his injuiy. The C^ommonwealth
obtained summary judgment on the basis that it did not condone rough pla}' and that it could
not be held liable for injuries incidental to playing a contact sport.

• Kent v. Commonwealth (Supreme Judicial Court) This case involved a claim against
members of a parole board who were involved in the decision to release a prisoner. Eight years
later, the parolee shot a police officer, who then sued the Commonwealth. The Supreme Judicial
Court held that the Commonwealth has the right to immediately appeal from a denial of a
motion to dismiss based on the state's immunity ftom suit without having to wait until there is
a final judgment on the merits oi" all claims in the case. The court also ruled that the claim
against the Commonwe;ilth should have been dismissed, because the parole board's decision
did not "originally cause" the shooting, and thus the Commonwealth was immune from suit
underC.L. c. 258,§ 10(j).

In Fiscal Year 2003 several tort cases were successfully .settled, resulting in significant savings to the
Commonwealth. The following cases are t}'pical of the types of settlements reached in tort cases.

116

(^0\'F.RNMENT BUREAl' TRIAl Dl\ ISIONI

• Accardi v. Commonwealth (Middlesex Superior Court) The plaintifFsufFered a herniated
disc as a result of a car accident with a car driven by a Commonwealth employee. The plaintiffs
demand was S9(),()()() and was settled for 558,000.

• Deschene v. Department of Mental Health (Middlesex Superior Court) The plaintiff
claimed that she had been raped b\- another patient ar a DMH facilirs-. She claimed that the
Conimonwealth nci;ligently supervisetl the patient in lii;lu of the hict that the patient had a
history of sexual assault. Under the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, plaintiff would have been
eligible to recover up to $100,000 at trial; this case was favorably settled for $75,000 before
trial.

• Higgenbottem v. Massachusetts State Hospital School (Plymouth Superior Court) The
plaintiff claimed that the defective maintenance of a walkway to the school caused her to fall
and injure her knee, resulting in medical expenses and lost wages. Her demand was S60,000
and the case was settled before trial for $6,000.

• Mackie v. Nason (Bristol Superior Court) The plaintiff's estate sued for the wrongful
death of a former Department of Mental Health (DMH) client on the theor\' that DMH failed
to properly supervise the housing where the client lived. The client died as a result of a fire at
the housing, and the plaintiff contended that there were numerous building code violations.

As the trial was about to begin, the Commonwealth settled the case against it for $2,500.

CONTR.-\CTS

The division defends the Commonwealth and its agencies in a variet}' of contract actions consisting
of construction disputes, breach oflea.se cases, and bid protests. These cases are complex because they
often iin-olve interpretation of bidding regulations and a complicated statutor\' framework. These
cases also frequently recjuire the division to defend requests for preliminar\' injiuictive relief which ma\'
be dispositive of the entire case. Unlike 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 examples of the types of contract cases handled by the division:

• Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists v. Executive Office of
Transportation and Construction (Appeals Court) The court held that the Commonwealth's
decision in awarding the contract for construction work on a Route 3 project did not violate

the applicable statute.

117

GOVERNWriNT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION

• Massachusetts Correctional Officers Federated Union v. Commissioner of Correction

(Suffolk Superior Court) The union obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent tiie layoff of
12 corrections officers, allegedly in violation ot a union contract. The court then accelerated
the trial date and, after a two-day bench trial, concluded that the preliminary injunction against
the Commonwealth should not have been entered and that the (Commonwealth's interpretation
of the disputed contract was correct.

• Town of Boylston v. Metropolitan District Commission (Worcester Superior Court) Ihe
town sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit the MDC from commencing work on a town
sewer project unless the MDC complied with town codes and obtained town permits. The
Superior Court denied the town's request, and a single justice of the Appeals Court upheld that
ruling.

In addition to the t)'pes of cases just mentioned, the division in Fiscal Year 2003 consulted with
MHD and the Central Artery/Tunnel Project and approved settlements involving contract claims arising
from aspects of the project.

REAL ESTATE

7 he real estate cases handled b}' the Trial Division consist primarily of eminent domain cases, along
with miscellaneous other t)'pes ot real property cases. Like contract cases, there is no statutor}' 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 depending on what the jury concludes is the highest and best use
for the land taken by the Commonwealth. The following are examples of the t\'pes of cases handled in
this area and the manner in which they were resolved.

• Cluck v. Commonwealth (Worcester Superior Court) Plaintiff owned land in Worcester
that was taken as part of the Route 146 project. Plaintiff's appraiser testified that the lot was
worth $450,000, while the Commonwealths expert testified that the land was worth $230,000.
After trial, the jury returned with a verdict for $228,000, which was $2,000 below what the
Commonwealth's own expert testified to concerning value. This verdict saved the Commonwealth
approximately $275,000.

• Guerrero v. Division of Capital Asset Management (Plymouth Superior CAiurt) I his
lawsuit arose from the eminent domain taking for the new Brockton Trial Court. The pro tiiiito
was $1,095 million, and the plaintifTs claimed they were entitled to $2.7 million. The jury
verdict was for $1.8 million, generating a savings to the Commonwealth of more than $1
million when interest is factored into the exposure.

118

COVF-RNMENTBUREAl' IRIAI DIVISION'

• Daddano v. Commonwealth (Norfolk Supfrior (^ourt) llu- pl.iiiuiff (.iainud that two
parcels taken on Route 1 in Plainville should have been valued at S22(),()()(). After a heiith trial,
the court entered a verdict of ^> 1 2 1 ,()()(), resiiltin^i; in a substantial savings to tile C^oninionwealth.

• Cape Cod Conservatory v. Commonwealth (Barnstable Superior (\)urt) This taking
involved 2.5 acres of land on Cape Cod. The plaintiffs sought $242,000. The juiv verdict was
$159,000, or $83,000 le,ss than the plaintiffs' expert had testified to at trial.

• Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital v. Commonwealth (Suffolk Superior Court) Plaintiff
brought an eminent domain claim as a result of 1 1 surfiice and below-surface permanent and
temporary- easements taken for the CA/T project. Plaintiffs appraisal of the market value was

appro.xiniately $40 million, including interest. After extensive negotiations with the
Coninionweaith, the case settled for approximately $20 million, resulting in a .savings of more
than S20 million.

• U-Haul v. Commonwealth (Appeals Court) U-Haul sought to enjoin a taking of its propert)'
in Springfield on the ground that the Legislature had not appropriated enough money for just
compensation. The division obtained dismissal in the Superior Court, and the Appeals Court
affirmed that result.

• Frontage Development v. Commonwealth (Appeals Court) After a complex eminent
domain trial resulted in a verdict favorable to the Commonwealth, plaintiff appealed, claiming
that the trial court erred in admitting or excluding certain evidence and that it was prejudiced
by an allegedly improper reference in a closing argument. The Appeals Court upheld the
favorable verdict for the Commonwealth.

In addition, in Land Court, the division has been moving to dismiss older cases due to the lack of
prosecution by the plaintiffs who had originally brought these ca.ses and named the Commonwealth in
their actions to quiet title to their land. In Fi.scal Year 2003, more than 20 cases were dismissed from
Land Court for lack of prosecution.

EMPLOYMENT. CIVIL RIGHTS. AND OTHER CA.SES

Increasingly the Trial Division is called upon to defend the Commonwealth and its agents in
employment and ci\-il rights cases. These ca.ses are factually and legally complex and present challenging
issues to the division. Also, because there is no statutor\' cap on the monetarv damages that can be
awarded in these cases, and because the.se types of claims frec]uenrly are brought against officials or
employees in their individual capacity, the potential financial exposure can be significant. The division
handled a number of civil rights cases during Fisciil Year 2003, including the following:

GOVERNMENT BIIREAL: TRIAL DIVISION

• Mihos V. Swift (United States District Court) I'laintiff, a member of the Tunipii<e Authorit}'
Board, claimed that the Governor violated his First Amendment rights when the Governor
sought to terminate his appointment to the Board. The Governor argued that the district court
erred in failing to grant the Governor qualified immunit}' for her conduct. The court also held,
however, that although there had been a violation of plaintiffs First Amendment rights, he was
not entitled to any damages. Both parties appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where
the matter remained at the close of Fiscal Year 2003.

• Clancy v. McCabe (Appeals Court) The plaintiff was a female motorist who had been
sexually assaulted by an on-duty state trooper. Plaintiff claimed that the former Commissioner
of Public Safety had violated her civil rights by failing to terminate or discipline the trooper
more harshly than the six-month suspension that the trooper had received for two prior acts of
misconduct involving asking female motorists out on dates. The Commissioner argued that he
was entitled to qualified immunity for his discipline decision. The Appeals Court disagreed;
however, the Supreme Judiciiil Court then accepted the case for further appellate review, and it
will be argued in Fiscal Year 2004.

• Stephens v. Executive Office of Health and Human Services and Department of Social
Services (Appeals Court) EOHHS and DSS social workers were sued for alleged civil rights
violations in their abuse and neglect investigations. The Appeals Court affirmed the entry of
summary judgment for the defendants, agreeing that the Commonwealth had sovereign
immunity from suit and the individually named defendants had qualified immunity from suit.

The Trial Division resolved, by way of trial or otherwise, a number of significant emplo\'ment
cases, including the following:

• Dasey v. State Police (United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) The court
affirmed the grant of summaiy judgment to the State Police who had been sued for dismissing
a probationary-status trooper because he had lied in his admission application and smoked
marijuana before becoming a state trooper.

• Lyons v. Trial Court (United States District Court) This official capacit)' civil rights claim
was dismissed on the ground that the individual no longer holds the office that is the subject of
the claim; survival of these claims requires a showing that the successor will continue the unlawful
practice.

• O'Neii v. Middlesex Community Colleg e (Suffolk Superior Court) Plaintiff, a contract
employee at the college, claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his C'hristian

120

(.ON'ERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION

religion .iiul that the college breached its contract with liiiii when it tailed to retiew his
eniplo)-ment CDiuract. I'laintiftsiicd the college and several (last and [ircsent college administrators
in both their oFficiiil and indi\idiial capacities. After a week, long trial, the jur}' returned a
verdict For the detendants on all counts.

The Trial Division often moves to dismiss employment lawstiirs on legal grounds and in manvca.ses
is successful in dismissing some or all of the claitns. For example:

• Geret>' v. Commonwealth (SuHolk Superior C'ourr) Plaintiff brought this action against
the Commonwealth alleging that she foiled to get merit pay incre;ises at the Chelsea Soldiers"
Home because of her gender. The Commonwealth sought and obtained summary judgment
on the basis that the plaintiff did not receive pay increases because of gender-neutral policies
reorganizing salar\' structures.

• Boucicaut v. Department of Transitional Assistance (United States District Court) The
court granted summary judgment in a case in which the plaintilt had pre\iousK' entered into a
settlement agreement with DTA which called for it to pa)- him tor work-related illnesses, provided
that he did not bring any other claims. Plaintiff subsequently brought this Title VII claim, and
the court found that the agreement barred the claim.

In other cases, if a dispositive motion has not been or would not be successful, then the Division
often employs mediation or other alternative forms of dispute resolution to obtain a fair and cost-

ettective result.

• Gilbert v. O'Neill (Suffolk Superior Court) In this case a former attorney for the
Commonwealth claimed he was discriminated against due to his se.xual orientation and removed
from his position in retaliation for participating in a sexual harassment investigation. The
Commonwealth and the individually named defendants denied the claims. After extensive
di-scovery, the parties sought mediation before a former state court judge. The plaintiff's demand
at the start of the negotiations was $551,000, including damages against individually named
defendants and attorney's fees. After mediation, the case finally settled for $165,000, including
a dismissiil of all defendants and no admission of liability.

• Lynch v. Bonaparte (Middlesex Superior Court) Plaintiff claimed that he was a whistle-
blower and was retaliated against in his employment at the Registry' of Motor Vehicles as a
result of his conduct. After negotiations, his claim was reduced and the case settled for $30,000,
thereby elitninating the potential exposure for attorneys fees and other damages under the
whistle-blower law.

121

GOVERKMENT BUREAU TRIAL [M VISION'

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

During Fiscal Year 2003 the Trial Division resolved and closed more cases than it opened, which
favorably affected the divisions overall case inventor)'. Specifically, in Fiscal Year 2003 the division
opened 414 cases, and resolved and closed 449, resulting in a net decrease of 33 cases and a total open
case inventory of 1 ,853 cases at the close of Fiscal Year 2003. More specifically, in Fiscal Year 2003 the
division opened 213 tort cases and closed 284; opened 27 contract cases and closed 19; opened 38 real
estate cases and closed 60; and opened 138 miscellaneous trial cases and closed 89. The Trial Division
is dedicated to effec-tively and efficiendy resolving civil lawsuits to protect and defend the Commonwealth
and the public resources.

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

During Fiscal Year 2003, Assistant Attorneys General in the Trial Division participated in a
wide range of outreach and training efforts, including serving as faculty in Massachusetts Continuing
Legal Education programs, participating in the Citizen Schools Project, and assisting in trial training
and moot court programs at various law schools.

122

PUBLIC PROTECTION
BUREAU

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division

Environmental Protection Division

Insurance Division

Investigations Division

Division of Public Charities

Utilities Division
Mediation Services Division

BLIC PROTECTION BUREAl

Public Protection Bureau

The Public I'rotc'Ction Burc.ui iii,iii.ii;i.-s .uul ovcisccs civil .ittum.uivc iirig.ition on behalf of tlic
C^ommonwealth and its citizens; the development of policy, lct;islative, and regulatory proposals; and
personnel for eight divisions: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Consumer Protection and Antitrust,
Fnvironmental Protection, Insurance, Investigations, Public Charities, Utilities, and Mediation Services.
The bureau also includes the (ionsiuner (Complaint and Information Section and oversees the Local
( 'onsumer Aid Fuml, which pro\idcs grants to local communit)' groups to mediate and resolve consumer
complaints at the local level.

The bureau develops and coordinates health care policy initiatives to improve the coordination,
enhancement, and expansion of current health care poliq' enforcement efforts. The bureau targets its
etiorts to preserve access to affordable, high-quality health care that is responsive to the needs of
communities.

Ihe bureaus Mediation Ser\ices Division coordinates and staffs Attorney Ceneral Tom Reill\-"s
Student Conflict Resolution Experts (SCC)REl) Program. SCORE is a nationalh' recognized peer
mediation program created to reduce violence in schools and foster safer learning environments for
students. In addition, this division oversees a Conflict Intervention Team (CIT) of specially trained
communit}' 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 Attorney Ceneral Reillys Community Benefits Cuidelines for both hospitals
and HMOs. Members of the Insurance Division, the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division,
and the Public Charities Division staff the Community' Benefits initiative.

The bureau also has an Elder Protection Unit that seeks to enhance protections for Massachusetts'
elders by improving both the coordination of the Attorney Ceneral's outreach efforts .ts well as the
response to matters involving elder fraud and abuse.

The Public Protection Bureau included Alice Moore, Bureau Chief; David Beck; Charlene Best-
Brown; Richard Cole; Kirsten Engel; Katharine London; Anna Marie Meola; Kristy Phillips; Isabel
Silva; Linda Tomaselli; and Rose Ursino.

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIl, RK^HTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DIVISION

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DIVISION

The C>ivil Rights and Civil Liberties Division enforces the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA).
The MCRA authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive reliel when threats, intimidation, or
coercion based on an individual's race, color, national origin, ethnic background, gender, sexual
orientation, disability, age, or religious affiliation interfere with the exercise of that person's civil rights.
A violation of a civil rights injunctive order constitutes a criminal oftense, punishable by a maximum of
10 years in State Prison if the victim suffers bodily injury, or up to two and one half years in a correctional
facilit)' if no bodily injury results.

The division also enforces the 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. Division staff also focus on employment discrimination,
discrimination in places of public accommodations, and educational equit)'.

The Disability Rights Project works to increase enforcement of state and federal laws regarding
equal access to places of public accommodation like restaurants and stores, and access to municipal
buildings and services. The project protects the rights of individuals with disabilities not only through
litigation, but also through assistance for individuals, training, publications, intervention with municipal
entities, and speaking engagements.

The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division included Cathy Ziehl, Division Chief; Nicole Bradick;
Patricia Correa; Bethany Hyland; Rosalind Kabrhel; Jennifer Keating; Judy Levenson; Maria MacKenzie;
and Tina Matsuoka.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

BIAS AGAINST ARAB-AMERICANS ND MUSLIMS

The Civil Rights Division aggressively used the MCRA to respond to violence directed at persons
actually, or perceived to be, of the Muslim faith and/or Middle Eastern ancestr}' in the aftermath of the
terrorist attacks on September 1 1, 2001, and the recent military engagement in Iraq.

• Commonwealth v. Jeffrey Lizotte. Craig Jennings, and a Juvenile (Bristol Superior Court)
The division obtained a final judgment by consent in July 2002, in this case against three
young men who, in retaliation for the September 1 1''' terrorist attacks, firebombed a Somerset
convenience store owned by a person they believed to be from the Middle East but who was
actually of Indian descent.

126

I'l IM.UI'RDITCHON BL:RliAr CIV'll, Rl(, I IIS AM) CIVIL lIBERTirS DIVISION

• Commonwealth v. Scott Leader (Siiftolk SupciiDrC ^oiiit) Tlu'iliN'ision oht.iinctl ,i pi.-rm;incnr
injunction on July 12, 2002, ai;;iinst Scott l.tMclcr, who cnicicd .1 l)iini<in' Doniits in South
Boston .uul fiitLMtcncd a store cnipknec of Iranian (.Icslciu witli |ih\sical \iolcncc, tlircw an
object at hini, and called hini a teriorist and other racial epithets.

• Commonwealth v. Miguel Camargo, Phe Meas, and lamie Roldan (Bri.stol Superior Court)
The division obtained a preliniinary injunction on March 5, 2003, again.st three men who
assaulted a man of Pakistani descent at the 7-1 1 convenience store in Easton where he worked
as a clerk. The attackers yelled racial epithets and accused the man of being a terrorist related to

Osama bin laden.

• Commonwealth v. Perry, et al. (Middlesex Superior Comt) The Court granted a preliminary-
injunction on April 9, 2003, against three white teenagers who verball\- and plu'sicalb' assaulted
two Indian students from UMass-l.owell and yelled "F- Osama" as they kicked the students.

R.-\(:i.AL. NATIONAL ORIGIN. AND RELIGIOUS BIAS

Ihe division addressed and responded to violence motivated by bias against a person's race, nation;il
origin, or religion.

Commonwealth v. Ten juveniles (Suffolk Superior Court) The division obtained a
preliminary injunction against a total of 1 current and former Grover Cleveland Middle School
(Boston) students who participated in one or more of three separate bias-motivated incidents
against fellow classmates:

January 7. 2003. Attack On January 7. 2003, at least four African-American teenage girls
assaulted a fellow classmate because she was white. The victim was walking near a neighborhood
McDonald's with several friends when the four attackers threatened her, chilling her a "white
bitch" and "white cracker" while pulling her hair, kicking and punching her, and striking her
with a belt.

February 28. 2003. Attack Ihe second attack occurred on the morning oi February 28, 2003,
as buses arrived at Crover Cleveland school. Four black students, including one student involved
in the January 7. 2003, attack, attacked two fem;ile Afghan students who were new to the
country. One of the Afghan gids suffered flicial contusions and a left arm fracture.

March 10. 2003. Attack A third attack took place shortly after school on an MB TA train on
March 10, 2003. Si.\ black and one Fiispanic current or former Crover Cleveland students
attacked a fellow black student who had recently immigrated from West Africa. While the

127

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAi: CIVIL RIC.HTS ANDC:i\-|L LIBERTIES DIVISION

perpetrators taunted the victim about her African heritage, one of the girls struck the victim in
the head and stole her hat. The attack escalated when the original attacker began to kick the
victim and was joined by several other girls until MBTA officers intervened. Three of the girls
involved in this attack were participants in the January 7, 2003, attack.

• Commonwealth v. Three juveniles (Bristol Superior Court) The division obtained a
preliminary injunction on March 26, 2003, against two 13-year-old students from Henry Lord
Middle School (Fall River) who beat up a classmate, targeted because she was white.

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

The division litigated and/or monitored employment discrimination matters and filed briefs on
important legal issues in the appellate courts of Massachusetts.

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Lhe division continued to monitor the MBTA
pursuant to an Equal Employment Opportunity Agreement and EEO Compliance Program
the Attorney General and MBTA executed on February 6, 1997, in response to long-standing
complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation at the MBTA. On August 8, 2002,
the division provided the MBTA with a "Notice of Material Non-Compliance with EEO
Agreement and Identification of Findings of Non-compliance and Recommendations to Correct,
Pursuant to Agreement." The MBTA contracted with the law firm Holland & Knight LLP
("Holland & Knight") to review its operations related to civil rights and diversity' issues. Holland

6 Knight prepared a written report, "Review, Assessment, and Recommendations for
Enhancement of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Office of Organizational
Diversity and Civil Rights and Related Matters," dated May 17, 2002. KKO and Associates,
LLC, also issued a computer consultant report regarding its audit of the PeopleSoft data system
("KKO" or "KKO Report"), dated February 22, 2002. In January 2003, the MBTA entered
into an agreement with the Attorney General to implement all the recommendations in both
the Holland & Knight and KKO reports. The division remains in close contact with the
MBTA and Holland & Knight concerning their ongoing review of the MB'LA's implementation
of their recoiTimendations.

• Commonwealth v. Bull HN Information Systems. Inc. (United States District Court)

7 he division, .iloiig with the Equal Emplo\'mcnt Opportunit)' Commission, continued to actively
litigate the age discrimination issues in Commonwealth v. Bull HN Information Systems. Inc.
The court entered declarations and ordered relief on a number of the Commonwealth's claims
alleging 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)

128

PIBL ir PROTFCTION Bl'RFAr CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DIVISION

wlien hu'ing off its workers aged 40 and older. Cross summary judgmenr morions were filed
regarding Bull HN's termination practices during the fiscal year and whether they were in
compliance with federal law.

• Sahli V. Bull HN Information Systems. Inc. (Suprcim.- jutlicial Court) I'hc division filed
an (iwiciis ciiriite brief in this case, which raised the issue of whether a c.uise of action exists
uniler Massachusetts' anti-discrimination law, Ci.l.. c. niB, when an cniplover initiates
retaliatory litigation against a former employee because the former employee filed a discrimination
complaint in the MCAD against the employer. The Supreme Judicial Court concluded that
C^hapter 15 IB does contemplate such a legal claim, as the division had argued.

• EDI Specialists. Inc. v. Steven A. Mills (Supreme Judicial Court) The Supreme Judicial
C ;()urt asked the Attorney Ccneral to file an amicus brief on the question of whether an employer
can obtain contribution and indemnification from an employee accused of sexual harassment.
On August 15, 2002, the SJC agreed with the division's position that such a claim for contribution
does not exist under Chapter 15 IB.

EDUCAriONAL EOUirV

• Comfort et al. v. Lynn School Committee, et al. (United States District Court) In June
2002, the division completed an 1 1 -da\' trial in this case challenging Lynn's 14-year-old voluntary
school desegregation plan and the state's school desegregation law under the federal and state
constitutions. Attorney General Reilly, joined by the Cit)' of Lynn, argued that the cirj'S voluntary
plan has succeeded in giving the cif}''s youngest students an appreciation, understanding, and
respect for racial and ethnic differences that enhanced their educational achievement and
experience. In the absence of Lynn's integration plan, many of Lynn's 18 elementary and four
middle schools would become re-segregated, with some schools again becoming overwhelmingly
white or minority. Closing arguments in the case were held on December 13, 2002, and the
court issued its decision on June 6, 2003, that the United States Constitution does not prohibit
school districts from implementing voluntar)' plans to desegregate their primar)' and secondary
schools. The court found that, as a result of Lynns success in integrating its schools, students
received the considerable benefits of learning from and with children from other races and
ethnic groups, and were better prepared for success in racially and ethnicalh' diverse workplaces
and communities. Further, the court found that racially and ethnic.illy diverse students maintain
positive inter-group relations, minimizing tensions and violence in the schools. The federal
court also attributed the end of racial isolation and segregation of Lynn's students, and its
successful implementation of its integration plan, with the positive academic achievement and
performance gains b\' Lynns students, and their improving test scores.

129

PUBLIC PROTECTION BDREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DI\'ISION

• Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bolling er (United States Supreme Court) The Attorney
General joined an amicus brief endorsing the affirmative action admission policies of the
University of Michigan and Michigan Law School and similar programs used for more than 25
years to increase the number of qualified minority students admitted into universities and
colleges throughout this country. The brief prepared b)- the New York Attorney Generals
Office, with input from the Civil Rights Division, presented constitutional, practical, and
educational reasons to maintain affirmative action programs in higher education, including in
Massachusetts. It addressed why it is educationally beneficial for students to learn in schools
with racially and ethnically diverse student bodies, and why in most circumstances race-neutral
programs, such as those adopted by Florida, Texas, and California, are ineffective to assure
sufficiently diverse and academically prepared student bodies.

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION

The division settled 15 cases, which resulted in affirmative injunctive relief changing the business
practices, including equal housing opportunity policies, complaint and investigation procedures, anti-
discrimination training, and reporting mechanisms, of landlords, management companies, and rental
agents. Through training programs and prosecuting housing discrimination cases, the division also
worked to modif\- landlord and realtor practices, to educate tenants about the right to fair treatment in
the housing market, and to increase the availability of safe and affordable housing for families with
young children.

• Commonwealth v. Crown Place Realty (Plymouth Superior Court) Allegations of disability
and public assistance discrimination, settled for $25,000, and injunctive and affirmative relief
The court approved a Final Judgment by Consent on December 9, 2002.

• Commonwealth v. Kelleher (Essex Superior Court) Allegations that a landlord refused to
rent to the complainant because of her Section 8 voucher and the requirements of the Section
8 voucher program, settled for $25,000, and prohibitor)' and affumarive injunctive relief on
Januar>' 18, 2003.

• Commonwealth v. Kenwood (Middlesex Superior Court) Allegations that a management
employee of a housing complex sexually harassed a female tenant, settled for $15,000, and
prohibitory and injunctive relief on October 30, 2002.

• Commonwealth v. Raffaele Russo, Maria Russo Podgurski & Paula Sullivan (Hampden
Superior Court) Allegations of racial discrimination, settled for $30,000 on November 15,
2002.

130

'BLIC PROTFCTION BL'Rh:AL' CW\l RICHTS AND CIVIL 1 IBr.RTIES DIX'ISION

• Commonwealth v. Estate of Mary Moore (Suffolk Superior C;()urt) Thcc now deceased
landlord, after heinj; notified of the existence of lead in the apartment, allegcdU- harassed the
family and made threats against them until they moved out, setded for $12,000 on July 30,
2003.

• Commonwealth v. Hatfield Housing Authority (Hampden Superior (^oinr) Allegations
of failure to accommodate a disability, settled for Si 2,500 and prohibitory and affirmative
injunctive reliel on May 20, 2003.

• Commonwealth (and Housing Discrimination Project) v. Richard Cheicko. et a!.;
Commonwealth (and Harry & Betty Washington) v. Richard Cheicko. et al.; Commonwealth
(and Tonya Cox and Owen Garvey) v. Richard Cheicko. et al.; Commonwealth (and Cynthia
Burgos) V. Richard Cheicko, et al. (Hampden Superior C^ourt) Allegations of racial discrimination
by operators of an apartment rental business, settled for $7,000, and prohibitory and affirmative
injinictiNe relief Hie Housing (]oint approved a Consent ludgment on September 16, 2002.

• Commonwealth and Housing Discrimination Project v. Joseph Collette (Western Housing
Court) The owner and manager of a housing complex, who tailed to show available housing
because of race, color, national origin, handicap, or status as a recipient of AFDC or Section 8,
gave false statements to testers from the Housing Discrimination Project and settled for $3 1 ,000
and prohibitory' and affirmative injunctive relief The Western Housing Court approved and
entered a Consent Decree on November 27, 2002.

• Commonwealth v. Byrnes and Bauer (Norfolk Superior Court), based on allegations of
Section 8 discrimination, setded for S3,000 and prohibitory and affirmative injimctive relief

• Commonwealth v. George Georgaklis , Allegations that a real estate agent refused to rent
because Section 8 would not be accepted, settled before filing on December 18, 2002, for
$3,000 and prohibiror\' and injunctive relief

• Commonwealth v. Resendes (Norfolk Superior Court), where a landlord allegedly refused
to accommodate a tenant's disabilit}' and then retaliated against him for seeking to enforce his
rights, settled for $1,500. The Court entered a Final Judgment by Consent on September 30,
2002.

• Commonwealth v. Robert Laquidara and European Property and Management. Inc.

(Middlesex Superior C^ourt), based on allegations that a real estate agent engaged in discriminator)'
practices by refusing to rent based on the existence of lead and publishing an advertisement

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVILLIBERTIES DIVISION

offering an Everett apartment tor "adults" only, settled for $3,700 and injunctive relief on
November 26, 2002.

REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE

• McGuirev. Reilly (United States District Court) The Division continued to defend against
this challenge to the facial constitutionality ot the state buffer zone law, G.L. c. 266,
§ 1 20E 1 12. On August 1 3, 200 1 , the First Circuit reversed the District Court's November 20,
2000, ruling declaring the statute unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoining its application.
The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court, where the division filed a summary
judgment motion on the "facial" and "as applied" challenge. The district court then dismissed
the facial challenge on July 9, 2003.

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS

The division enforced the laws ensuring the right of the citizens oi 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 (Appeals Court) The division continued to
defend on appeal the October 1 999 jury verdict against Haverhill Golf & Country Club (HCC)
in this gender discrimination case, and the Suffolk Superior Court's order in January 2000,
finding that HCC had engaged in a pattern and practice of gencler discrimination against its
women members, and entering a permanent injunction ordering HCC to cease discriminating
against female members of the Club. HCC appealed this verdict; the division filed its brief on
September 20, 2002; the Appeals Court heard oral argument on December 19, 2002, and
rendered its decision on June 13, 2003, affirming the trial jury's award of $1,967,400 and the
trial court's order of permanent injunctive relief

• Commonwealth v. Footaction (Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
"MCAD") The division filed a Complaint and Consent Decree at the MCAD on August 9,
2002, resolving a complaint that Footaction employees discriminated against Hispanic customers
at a Footaction retail store. The settlement included a reciuirement that Footaction create a
customer non-discrimination policy, customer complaint protocols, and an anti-discrimination
training program for employees applicable to all Footactit)n stores in Massachusetts.

DISABILITY RICHTS

• Commonwealth and National Federation of the Blind v. E*TRADE 7 he division entered
into a Settlement Agreement on June 10, 20U3, with E'TRADE Access, Inc., operator of one
of the largest ATM networks in the countr)', to ensure blind consumers equal access to thousands

132

Bl ICPRdTrCTIdN Bl'RFAl' Cl\ll RICHTS AND (l\'IL LIBERTIES DIVISION

of E'TRADE-owned ATMs, including 17 machiiKs in Massachusetts, in conjunction with
the National Federation of the Blind, the division also iikd a complaint on Jiuic 1 0, 2003, with
the Massachusetts Commission At;ainst nisciimination allc^in^ that H" TRADF, has failed tt)
make the ATMs it operates, hut does not own, aLCessible to the hliiid. Ihe four plaintiffs, all
Massachusetts residents, lepiesent the approximately 3"^. 000 hliiul people in Massachusetts,
who, in accordance with the Massachusetts Public Accommodations Act, are seeking the same
access to bank and investment services available to sighted ATM users.

Friendly's The division entered an Assurance of Discontinuance on March 21, 2003, arising
from a complaint that a Friendly's restaurant in Franklin denied service to a group of disabled
residents from the Wrentham Developmental Center and their counselors. The settlement
included a S5, ()()() contribution to the Center's recreation.il outing fund, and establishment of
anti-discrimination policies and procedures at all 67 Friendly's restaurants in Massachusetts.

CVS The di\isioii continued to monitor the Assurance of l^iscontinuance with CVS stores,
which requires them to remed\- violations of turning radius and aisle width requirements, through
review of audit reports and site visits.

Participation in Amicus Briefs (Supreme Court) The Attorney General joined an amicus brief
Minnesota drafted arguing that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act was a valid
abrogation of the states' 1 f' Amendment immunity. California withdrew its appe;il and no
decision was rendered.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

Sexual Abuse by Clergy I'he division continued its work with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese
of Boston (RCAB) and the Cardinal's Commission for the Protection of Children, advocating
tor comprehensive child protection measures, including monitoring and risk assessment of
priests who sexually abused, and age-appropriate sex abuse education for all parochial and
religious education, during the development of the RCAB's new child protection policies and
procedures.

The Massachusetts Hate Crimes I'ask Force Ihe Attorne}- General's Hate Crimes Task Force
continued to focus its work on the prevention of and response to post-September 11th hate
crimes, along with implementing other hate crime-related initiatives. The Task Force, comprising
about 100 law enforcement officers and prosecutors, communit)' leaders, civil rights advocates.

133

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL i IRERTIES DIVISION

victim assistance professionals, educators, and other leaders from throughout the
Commonwealth, shares information and highlights efforts in Massachusetts related to hate
crimes enforcement, response, training, and prevention. The Attorney General expanded the
Tiisk Force membership by appointing representatives of communities most affected by a
September 11th backlash, including leaders from the Arab, N4uslim, and South Asian
communities in Massachusetts.

Civil Rights in the Schools The division continued its focus on ensuring the civil rights of
students attending schools in the Commonwealth. The division provided educational training
to students, teachers, and administrators on hate crimes, discrimination, and sexual, racial,
national origin, and religious harassment. Training included programs for school administrators
and teachers on their liability for failure to properly respond to hate crime and harassment
incidents. Programs also included how to create comprehensive civil rights protection programs
for students in middle and high schools and respond effectively to hate crimes on college and
university campuses.

The division held workshops, "Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crimes: Next
Steps in Implementing an Action Plan for Schools, " as a follow-up to earlier regional conferences.
Workshops held on February 27, 2003 (representatives from 10 Eastern Massachusetts school
districts participated), and April 10, 2003 (representatives from 13 Central and Western
Massachusetts school districts participated), offered educators additional technical assistance,
at a time of increasing reports of harassment and hate crimes in schools; reminded educators of
the continued importance of addressing these issues, even at a time of budgetary constraints
and other educational challenges; provided ongoing guidance, advice, and assistance to educators;
and afforded educators a further opportunity to learn from and inspire one another. The
workshops hicused on post-September 1 1 '''-related civil rights, harassment, and hate crime
issues.

Civil Rights and Police In a collaborative effort to promote civil rights, assist police departments,
and provide departments with technical assistance, the division offered and provided civil rights
training to law enforcement covering issues of hate crimes identification, response and
prosecution, civil liability, sexual harassment, and racial and cultural awareness.

The division also investigated allegations of police misconduct. Police departments regulady
consulted with the division for assistance on internal civil rights investigations. The division
has worked closely with departments to ensure that the\' take appropriate remedial steps when
credible evidence substantiates civil rights complaints.

134

Pt BLIC PROTECTION BUREAf l l\ II RK.ilTS A\[)(:i\ll LIBERTIES DIVISIO N

R.ici.il I'ldfilinu 1 lie division Loniimicil to play an importaiir lolc in living to address
comprehensively the concerns about racial and other forms of bias and prejudice in the provision
of law enforcement services in the Commonwealth. Chapter 228 of the Laws of 2000, An Act
Providing for the Collection of Data Relative to Traffic Stops, requires law enforcement
departments and agencies to collect data related to all traffic stops where a traffic citation or
u.irning was issued, if the information "suggests" that a State Police harr.icks or municipal
police department "appears" to have engaged in racial or gender profiling, the Secretary of the
Fxccutive Office of Public Safety, with the Attorney General, makes a determination whether
to collect data on all traffic stops, including those not resulting in a warning, citation, or arrest.

The division has been an active member of the E.xecutive Office for Public Safety Secretary's
Racial and Cieiidcr I'lofiling Working Croup, a group of about 70 law enforcement and
communit}' leaders from throughout the Commonwealth convened to advise the Secretary
about data collection and data analysis required by the statute. At the end of the fiscal year.
Northeastern University's Institute on Race and Justice was analrang the collected data as to
citations, warnings, and any searches incident to the issuance of a ticket or warning.

Ensuring Municipal Access The Disabilit)' Rights Project continued its efforts to a-ssure that
municipalities understand their access obligations under state and federal law. On March 12,
2003, the Attorney General and Massachusetts Office of Disability' re-issued their joint advisory
on municipal access obligations, including the obligation that towns make public meetings
accessible. The project also obtained written assurances from three towns (Millbur)', Swampscott,
and Newbury) that had been holding public meetings in a Town Hall inaccessible to mobility-
impaired persons, to correct barriers to access identified through site visits.

Voting Access Advisor)' The Ma.ssachusetts Office of Disability, the Secretary of State, and the
Attorney General i.ssued a joint advisor}' to all cities and towns on providing access to persons
with disabilities at polling places on April 25, 2003.

Civil Rights Initiatives With NAAC Division members continue to serve in leadership positions
in the National Association of Attorneys General's (NAAG) Civil Rights Working Group,
consisting of representatives of state Attorneys General from throughout the country. This
group works to enhance the cooperative relationship between the states, the U.S. Department
of Justice, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in civil rights enforcement.

133

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DI\'ISION

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

Outreach to Disabiliry Communing On Februar)' 26, 2003, the Attorney General, the DisabiUt}'
Law Center, Boston Center for Independent Living, and the Northeast Independent Living
Program co-sponsored a "Disability Rights Forum" attended by close to 100 members of the
disability community.

Municipal Access Training The Disability Rights Project organized a session on municipal
access issues for the Municipal Law Forum held on April 1 5, 2003.

Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Fiousing and Redevelopment Officials
The division presented on fair housing law as it pertains to people with disabilities, and on
Americans with Disabilities Act to public housing authorities at a May 2003 conference.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

The Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division (CPAD) is the leading voice in the Commonwealth
for consumers disadvantaged by unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the marketplace. The division
enforces both state and federal consumer protection and antitrust laws by investigating and prosecuting
civil cases involving a wide array oi consumer and competition issues. CPAD also promulgates consumer
protection regulations, mediates consumer complaints against businesses, and provides information to
the public through the Attorney Generals Consumer Hotline, advisories, information on the Attorne}'
General's Web site, distribution of brochures on a number of issues affecting consumers, and speaking
engagements across the Commonwc;ilth.

Through the Consumer Complaint and Information Section (CCIS), the division acts as a resource
for consumers and busines.ses, providing information, direction to additional resources at the state and
federal levels, and free mediation services to consumers who have encountered a problem in a purchase
of consumer goods or services. The division also provides grants to a statewide network of 19 Local
Consumer Programs (LCPs) and nine Face-to-Face Mediation Programs to hirnish information and
mediation services. The information CCIS and the LCPs gather is available to the division for review
and evaluation for possible legal action. Many cases the division has brought over the years have had
their genesis in CCIS and the LCPs, and patterns of unfair or deceptive conduct revealed by these cases
also have served as the basis for draft legislation (anti-spam, identity theft, telemarketing fraud) and
regulations (travel sendees, long-term care facilities).

136

In additi

in to iii\-estii;.uing

ind prosecuting aliases witl

■(.gioiial dis]

antics, as well as i

oiisunicr (-noted ion and .

AYca. Ihc

division works do

el\' with other states to in

I'L'BLIC PROTECTION Bl'RHAL.' CONSl'MI R PROnx; 1 ION AND ANTITRl'ST DI\ISIO\

lin Massachusetts, the division also addresses
niiirust issues that ni.i\- have a nationwide
.•estii;ate and file cases addressing unfair or

deceptive conduct, or antitrust issues, in areas such as predatory lending, privacy, health fraud, tobacco

sales, pharmaceutical pricing, and high-tech industries.

C;i*AI) included Jesse (Kaplan, Division (ihief; .Steven Bantiar; (Christopher Rarry-Sniith; Paul CCarey;
Jack (Christin; Fniiiy Coleman; James D'Amour; Barbara DeSouza; Julie Hsposito; Mary Hreeley; Jennifer
Cialante; Brian Cioodwin; Sara Hinchey; Deepa Isac; Jeremy Janow; Stephanie Kahn; Brenda King;
Mark Kmetz; I'am Kogut; Diane Lawton; Ronnie Lee; (Carmen Leon; Rett}' KLiguire; Mar)' Marshall;
Lois iNLirtin; Kenneth Miller: Rose Miller; David Monahan: I imotin- Moran; Janis DiLoreto Noble;
Donna I'alermino: Astrid Pananieno; Julie Papernik; Jessica Roberts; Lisa Scnay; Ransom Shaw; Andria
Simon; Michelle Stone; Christine Sullivan; hrika I'arantal; Judith Whiting; Betsy Whittey; (Jeoffrey
Why; Marvina Wilkes; Mar)' Wolleiihaupt; Hermen Yee; and Lmil\' York.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

HFALTH CARE

• Commonwealth v. Logan Healthcare Facility. Inc., et al. (Suffolk Superior Court) In
June 2003, CPAD, with the assistance of the Department of Public Health, filed suit against
the owners and operators of five nursing home facilities located in the South Shore and
Southeastern Massachusetts, alleging that they grossly mismanaged the financial operations of
the nursing homes, putting the health and welfare of the facilities" 349 patients at risk. CPAD
also sought and successfully obtained the appointment of a temporar)' receiver over four of the
nursing homes, and a preliminary injunction against the defendants, all members of the Logan
family, preventing them from transferring an)' of their assets or the assets of the facilities. The
case is being litigated.

• Commonwealth v. Horizon Healthcare, et al. (Suffolk Superior Court) In October
1 998, CPAD, with the assistance of the Department of Public Health, filed suit against Horizon
Healthcare Corporation, Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation, and Integrated Health Services,
Inc., the owners and/or operators of several long-term care facilities, including the Greenery
facilities in Middleboro and Brighton, Massachusetts. The Commonwealth's complaint alleged
that the nursing home facilities, which specialized in the care of severely brain-injured patients,
violated state and federal consumer protection and long-term care laws and regulations and a

137

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

1995 Consent Judgment by failing to comply with minimum standards of care for residents.
In April 2003, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment against the companies that resolved the
lawsuit. Under the Consent Judgment, Horizon paid the Commonwealth $525,000 in penalties
and attorney's fees, and made a $100,000 contribution to the Local Consumer Aid Fund; IHS,
which had filed for Bankruptcy protection, agreed to an allowed unsecured claim in the amount
of $750,000; and the companies agreed to injunctive relief designed to prevent kiture violations.

• Commonwealth v. M.C.K.. Inc.. Michael Konig. et al. (Suffolk Superior Court) In
1 997, CPAD, with the assistance of the Department of Public Health, filed suit against Michael
Konig and related entities, alleging that they violated consumer protection and long-term care
laws and regulations in their ownership and operation of five different nursing homes, including
the Union Square Nursing Center in AJlston, Massachusetts; failed to comply with minimum
standards of care for residents; and financially abandoned one or more of the nursing home
facilities. CPAD and DPH successfully obtained a receiver over the nursing homes, and in
2000, the Supreme Judiciiil Court upheld the lower court's ruling in favor of the Commonwealth,
allowing the forced sale of the Union Square facility, including the real estate, b}' the receiver.
The remaining issues proceeded to litigation, and in February 2003, CPAD obtained a Consent
Judgment, resolving the lawsuit. Under the Consent Judgment, the defendants paid the
Commonwealth a total of $450,000, covering reimbursement to the receiver and the
Massachusetts Division of Medical Assistance, civil penalties, and Locd Consumer Aid Fund
contributions, and agreed to injunctive relief designed to prevent future violations.

• Commonwealth v. Bristol Nursing Home (Suffolk Superior Court) In May 2003, CPAD
obtained a Consent Judgment against Bristol Nursing Home, settling a lawsuit filed in September
2001 that alleged that the nursing home facility had violated state consumer protection and
long-term care regulations by, among other things, financially abandoning the facility and the
residents. The Consent Judgment resulted in a payment to the Commonwciilth of $50,000 in
penalties and attorney's fees.

• Pharmacy Assessment Cases (Suffolk Superior Court) In April and May 2003, CPAD,
working with the Insurance Division, obtained Assurances of Discontinuance with four major
chain pharmacies, CVS Pharmac)', Inc., Stop & Shop, Walgreens, and Wal-Mart, resolving
claims that the pharmacies had violated state consiuner protection and insiuance laws by
misrepresenting to consiuners that the so-called ' Pharmac\' Assessment " law, which imposed
fees on pharmacies based on the number of prescriptions filled, was a tax obligation on the
consumers, and improperly billing those consumers for this assessment. The Assurances of
Discontinuance followed the Attorney General's investigation of, and warning letters to, the

138

PIBLIC PROTECTION BURF-AL' CONSl Ml-R I'ROI IX: I ION AND ANTITRUS I" UIVISI

pii.iim.icics li.isecl on this (.(^lulucr. Under the Assuimikcs of Discoiuinu.iiicc-, iht- [ihannacies
.i_i;i(.-c(.l to rcinilniisc .ill .ifk-ctcd consumers (refunds toialint; more than S6 million) and also
paid the Commonwealth monetary awards totaling; S485,()()() (CVS — $300,000; Stop &
Shop — S65,()0(): Wali^reens — $6(),()()(); Wal-Mart — $60,000). The pharmacies also agreed
to significant injimctive relief preventing future violations.

• Bristol-Myers Squibb ("BMS ") Buspar Litigation (U.S. District (loin t, NY) In November

2001, CPAD joined 20 other .states in fihng suit against BMS relating to improper attempts to
extend its patent monopoly over its Buspar anti-anxiet}' medication, i he lawsuit included
allegations that BMS perpetrated fraud on both the United States Patent and Trademark Office
and the Food and Drug Administration in its attempts to bar generic competition. In March
200.1, BMS entered into a Con.sent judgment with Massachusetts and 35 other states re.solving
the lawsuit. BMS agreed to pa\- over $90 million to state agencies and consumers nationwide,
with the Massachusetts Medicaid program qualified to receive approximatelv $3.H million, and
to significant injunctive relief designed to prevent similar behavior in the future. The Consent
Judgment is subject to final approval by the court.

• Bristol-Myers Squibb ("BMS") Taxol Litigation (U.S. District Court, D.C.) In June

2002, CPAD joined 28 other states in filing suit against BMS in connection with allegations
that BMS kept cheaper generic versions of its cancer drug, Taxol, ofFthe market by manipulating
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office processes to .secure patents for its name-brand drug that had
no legal validity. In April 2003, BMS entered into a Consent Judgment with Massachusetts
and all 49 other states resolving the lawsuit. BMS agreed to pa\' $55 million to state agencies
and consumers nationwide, with Massachusetts agencies likely to receive over $500,000, and
to significant injunctive relief designed to prevent similar behavior in the future. The Consent
judgment is subject to final appro\al by the court.

• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. CVS Corp. (Suffolk Superior Court) In Januarj'

2003, CPAD, working with other states, obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance from CVS
resolving allegations that the company engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive conduct by
submitting claims and accepting payment for the v;iluc of full prescriptions when, in fact, CVS
pharmacies had onl\- partiall\- filled many of those prescriptions. In man}' ca.ses, consumers did
not leturn to pick up the balance of their prescriptions, yet CVS retained the full prescription
payment. Under the settlement, CVS paid Massachusetts approximately $58,000 divided among
the Local Consumer Aid Fund and cypres restitution to consumers, and agreed to injunctive
relief designed to prevent such conduct in the future.

139

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIN'ISION

• Commonwealth v. Pfizer. Inc. (Suffolk Superior (Jourt) In January 2003, CPAD, working
with other states, obtained an Assurance ot Discontinuance from Pfizer, a major pharmaceuticaJ
manufacturer, resolving allegations that the company engaged in unhiir and deceptive acts and
practices by misrepresenting the efficac}' of its Zithromax oral suspension in comparison to
other antibiotics used to treat common ear infections in children, and failing to make all
appropriate disclosures in advertising and other promotional materials. Under the settlement,
Pfizer paid Massachusetts $127,000 and agreed to injimctive relief designed to prevent such
conduct in the future.

ELDER PROTECTION

• Commonwealth v. David lohnston d/b/a lohnston Funeral Home (Plymouth Superior
Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Court) In August 2002, CT'Al^ filed suit against David Johnston
d/b/a Johnston Funeral Home seeking restitution for at least 48 consumers who paid over
$ 140,000 in pre-need funeral deposits after Johnston, in violation of state law, could not account
for those deposits. CPAD obtained a consented to Preliminary Injunction and Real Estate
Attachment against Johnston and the funeral home. In December 2002, Johnston filed for
Bankruptcy protection. The division is seeking to ensure full restitution for consumers through
the Bankruptcy proceeding and Superior Court action.

• Commonwealth v. Bick & Curry Funeral Home (Suffolk Superior Court) In Februar)'
2002, CPAD filed suit against the Bick &c Curn,' Funenil Home seeking restitution for consumers
who paid over $98,000 in pre-need funeral deposits after Bick & Curr)', in violation of state
law, could not account for those deposits. In October 2002, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment
that resulted in complete restitution to the injured consumers.

• Commonwealth v. Affordable Hearing Aid Technolog y (Suffolk Superior Court) In
April 2003, CPAD filed suit against Affordable Hearing Aid Technology' and its principal,
Debra D. Arnett, alleging that Arnett deceived elders in the marketing and sale of hearing aids
by, among other things, engaging in false advertising, employing unqualified staff, charging
consumers arbitrary prices, failing to obtain necessary medical clearances or medical waivers,
failing to honor warranties and money-back guarantees, and violating state and federal laws
governing hearing aid sales. In May 2003, CPAD successfiilly obtained a real estate attachment
and preliminar)' injunction against Arnett preventing her from transferring or otherwise disposing
of her assets. CPAD continues to litigate this case.

CHILD PROTECTION

• Lead Paint Warning Labels In May 2003, Attorney Ceneral Reill)-, leading an effort on
behalf of 47 other state Attorneys Ceneral, finalized an agreement with the National Paint and

140

PL BLIC PROTECTION BUREAi: CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

(boating Association aimed at educating and warning consumers and families about the risk of
lead paint exposure during repainting and other home renovation work. The agreement recjuires

paint nianiifaciurers to affix warning Lihcls on paint cans, and to proxidc consiiiiier education
and training, alerting consumers to the hazards ot lead paint exposure ,ind how to a\()id it. The
agreement is significant because, while leatl paiiu has not been manuhictured since 1978. most
new paints instruct consumers to sand old paint surfaces before repainting, without warning
consumers of the potential .serious health risks to consumers, especially yoimg children, from
exposiue to the le.id paint dirsr that such stuhicc preparation can cause.

• On-Line Sales of Illegal Fireworks (Suffolk Superior Court) In June 2002, tiie Attorney
Cieneral issued cease and desist letters to three out-of-state companies for selling illegixl fireworks
to consumers in Massachusetts via the Internet, and followed those letters by filing suit. The
lawsuits, filed against American Eagle Fireworks, Inc., American Tradition Fireworks, and
Thimderbolt Fireworks, Inc., arose from an undercover sting operation where investigators
from the Investigations Division were able to purchase illegal fireworks from these companies
o\er the Internet, and to ha\e them delisered to addresses within Massachusetts. Two of the
fireworks dealers. Thunderbolt and American Tradition, entered into Consent Judgments
resolving the allegations, each paying penalties of $5,000 and agreeing to injunctive relief
prohibiting future violations. In December 2002, CPAD obtained a preliminary' injunction
against the third de;der, American Eagle Fireworks, and that case is currently being litigated. In
June 2003, (TAD and the Investigations Division conducted a follow-up sting operation,
which resulted in a cease and desist letter being issued to 2 Price Fireworks, Inc.

• Commonwealth v. Great Lake Camp, Inc. d/b/a Quabbin Camps (Worcester Superior
Court) In March 2003, CPAD obtained a Final Judgment and Order against George Deren,
foimder and president of Quabbin Camps, finding him liable for defrauding consumers who
had paid to send their special needs children to the camp, only to be told at the last minute that
the camp would not be opening and that the consumers would not receive refunds. The
judgment requires Deren to refund $ 1 40,000 to consumers. The Attorney General's Worcester
Office originally filed the case in February 2002; CPAD continues to litigate the case against
co-defendant Charles Sub.

PROTECTION OF IMMIGR.ANTS AND iMlNORITIES

• Commonwealth v. Jorge Manual Dias (Suffolk Superior Court) In August 2002, CPAD
obtained a Consent Judgment against Jorge Manual Dias, d/b/a Cambridge Services Agency,
settling a lawsuit h)r contempt arising out of Dias' practice of falseh- holding himself out as an
immigration law)'er and defrauding, among others, recent immigrants from Cape Verde and

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

the Dominican Republic. In 1994, CPAD had obtained a judgment against Dias prohibiting
him from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. A later investigation determined that
Dias, in defiance of the court order, continued to collect fees from immigrants between 1997
and 2000. In October 2000, CPAD filed a contempt action against Dias. The Consent Judgment
provides $75,000 in restitution to victimized consumers, and enjoins Dias from, among other
things, engaging in any immigration-related services.

• Commonwealth v. loseph Hai Nyugen and Steiios Vaviitis (Suffolk Superior Court) In
February 2003, CPAD filed a consumer protection action alleging that Joseph Hai N)aigen
and Steiios Vaviitis targeted Vietnamese-speaking home buyers in a mortgage and real estate
brokering scam by exploiting the language barrier facing Vietnamese propert)' buyers and their
unlamiliarity with mortgage financing. 1 hey illegally held themselves out as mortgage lenders,
mortgage brokers, and real estate brokers, inducing the consumers to pay thousands of dollars
in advance fees and then failing to arrange financing as promised. This case continues to be
litigated.

INTERNET AND HIGH TECH

• Commonwealth v. eb2i Solutions, Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) In August 2002, CPAD
filed suit against eb2i Solutions, Inc. and its principals, Nick and John Moukas, alleging that
they used a telemarketing and invoicing scheme to dehaud small businesses b\' oltering them
free literature and then, without their consent, signing them up and billing them for "e-
commerce" services. In November 2002, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment against the
defendants that, among other things, bans them from engaging in telemarketing practices for a
period of five years.

• Commonwealth v. Mainline Airways and Luke R. Thompson (Suffolk Superior Court)
In June 2003, CPAD filed suit against Mainline Airways and its principal, Luke R. Thompson,
alleging that Thompson defrauded consumers by selling them discounted flights between Los
Angeles and Honolulu on a non-existent airline he c;illed "Mainline Airways." Thompson
allegedly used an elaborate Web site and online booking system to perpetrate the fraud.
Simultaneous with the filing of the lawsuit, CJPAI) obtained a temporar)' restraining order
effectively shutting down the Mainline Airwaj^s operation. The case is currentK' being litigated.

PRIVACY

• Commonwealth v. Eli Lilly &: Co. (Suffolk Superior Court) In Jul)' 2002, C]PAI]), working
with seven other states, obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance against Eli Lilly & Co.,
resolving allegations that the pharmaceuticiil manufacturer violated consumer protection laws

142

I'L.'BI.IC PROIHCrnON BllREAi; CONSUMER PROTECTION AND AM ITRUSI DIVISION

by releasing the e-mail addresses of approximately 700 consumers who subscribed to the
company's "prozac.com" e-mail alert system. Prozac is a psychotropic medication manufactured
by 1 ill)', and the states alleged that, by releasing the e-mail addresses, Lilly violated consumers'
privacy rii;hts. The Assurance of Discontinuance required Lilly to strengthen its privacy
protcciions and resulted in a S2(), 000 p.i\-ment to the C Commonwealth.

• Commonwealth v. Doubleclick (Suftolk Superior ("ourt) In Aut^usr 2002, (M'Al), working
with nineotherstates, obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance against Doubleclick, an Internet
marketing compan\'. Massachusetts and the other states had investigateel Doiilileclick's piractice
of placing tracking files called "cookies" on consumers' computers as they visit Web sites,
monitoring consumers' Web browsing and purchasing practices, and then using the information
for marketing purposes. The states alleged that Doubleclick's practices were at odds with the
company's stated privac"}' policies and promises to consumers. The Assurance of Discontinuance
requires Doubleclick to limit its data-gathering activities to situations where a Web site warns
consumers that their Web activities are being tracked. Doubleclick also paid the Commonwealth
$35,000.

• Amazon.com Privacy Policy Agreement On September 23, 2002, C^PAD, on behalf of
Massachusetts and 16 other states, successfully negotiated an agreement with Amazon.com
that protects personal and sensitive information collected from consumers nationwide. The
states collectively raised their concerns with Amazon.com, an Internet bookseller, that its privacy
policy did not adequately inform consumers of how their confidential information w;ts being
used, or adequately protect it from potential abuses. As a result of the states' efforts, Amazon.com
agreed to changes in its privacy poliq' that heightened protections for consumer data, including
promises not to sell its customer database to marketers.

CONSUMER CREDir &: PREDATORY LENDING

• Commonwealth v. Household International (Suffolk Superior Court) In December
2002, CCPAD, working with the Massachusetts Di\ision of Banks and Attorneys General and
banking regulators in other states, filed suit against Household International, also known as
Household Finance Corporation and Beneficial Finance, for violations of state consumer
protection and banking laws. The lawsuit alleged that Household, one of the nation's largest
mortgage companies, defrauded consumers by, among other things, charging higher interest
rates than promised, adding cosdypre-payment penalties, and providing deceitful information
about insurance policies. Simultaneous with the filing of the lawsuit, the states obtained Consent
Judgments that resolved the allegations. Lender the settlement with the states. Household
agreed to pa)- S484 million in restitution nationwide, the largest consumer lending settlement

143

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

ever. The Massachusetts Consent Judgment returned approximately $13.4 million to 13,000
Massachusetts consumers who obtained mortgage or home-equit\' loans with the company,
and required a $255,000 payment directly to the Commonwealth. Household also agreed to
injunctive relief that significantly changes the way the company does business.

• Commonwealth v. Lease Funding Service, Inc. (SuHolk Superior Court) In June 2003,
CPAD filed suit against Lease Funding and its principal, Stephen P. Games, for defrauding
consumers and small businesses by offering financing for equipment leases, collecting significant
up-front fees, and then fiiiling to provide the financing. During the litigation the defendant
filed for Bankruptcy protection, and on January 15, 2003, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment
resolving the litigation. Pursuant to the Consent Judgment, the defendants are required to pay
$75,000 in restitution to victims and a penalty of $25,000 to the Commonwealth.

TELEMARKETING

• Commonwealth v. Integrated Credit Solutions. Inc., and Flagship Capital Services Corp.
(U.S. District Court, Massachusetts) In December 2002, CPAD filed an enforcement action
against Integrated Credit Solutions (ICS) and Flagship Capital Services Corp., two telemarketing
companies, alleging that they violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
state consumer protection laws by using pre-recorded telephone messages to deceptively induce
thousands of consumers to pay exorbitant "enrollment" and "education" lees to obtain "non-
profit" credit counseling services. According to the complaint, ICS unlawhilh' delivered as
man)' as 1 20,000 pre-recorded messages to Massachusetts residents in a single da)' and collected
over $ 1 million in unlawful fees from Massachusetts consumers. In April 2003, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss one of three counts against the companies; CPAD opposed the motion
and continties to litigate this case.

• Do Not Call Enforcement The Massachusetts Do Not Call Registry went into effect on
April 1, 2003, and CPAD initiated a multi-pronged enforcement initiative that included: (1)
consumer advisories explaining the new law and how to file a telemarketing complaint with the
Office of the Attorney General; (2) a specialized telemarketing complaint form available to
consumers online at the Attorney Generals Web site; (3) issuing warning letters to approximately
70 companies; and (4) identif\'ing specific telemarketers with multiple violations for potential
civil prosecution.

OTHER CONSUK4ER PROTECTION

• Commonwealth v. Leasecomm Corporation (Suffolk Superior Court) In May 2003,
CPAD, leading a group of eight states and the Fetleral Trade Commission, obtained a Consent

144

PIBLIC PROTECTION BUREAl- CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

Judgment against I.easecomm Corporation, resolving allegations that the company used deceptive
practices to force thousands of consumers nationwide to make unwarranted lease and fee
payments, often leaving these consumers in debt. Massachusetts and the other states alleged
that Leasecomni targeted consumers looking for "work-at-home" opportunities for high-pressure
sales pitches that often led to consumers signing leasing arrangements with Leasecomm that
required them to pay thousands of dollars for ecjuipment and software, like credit card swipe
machines and "virtual terminals," that did not work or the consumers did not want. Consumers
found that they could not get out of the leases and that Leasecomm would automatically debit
their accounts, charge unwarranted collection fees, and force the consumers to defend against
collections lawsuits in Massachusetts courts. Under the Consent Judgment, I.easecomm agreed
to significant ciianges in its business practices, agreed to relieve debts totaling $24 million
alleged!)' owed by o\er 6,000 consumers nationwide, and was required to pa\- S 1 million to rlic
participating states, with Massachusetts receiving S200,000.

• Commonwealth v. H&R Block Services, Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) In April 2003,
CPAD, working with Attorneys General in 41 other states, obtained an Assurance of
Discontinuance against H&R Block settling allegations that the tax preparation company violated
state consumer protection laws by automatically charging consumers additional fees for its
"peace of mind" guarantee without first obtaining their consent. H&R Block agreed to establish
a S 1 million consumer restitution hmd covering consumers nationwide, pa\' the Commonwealth
S5(),000, and change its practices.

• Commonwealth v. Kmart Corporation (Suffolk Superior Court) In August 2002, CPAD
obtained a Consent Judgment against Kmart Corporation in connection with the company's
significant pricing errors on consumer items. Working with inspectors from Bostons Department
of Weights and Measures, CPAD determined that the electronic check-out systems at several
Kmart stores in the Boston area significantly overcharged consumers. The Consent Judgment
resolved these allegations by requiring Kmart to take mciisures to ensure substantial pricing
accurac}^

• Commonwealth v. Ford Motor Company (Suffolk Superior Court) In December 2002,
CPAD, as part of a multi-state group, obtained a C^onsent Judgment against Ford Motor
Company resolving allegations that the compan}' used deceptive practices in the advertising
and sale of its sport utilit}' vehicles (SUVs). The states had investigated Fords failure to disclose
safety risks it was aware of concerning Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT tires recalled by the
company in August 2000. The states also alleged that Fords advertising exaggerated the safe
loading capacit}' and maneuverabilit)' of its SUVs. Under the terms of the Consent Judgment,

145

[n;Bl.lC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUS1 DIVISION

Ford provided $30 million tor a nationwide public service consumer education campaign on
SUV safety and paid Massachusetts $300, 000 to fund local consumer programs.

• Commonwealth v. Gaetano I. Scarpaci and Scarpaci Waterproofing. Inc. (Suffolk Superior
Court) In January 2003, CPAD filed an enforcement action against Caetano Scarpaci and
Scarpaci Waterproofing, alleging that Scarpaci used deception to procure home improvement
contracts from consumers, then violated consumer protection laws and regulations by, among
other things, requiring unlawfijUy large deposits from consumers, performing shoddy and dilator)'
work, failing to complete projects, and then threatening or intimidating consumers who
complained about him. CPADs civil case, which seeks restitution for harmed consumers,
followed the Attorney General's successful criminal prosecution against Scarpaci in 2002. CPAD
continues to litigate the civil action.

• In re The Terminix International Company (Suffolk Superior Court) In December
2002, CPAD, with the assistance of the Environmental Protection Division, obtained an
Assurance of Discontinuance against The Terminix International Company, which operates
five Terminix offices in Massachusetts, setding allegations that the company violated consumer
and environmental protection laws and regulations in the marketing and application of pest
control sei-vices and treatments. CPAD alleged that, since 1 998, Terminix had routinely charged
consumers for unwarranted and unnecessary outdoor pesticide applications for carpenter ants
in winter months (carpenter ants are dormant in winter and not found outdoors, except in
nests). Terminix agreed to change its consumer contracts and carpenter ant treatment practices,
and paid Massachusetts $100,000.

• Commonwealth v. Francis P. Bellotti. Jr. and Insurance Restoration Services. Inc. (Suffolk
Superior Court) In June 2003, CPAD filed an enforcement action against Francis P. Bellotti,
Jr., a South Attleboro contractor, for defrauding at least 13 fire victims. Acct)rding to the
lawsuit, Bellotti would rush to house fires, use high-pressure tactics to get the homeowners to
contract for his restoration services, and then have them sign o\er their insurance checks. Bellotti
would then fail to complete the work or abandon the projects, leaving many homeowners
living in trailers or other accommodations for a year or longer. The lawsuit seeks consumer
restitution, penalties, and injiuictive relief. CPAD continues to litigate this case.

• Commonwealth v. Needham Appliance and Lighting Center (Suffolk Superior Court)
In March 2003, CPAD filed suit against Needham Apjiliance and Lighting Center and its
principal, Kenneth Kaplan, for violating consumer protection laws by, among other practices,
charging consumers" credit cards without their authorization, overcharging consumers for items

146

I'lBLIC PROTECTION BUREAL! CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

they purchased, foiling to order or deliver purchased appliances, failing to provide refunds to
consumers, and issuing bad checks. CPAD's lawsuit seeks restitution for consumers, civil
penalties, and injunctive relief pre\'enting K.i[ilan from future violations. (IPAD continues to
litigate this case.

• Commonwealth v. All County Storag e (Suffolk Superior C;ourt) in Novenilur 2002,
C I'M) filed suit ,\j;,imst ,1 1 \nn w.uvhouse. All (^ouiuy Storage, and its principals. Nikki Cranitsas
and William KcniK-dy, loi thieateiiing to destroy an estimated 1,300 fur coats and jackets
belcMiging to consumeis. The fur garments had been stored at All County Stor.ige after they
were transferred, without notice to consumers, from a f^ramingham fur storage firm owned by
Steven Kazis. The lawsuit alleged All County Storage, Granitsas, and Kennedy refused to deal
with consumers to disclose the whereabouts of their garments, refused to return the garments
unless the consumers paid unreasonable storage fees, ranging from $500 to $1,000, and
threatened to destroy the garments. In November 2002, the court issued a Preliminary Injunction
ordering the defendants to permit an inspection of the garments, and then released them to
another storage company. In May and June 200.3, CPAD coordinated the return of approximateh'
400 garments to their rightful owners. In another lawsuit filed against All County Storage in
September 2002, CPAD alleged that Kennedy and Granitsas had prevented as many as 20
other consumers from retrieving their personal belongings. CPAD successfully obtained a
preliminary order in that case that resulted in the return of belongings to two of the consumers.
CPAD continues to litigate both these cases.

ANTITRUST

• Microsoft Antitrust Litigation (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C./U.S. District Court, D.C.)
Litigation cotitinues against Microsoft tor monopolizing the operating systems market and
other predatory practices. On June 28, 200 1 , the D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed the trial
court's finding that Microsoft had engaged in illegal monopolistic practices, but vacated the
trial courts decision to break up the company, and remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings on remedies. In November 2001, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and nine
states (the "settling" states) agreed to a propo.sed settlement with Microsoft. Pursuant to the
Tunney Act, the DOJ setdement was submitted to the court for a determination, after public
commeiu, whether entry of the settlement was in the public interest. Massachusetts and nine
other states (the "litigating" states) refused to settle the ca.sc and filed their own remedies proposal
with the court. Beginning on March 1 8, 2002, the court held a 32-day evidentiary trial on an
appropriate antitrust remedy and then issued three separate orders on November 1 , 2002: ( 1 )
approving DOJs settlement under the Tunney Act; (2) approving the "settling" states' consent
judgment; and (3) ordering a remedy in the case pursued by the "litigating" states which

147

I'UBIIC I'ROTFCTION BURI-Ali CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRL:.ST DIVISION

substantially tracked the DOJ settlement. On November 29, 2002, Massachusetts announced
that it was appealing the remedies decision to the D.C. Circuit. West Virginia also initially
filed a notice of appeal but later dismissed its appeal after settling with Microsoft. The remaining
eight "litigating" states did not appeal the remedies decision. On December 13, 2002,
Massachusetts filed its motion ftir attorney's fees in the district court. On March 13, 2003, the
D.C. Circuit granted Massachusetts' morion for full en banc review and expedited consideration
of the appeal. Two industr)- organizations, the Computer and Communications industry'
Association and the Software and Information Industr)' Association, appealed theTunney Act
decision to the D.C. Circuit. In May and June 2003, Massachusetts and the other parties to
the two appeals filed their legal briefs, and oral argument for both appeals is scheduled for
November 4, 2003. CPAD is continuing to prepare for the appeal, is continuing to litigate its
attorney's fee motion, and is moving forward with efforts to enforce the current order against
Microsoft.

• Vitamin Price Fixing In August 2002, CPAD entered into a $667,000 out-of-court
settlement with six major vitamin manuficturers, resolving allegations that the manufacturers
conspired over several years to fix the price of vitamins and vitamin additives used in milk,
bread, and cereal. The settlement reimbursed the Commonwealth for inflated prices that various
state agencies, such as the state Department of Corrections, paid for these foods. The six
companies, all of which are either European- or Japanese-based, were Hoffman-La Roche Inc.
and Roche Vitamins Inc.; BASF Corporation; Aventis Animal Nutrition S.A., formerly Rhone-
Poulenc Animal Nutrition S.A.;Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd.; Eisai Co., Ltd.; and Daiichi
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. In February 2002, in a private class-action suit brought against these
same vitamin manufacturers, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in a landmark decision, Ciardi
V. F. Hoffman-La Roche , 436 Mass. 53, that consumer claims for antitrust damages could
proceed under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. This followed CPAD's filing of an
(iwiciis curiae brief in support of Massachusetts consumers. As a result of that decision, the six
vitamin manufacturers entered into a $19.6 million setdement of the private class action, with
the money to be distributed to Massachusetts charitable organizations for food nutrition
programs.

• CD Antitrust Litigation (U.S. L~)istrict Court, ME) In November 2000, CPAD joined
over 40 other states in filing an antitrust lawsuit against the major record companies and music
retailers, alleging an illegal conspiracy to prevent discounting in the sale of music CDs. In
September 2002, the states announced the entry of a Consent Judgment against the record
companies and music retailers that settled the lawsuit and would result in consumer restitution
in excess of $67 million and the distribution of over 5 million free CDs to public libraries and/

148

['f BLIC PROTECTION BUREAl- CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

or Other srate entities. In jiinc 2003, the disttict court approved ilie Consent Judgment and
distrihiiiion [ihin.

• In re Stericycle, Inc. and Scherer Healthcare. Inc. (Suffolk .Superior C^ourr) In januar}'
2003, ( M'AI ) obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance against Stericycle and Scherer Healthcare,
resolving antitrust concerns stemming from the merger ofthe.se two medical waste disposal
companies. Massachusetts aiui ('onnecticut jointly investigated the competitive impact of
Steritycles proposed accjuisition of Scherers medical waste operations and determined that the
acquisition would likely substantially lessen competition in Massachusetts and Connecticut for
the sale of medical waste disposal ser\'ices and for the operation of medical waste transfer facilities,
resulting in higher costs to hospitals, medical clinics, and other he;ilthcare institutions. The
Assurance of Discontinuance required the parties to divest one of their two Haverhill,
Massachu.setts, medical waste transfer facilities to an inde[iendent operator, and required Stericycle
to give the states advance notice of future acquisitions.

• In re Big Y Foods, Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) In April 2003, Cl'AD obtained an
Assurance of Discontinuance against Big Y Foods in connection with its acquisition of A&P
Foodmart supermarkets in the Springfield, Massachusetts, area. CPAD determined, based on
its antitrust review, that the proposed acquisitions of several A&P stores could substantially
lessen supermarket competition in the area and result in higher grocery prices to consumers.
The Assurance of Discontinuance required Big Y, for a period of three years, to price its grocerj'
items at its new stores the same as the prices used at its other Springfleld-area stores, which face
greater competition. Big Y also was required to attempt to sell its leasehold interest in its West
Springfield store to another competing supermarket.

• Commonwealth v. Echostar Communications Corp. et al. (U.S. District Court, D.C.)
In October 2002, CPAD joined the U.S. Department of Justice and 24 other states in filing an
antitrust lawsuit to prevent the merger of EchoStar's Dish Network and Hughes Electronic
Corp. s DirecTV, the only two nationwide direct broadcast satellite television providers. DOJ
and the states alleged that the proposed merger would result in a monopoly in satellite television
ser\iccs, would reduce competition even in areas where consumers had a cable tele\ision option,
and would result in higher prices and fewer offerings to consumers. On December 10, 2002,
the two companies announced that the)- had cancelled their plans to merge because of the
antitrust challenge.

• Commonwealth v. Salton, Inc. (U.S. District Court, NY) In September 2002, CPAD
joined 43 other states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia in settling antitrust allegations

PUBLIC I'ROTFXTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST [^VISION

that Salton, Inc., manufacturer of the (leorge Forman grills, coerced retailers into fixing the
price of George Forman grills and excluding Salton's competitors horn their shelves, which
resulted in higher prices to consumers. If a retailer sold the George Forman grill at a discount,
or sold a competitor's grill, Salton would suspend deliveries to that store. Under the settlement,
formalized as a Consent Judgment, Salton agreed to pay a total of approximately $8 million in
cy pres restitution to participating states. The court approved the Consent Judgment on May
30, 200.3, and the restitution will be distributed sometime after March 2004.

TOBACCO

• In re ExxonMobil (Suffolk Superior Court) In August 2002, CPAD joined 42 other states
in settling allegations of tobacco sales to minors at Exxon and Mobil convenience stores.
ExxonMobil agreed, in an Assurance of Discontinuance, to institute procedures designed to
reduce the number of underage sales, including personnel training requirements and undercover
compliance checks. The company paid $100,000 to the states, with $2,644 paid to the
Massachusetts Local Consumer Aid Fund.

• Commonwealth v. CVS Corp. (Suffolk Superior Court) In February 2003, CVS entered
into a Consent Judgment relating to its use of self-service displays for smokeless tobacco and
little cigars in violation of a 1998 Assurance of Discontinuance and the Attorney General's
tobacco sales regulations. The judgment provided, among other things, that CVS would pay
$90,000 to the Local Consumer Aid Fund for distribution to loc;il programs addressing consumer
issues relating to tobacco; would pay another $30,000 it additional self-service tobacco displays
were found; would implement new training and self-auditing procedures; and would report
annually to the Attorney Gener<il.

• NPM Enforcement (Suffolk Superior Court) CPAD filed five new actions and six amended
complaints against cigarette manufiicturers that did not comply with G.L. c. 94E, either by
signing and performing under the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement or (as Non-Participating
Manufacturers or "NPMs ") by funding qualified escrow accounts to pay judgments or settlements
in actions brought against them by the Commonwe.dth. Two companies sued during Fiscal
Year 2002 came into compliance and paid a 100% penalty, and default judgments were entered
against three other companies. Attorney General Reilly ;ilso joined Attorneys General in other
states in defending litigation brought to challenge the NPM enforcement activities of those
states as unconstitutional. Attorney General Reilly also proposed legislation to reduce the
extent of violations of Chapter 94E, to make it easier to enforce, and to close an unintended
loophole in the law.

150

PL'BLIC PROTECTION BURRAl' CONSl'MER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

Penalties/Cosrs/Orhcr Monc)' l^ctumcd to ilic (^oninioinvc.ilrli $3,822,357

Consumer Restitution Recovered

CPAD $7,935,387'

CCIS $ 398,163

Local Consumer Programs $4,649,531

C^onsumer Hotline (]alls

CCLS $ 69,346

Local Consumer Programs $ 90,717

Consumer Complaints Filed

CCLS $ 4,581

Local Consumer Programs $ 10,079

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

lOBACCO SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS

Lhe Commonwealth received approximately $300 million during Fiscal Year 2003, imder the
1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), bringing the total amount received to more than
$1.1 billion. The Fiscal Year 2003 total included $86.4 million in Initial Payments received in December
2002 and Januar}' 2003, $206.6 million in Annual Payments received in April 2003, and $7 million as
a share of the settlement of a number of outstanding payment disputes between the states and certain
tobacco companies. CPAD closely inonitored and enforced the settlement to ensure that the
Commonwealth received the full amounts due under the agreement. Among other things. Attorney
Ceneral Reilly notified Philip Morris USA in April 2003 that he would bring enforcement proceedings
against the company if it failed to timel)' pay its annual payment in light of a then-pending appeal bond
reciuirement in class-action litigation iti Illinois. The Attorne\' Ceneral reported to the legislature
quarterly on MSA payments, under C.L. c. 29D, § 3(i).

' TliK restitution .iniount does not include rehiuds to coiisiuners required under CPAD's Assur.uiccs ol Distoiuiiuiaiice
with II&R Block (SI million nationally) or judgments against consumers dismissed or forgiven pursuant to the Final
Judgment by Consent filed against Leasecomni Corporation (estimated at S24 million nationwide).

151

PUBLIC PROTHCTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

AMICUS CURIAE

In addition to sij^ning on to amicus curiae briefs sponsored b)' other state Attorne)'s General,
CPAD wrote and submitted two successful amicus curiae brieKs, one each in federal and state courts:

• In Wal-Mart Stores. Inc. v. Anabelle Rodriguez . No. 02-27 10(1' Cir. March 20, 2003),
CPAD filed an amicus curiaehnei on behalf of 20 states in support of the Secretary of Justice of
Puerto Rico. CPAD's brief, filed on February 25, 2003, sought to have the First Circuit reverse
a lower court ruling enjoining Puerto Rico from prosecuting its state law antitrust claim against
W;il-Mart, arising out of Wal-Mart's acquisition of several stores on the island. The lower court
had ruled, among other things, that Puerto Rico was pre-empted from enforcing its own antitrust
laws by a settlement of the antitrust clainrs by the Federal Irade Commission. Massachusetts
argued that settled Supreme Court precedent authorized all states, including Puerto Rico, to
prosecute their own state antitrust cases in state courts, irrespective of federal action. Immediately
after the Massachusetts brief was filed, Wal-Mart agreed to dismiss the undedying action, and
on March 20, 2003, the First Circuit vacated the lower court decision.

• In Commonwealth Mutual Insurance Co. v. Vigorito , No. 9798 (App. Div. Feb. 7, 2003),
CPAD filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Commonwealth Mutual Insurance Co. CPAD's
brief, filed on September 27, 2002, sought to have the Appellate Division affirm the lower
court's decision holding that the defendant auto repair shop could be held liable under the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, G.L. c. 93A, for misusing the "Mechanics Lien ' statute
to force a consumer to pay excessive repair and storage fees. On February 7, 2003, the Appellate
Division (Coven, J.) affirmed the lower court decision in part, holding that the repair shop's
use of the lien statute to secure improper and excessive fees violated c. 93A.

LEGISLATION

CPAD drafted two pieces of consumer protection legislation submitted to the legislature:

• Anti-Spam Legislation On December 4, 2002, Attorney General Reilly and State Senator
Jarrett T. Barrios of Cambridge filed proposed anti-spam legislation. SB 191 \,An Act Regarding
Commercial Electruriic Mail, would, among other things, prohibit electronic marketers from
using misleading information in commercial emails, require senders of unsolicited connnercial
e-mails to label their e-mails with "ADV," and "ADLT" if they contain adult content, provide a
mechanism for consumers to opt out of receiving commercial e-mail messages, and provide the
Attorney General and consumers with the ability to seek monetar)' damages against spammers
who violate the law.

152

Pl'BLIC PROTECTION BUREAl' CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION

• Legislation Prohibiting rnhacco "Kiddie Packs" The legislature approved, as part of the Fiscal
Year 2003 budget, a prohibition on the sale of cigarette packs of less than 20 cigarettes. These
so-callctl "kiddie packs" can be particularly attractive to minors.

NORTHEAS r NE ITORCF. AND CYBHRSHCURITY INITIAIIXFS

On November 13, 2002, Attornc)' CeneraJ Reilly joined the bederal Trade Commission, other
state Attorneys General, and federal authorities in announcing, in Boston, the Northeast Netforce
initiative, in which CPAD participated, targeting deceptive spam and Internet scams. Simuiraneoiislv,
Attorney General Reilly announced the proposed state anti-spam legislation. On December 1 2, 2002,
Attorney Generd Reilly and Bentley College co-sponsored a cybersecurity forum, "Securing the Weak
Link in Cyberspace." The forum, developed with the assistance of CPAE), brought together
representatives from law enforcement, academia, the high-tech sector, and consumer groups to create a
model program for enhancing c\'bcr security for computer users in Massachusetts.

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

CONSUMER PROTECTION EDUCATION AND ADVISORIES

In Fiscal Year 2003, CPAD assisted in the publication and release of Attorne)' General Reiliys
CotisuDwr Guide to the Internet and consumer advisories addressing nursing home user fees, the
Massachusetts Do Not Call Law, and misleading e-mails. CPAD also sponsored several National
Consumer Week initiatives in February 2003.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT AND INFORMATION SECTION (CCIS)

In Fiscal Year 2003, CCIS successfully mediated 844 consumer complaints filed against businesses,
retmning $398,163 to these consumers. CCIS also provided consumer information on ail manner of
issues by responding to over 69,000 telephone calls to the Consumer Hotline, by responding to letters,
by distributing brochures, and through public speaking engagements. CCIS also responded to press
and consumer inquiries requesting complaint information against specific businesses and responded
to 1 86 public records requests. Staff members also participated in National Consumer Week activities
in Februar)' 2003 by, among other things, providing consumers at several MBTA stations with brochures
on various consumer protection issues and consumer complaint forms.

CPAD ATTORNEYS

CPAD Attorneys participated as speakers and panelists in consumer education events, as well as in
industry seminars and forimis, on nimierous issues, including identit\' fraud, Internet safety, predatorA'
lending, manufactured housing, telemarketing fraud, and other consumer protection issues.

153

PUBLIC PROTECTION BLIREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

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, and hazardous and solid 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
environment.ll laws, and in doing so, the division may bring enforcement actions against those agencies
in court wiiere the Attorney General, in his enforcement discretion, deems action necessary. Based on
the Attorney General's broad authority to protect the environment oi the Commonwealth, EPD initiates
and intervenes in state and federal litigation, and participates in administrative proceedings before
federal agencies on significant environmental issues. EPD defends lawsuits challenging the actions of
state environmental agencies and the legality ol state environmental laws.

Environmental Protection Division staff included James Milkey, Division Chief; Frederick
Augenstern; Dena Barisano; Freda Boden; Matthew Brock; Nora Chorover; Carolyn Edwards; Benjamin
Ericson; James Farrell; I. Andrew Goldberg; Nancy (Betsy) Harper; Carol lancu; Matthew Ireland;
Eleanor Johnson; Siu Tip Lam; Trevor Murray; William Pardee; Dawn Stolfi Stalenhoet; and Danah
Tench.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

STATE AIR POLLUTION LAWS AND REGULATIONS

• Auto Emissions Standards EPD was again active in enforcing state laws regarding pollution
resulting from the operation of automobiles. Massachusetts is one of the few states that has
taken advantage of Section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act allowing states to adopt California's
stringent vehicle emissions standards. During Fiscal Year 2003, EPD handled cases against r\vo
automobile dealerships to enforce these low emissions standards: 128 Sales and RJ Foley, Inc.
In both cases, EPD secured summary judgment in the Commonwe;dth"s favor.

• Vapor Recovery Standards EPD was also active in defending and enforcing Massachusetts"
Stage II Vapor Recovery Standards. Stage II vapor recovery systems control releases ol gasoline
vapors when vehicles are refueled. They require gas stations to install and maintain ec]uipment
to capture vapors that would otherwise escape to the atmospiicre and contribute to i)/oiie .uid
smog formation. In Fisciil Year 2003. EPD reached a significant settlement with Exxon/Mobil

154

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAl ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

requiring payment of $ 1 75,000 in civil penalties and injunctive relief. In addition, EPD defended
regulatory amendments that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) made to the
Stage II program.

• ditto Global HPD continued the prosecution of its ca.sc against Ciitto (ilob.il C^orp., a
plastics manuhicturcr's hiciliry in Lunenburg. F.PI) alleges that the company violated various
stare environmental laws, including bypassing its air pollution control ecjuipnient. Throughout
Fiscal Year 2003, FPO pursued both disco\er}' and settlement negotiations.

• Power Plants In May 2001 , DEP adopted new emissions standards for the six older power
plants in Massachusetts. EPD is defending a challenge to those regulations filed by the owner
of one of the affected power plants.

NAllONAL AND REC^IONAL AIR RULUTION ISSUE.S

• Global Warming/Climate Change The Attorney General has made the problem of global
warming a priority issue. In |uly 2002, Attorney General Reilly led a coalition of 1 1 states that
c;illed on President Bush to rethink his global warming policies. In June 2003, Massachusetts,
together with Connecticut and Maine, filed a fir.st-of-its-kind lawsuit seeking to require that
EPA regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. During Fiscal Year 2003,
Ma.ssachusetts also joined a multi-state amicus brief in a California lawsuit arguing that EPA
has a duty to review the existing New Source Perforinance Standard for power plants and that
it must, in this context, consider setting an NSPS for carbon dioxide.

• New Source Review EPD continued to play a significant role in a multi-state and EPA
enforcement action again.st a large Ohio-based power company for upgrading plants without
installing Best Available Control Technology as required by the New Source Review (NSR)
provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. During Fiscal Year 2003, discovers- in American Electric
Power continued. In the meantime, EPA finalized several proposed regulatory changes that will
significantU- weaken the NSR program, and Massachusetts joined with several other states to
challenge this action before the D.C. Circuit. EPA also proposed further significant changes to
the NSR program, and EPD filed comments opposing these changes.

• American Power Co. v. U.S. EPA (126 Litigation) EPD was instrumental in obtaining a
court ruling that should reduce emissions from Midwestern and Southern power plants that
contribute pollution to the state air shed. In American Power Co. v. U.S. EPA. Massachusetts
intervened in federal court to defend EPA's decision to grant a petition, under Section 126 of
the federal Clean Air Act, to require EPA to impose emissions reductions on power plants

155

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

located in Midwestern states. In a May 1 5, 2001 ruling, the D.C. Circuit largely upheld EPA's
rule rec]uiring emissions reductions by Midwestern and Southeastern power plants, but ruled
in favor of certain plant-specific claims, and also directed EPA to explain an element of its
decision on remedy. EPA issued a draft ruling on remand and, following our comments, finalized
that ruling. Industry challenged that ruling, and EPD took the lead among the intervening
states in defending the ruling.

• State of Michigan V. U.S. EPA (the "NO.x SIP Call" litigation), a case related to the Section
126 litigation, Massachusetts intervened to defend EPA's decision to require 22 states to amend
their air state implementation plans (SIPs) to include mandatory reductions in nitrogen oxides
(NOx) from in-state power plants. In early March 2002, the Supreme Court let stand the
decision of the U.S. Court ol Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upholding EPAs
"NOx SIP Call Rule." That rule, which EPA adopted in 1998, required 22 eastern states and
the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of NOx within their borders, so as to reduce the
movement (transport) of NOx to downwind areas, primarily in the northeastern states. The
case continues, however, because the administrative ruling that EPA made on remand with
respect to the Section 126 litigation covers the issues on remand in the SIP Call case as well. As
mentioned above, that ruling is under appeal, with EPD taking the lead for the intervening
states.

ENERGY

Massachusetts joined a challenge before the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to the Federal
Department of Energy's decision to roll back energy efficiency standards that DOE had set for central
air conditioners and heat pumps. The Court heard oral argument in January 2003.

ENFORCING HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. AND MANAGEMENT LAWS

Under G.L. c. 2 IE, the Attorney General is charged with recovering funds the Commonwealth
spent cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Where possible, EPD enters into settlements with the parties
responsible for the contamination to obtain their agreement to clean up the site, rather than pursuing
a cost-recovery action after the state has stepped in itself to clean up the contamination. This saves the
Commonwealth money up front and results in the efficient administration of site cleanups. EPD also
enforces Massachusetts' hazardous and solid waste management laws to prevent environmental
contamination from occurring in the first place.

• Hardwick Landfill In this case involving a landfill expansion undertaken without DEP
approval, the Attorney C^eneral obtained a settlement that required the pa)ment ot a $ 1 75,000
civil penalty.

156

Pl'BLIC PROTECTION Bl'RRAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

• Wayland Landfill In this case, the Commonwealth alleged that the Town of Wavland
collected recyclable material and then buried it at the town landfill in violation of the states
solid waste regulations. The case was settled for a S25,()0() civil penalr^-, a portion of which can
be waived if the town sta\'s in compliance.

• Walgrecns I his case involved numerous \ioiarioiis of DKP's F.nvironmcntal Results Program
rei.uing to silver wastes. Tiic Attorne)' (leiieral obtaineil a settlement tli,u incliuied injunctive
relief and a pa}Mnent of a civil penalty of SI 85,000, a portion of which can be waived if the
company stays in compliance.

• D.B. Enterprises F.PD continued its prosecution of owners and operators of a large landfill
in the Town of Wendell. EPD is seeking to recover millions of dollars that DEP spent to
stabilize the landfill in order to prevent its catastrophic collapse.

• Hercules Wrecking EPD had pre\iousl\' obtained a consent judgment requiring cleanup of
a site in Brockton on a cerrain schedule. Clcaiuip was not completed, aiitl the owner claimed
ability-to-pa\- problems. EPD settled a contempt action against the owner for a S50,000 penalty
and executed a Brownfields Covenant Not to Sue Agreement with a new bu\er who wanted to
redevelop the site through building a salvaging operation. This allowed the transfer of the
property to be consummated and the site to be cleaned up and redeveloped.

• Starmet EPD continued its case against Starmet Corp. (formerh' known as Nuclear Metals),
a company that manufactured armor-piercing bullets and other munitions from spent radioactive
fuels at a site in Concord. EPA has placed the site on the National Priority List. While the sire
itself is contaminated, there are also some 3,800 barrels of radioactive materi,Js essentiallv
abandoned at the site. EPD filed its state court lawsuit to require the companv to establish an
escrow account for site decommissioning, to maintain securit}' at the facilit\-, and to remove the
barrels. The company agreed to establish the escrow account, and the court ordered it to continue
to maintain site securitv' while the case proceeds. During Fiscal Year 2003, the Attorney General
recovered S80,000 through the settlement of a related bankruptq' action in South Carolina,
obtained summary judgment against Starmet, and defeated a Motion to Dismiss against a
second defendant related to Starmet.

• MBTA EPD also continued prosecution of its lawsuit against the MBTA regarding significant
lead and arsenic contamination at the Readville Yard. In its complaint, EPD alleged that the T
failed to clean up the site despite its statutory liabilit}', and that children were gaining access to
the contaminated areas at the site. Through this case, EPD is seekinn; not onlv relief to address

157

:'UBLIC PROTF-CriON BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL I'ROTECTION DIVISION j

the specific violations, but also broad-scale relief to force appropriate institutional changes |

regarding how the Y manages its environmental compliance issues. I

• JEMS of New England EPD also continued prosecution oi its lawsuit for 21E regulatory
violations against JEMS of New England, a company that was performing a site cleanup. EPD 1
alleged that JEMS failed to comply with DEP orders to provide clean water to a family whose

well water was contaminated. JEMS, a former petroleum supplier, delayed compliance with the
orders while it sought a waiver of liability. The case is an important test of the 2 IE privatized
cleanup program.

• Mendon Road EPD continued to pursue recover)' ot costs the Commonwealth spent to
clean up coal-related wastes containing a compound known as k-rric tcrrocyanide. The so-
called Mendon Road Case was filed several years ago against Narragansett Electric for cleanup

costs spent by the state, which now total several million dollars, with interest. The First Circuit I

referred the question of whether ferric ferrocyanide is a hazardous substance under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act to EPA, and EPA j

issued a preliminary ruling that it was. During Fiscal Year 2003, EPD submitted additional
comments supporting EPAs preliminary ruling, which, if finalized, would allow Massachusetts
to argue that it was entitled to the millions of dollars currently sitting in escrow, and EPD j

defeated the defendants efforts to terminate the First Circuit's referral to EPA. j

• 229 Main St. Limited Partnership This controversy involves contaminated propern' owned |
by 229 Main St. Limited Partnership in Natick. EPD previously won a First Circuit case I
upholding DEP's right to file a lien on the property after the owner went into bankruptcy. !
During Fiscal Year 2003, EPD induced the owner to dismiss a second appeal that had been
pending in the state Appeals Court, and negotiated an agreement-in-principle resolving the
remaining cleanup, cost recovery, and bankruptcy issues.

• Boston Junk In another major 2 IE action, tTD is seeking recovery, Irom Boston Edison ]
and others, of monies being spent to clean up the site of the Boston Convention Center. EPD

is working closeh' with the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority and the Boston j

Redevelopment Authorit)', co-plaintihs in the case.

• Colonial Shoppe EPD continued its case against the Colonial Shoppe, a liquor store in |
Hudson that EPD alleged was violating the Bottle Bill by paying only four cents per can or j
bottle redeemed, instead of the five cents required hv the statute. I

158

Rl IC PROTFrriON Bl'RFAi; FNVIRONMF.N lAI. PROTECTION DIVISION

111

rURAl. RFSOllRCF RF.COVF.RY, ['ROIFCTION. AND I'RFSF.RVAriON

• Environmental Review HPI) handled many cases that arose under the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEI'A). In the most significant case, MassPort filed suit seekint; to

lodif)' a 1976 state court injunction, issued under MEPA, enjoinini; the authority from
constructing an additional runway at Logan Airport, in tlie lawsuit, MassPort alleged that
modification of the injunction was warranted becairse the Secretary of" Environmental Affairs
had certified the en\ ironmeiital impact report for the proposed new runwa\'. FPL) is defending
the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs in this lawsuit, which went to trial in Fiscal Year
2003.

• Protection of Endangered Species and Plants in WR T v. DFW , EPl) defended actions of
the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) implementing the Massachusetts Endangered
Species Act (MESA). The developer of a golf course in Sturbridge brought a declaratory judgment
action challenging DFW's statutor)' authorit}' to retjuire "conser\'ation permits" for habitat
impacts under MESA, as well as its authority to certit)' vernal pools. In an important decision,
the Superior ( lourt ruled in DFW's favor. During Fiscal Year 2003, the Appeals Court dismissed
the appeal as moot.

Much of EPDs environmental work is done to protect the Commonwealth's water-related resources,
including our water bodies, drinking water, wetlands, and tidelands. The Attorney General brings suit
against parties that \-iolate the state laws passed to protect these critical resources.

• Battye Trucking EPD recently sought and won a court order stopping a Methuen contractor
from dumping and piling concrete and construction debris in the wetlands on his property in
violation of state laws pertaining to wetlands protection, rare species, and solid waste disposal.

• Servitank EPD al.so secured a $ 1 60,000 settlement with two trucking companies involved
in a chemical spill in Colrain, Massachusetts, that allegedly killed fish and aqiiatic life in the
North River.

• Costa In a case involving wetlands and solid waste violations at the Costa Farm in Fairhavcn,
EPD obtained judgments against the owner of the farm and a trucker who hauled rotting
clamshells to the fiirni.

• Karl's Site Work In a c.use involving water pollution and hazardous waste violations at a site
in Fladley, EPD obtained a settlement reqiuring injunctive relief and a civil penalri' of S80,000.

159

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

• Hoosac Water Quality District The Artorncy ( leiicral brings nian\' cases with the Federal
government against municipal entities that operate publicly owned treatment works that
discharge into water bodies. During Fiscal Year 2003, he helped secure a settlement with the
City of North Adams, the Town of Williamstown, and the Hoosac Water Quality District
(which manages sewage treatment for the two municipalities), under which the defendants will
take specific steps to prevent future violations, and pay civil penalties totaling $100,000.
Williamstown will also complete a Supplemental Environmental Project valued at $168,400.

The Attorney General also defends the publics rights in coastal tidelands. For example, in Trio
Algarvio. Inc. v. Commissioner of DFR EPD defended the Commonwealths right to charge tidewater
displacement fees and tidelands occupation fees for a private party's use of filled land that lies seaward
of the historic low tide line. During Fiscal Year 2003, the state Appeals Court issued a ruling striking
down both fees, and the Attorney General obtained further appellate review Irom the Supreme Judicial
Court and re-briefed and re-argued the case.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

During Fiscal Year 2003, EPD handled enforcement proceedings leading to judgments requiring
payments of $1,133,125. This figure is for penalties, cost recovery, and other payments awarded in
Fiscal Year 2003, whether or not actually paid in Fiscal Year 2003. It does not include penalties that are
subject to waiver if the defendant stays in compliance. In Fiscal Year 2003 E,PD received actual payments
totaling $1,692,393.30 in penalties, cost recovery, and other payments. Other cases resulted in court
judgments requiring private parties to undertake costly cleanups, a savings of millions of dollars for the
Commonwealth.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

BRQWNFIELDS

Chapter 206 of the Acts of 1998, "An Act Relative to Environmental Cleanup and Promoting the
Redevelopment of Contaminated Property," otherwise known as the "Massachusetts Brownfields Act,"
encourages the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields sites through both liability reforms and
financial assistance. The Act authorizes the Attorney General to enter into Brownfields Covenants that
provide liability relief beyond what is otherwise available under Chapter 2 1 E. The Brownfields Covenant
Program addresses site-specific liability concerns for complex cleanups and important redevelopment
efforts.

160

I'l'BLIC I'ROTKCTION BLJRFAl' ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION niVISK^N

The Attorney Genenil assesses applications for Brownfield Covenants according to the benefits
the.)' create for local communities and the Commonwealth by creating new permanent jobs and affordable
hoLising benefits, preserving historic buiklings, creating or revitalizing open space, and/or providing
some other public benefit to the communit)' in which the site is located.

In Fiscal Year 200}, HPD's Brownficlds Unit continued to work on a number of diverse cleanup
antl redevelopment projects throughout the (Commonwealth. I he Brownficlds Unit considered .several
applications for Brownficlds (Covenants and finalized two (2) Agreements designed to promote cleanup
.uid reuse projects in Brockton and Norton, both of which were involved in long enforcement efforts.
The Brownficlds Unit has continued its ongoing efforts on various long-term priority projects and also
h.is continued to .solicit new projects through outreach and education.

BRO^XTMFIELDS AC^REEMENTS FINALIZED

• Champion City Recover)'. LLC Project. Brockton In August 2002, the Brownficlds Unit
issued a Brownficlds Covenant to Boxer Re;ilt}' Redevelopment, LLC, Champion City Recover)',
I L(C. and New England Waste, LLC for the cleanup and redevelopment of the former Hercules
Wrecking ("o. site, a lO-acre parcel located at 138 Wilder .Street in Brockton. The recipients of
this Biownfields (Covenant intend to construct a permitted facilit)- to process construction and
demolition debris that will be sorted, recycled, and transferred from the facility and use best
efforts to create approximately 60 new jobs.

• Kilburn Isotronics, Norton The Brownficlds Unit worked with DEP, Kilburn Class, and
(]ifford Investments to amend the 1989 Final Judgment in Commonwealth v. Kilburn Class
Industries, Inc. and Gifford Investments, Inc. (Civil Action No. 79163), which addressed claims
under the Massachusetts Clean Water Act and (Chapter 2 1 E to lead to a more aggressive cleanup,
and make the electrical and glass components manufacturing facility more attractive to
prospective purclKtsers who could, in turn, create more jobs at the facility.

RRCONXT^FIELDS APPLICATIONS FILED

• Stoklosa Middle School Project, Lowell In March 2002, the City of Lowell and KeySpan
Energy Delivery New England (Ke)'Span) jointly submitted an application for a Brownficlds
Covenant. The Cit)' of Lowell intended to build a 600-student middle school on 6.5 acres of
former industrial propert)', a portion of which KeySpan Energ)' owned. Although the Brownficlds
Unit worked clo.scl)' with the Cit)- and Ke)-Span throughout Fiscal Year 2003 to promote the
most protective cleanup feasible, KeySpan ultimateh' transferred the propert)' to the City of
Lowell and the project did not require a Brownficlds Covenant in order to proceed.

161

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

• Grove Willow, LLC, at the former Raytheon Facility, Waltham and Watertown In

September 2000, Grove Willow, LLC" submitted an application tor the redevelopment of the
former Raytheon facility. Grove Willow intends to redevelop Raytheon's former 78-acre
manufacturing plant into a state-of-the-art telecommunications park and potentially create
1,000 jobs. Grove Willow is reconsidering the redevelopment project, and the Brownfields
Unit continues to monitor the project.

• Glover Estates, LLC (former Chadwick Lead Mills Site), Salem and Marblehead In

2001, Glove Estates, LLC submitted a Brownfields Covenant application involving the cleanup
of a former lead mill site and the construction ot 55 units of senior assisted living, with a
percentage devoted to low- to moderate-income residents. The development would create
between 50 and 60 new jobs. The Brownfields Unit conducted a public forum on the project
in April 2001 and continued to monitor this project throughout Fiscal Year 2003.

• Iron Horse Park Superfund Site, Billerica In 2001, Iron Horse Park LLC, Easton Exchange
Holding, Inc., and Easton Exchange Services LLC submitted an application for a Brownfields
Covenant to redevelop a portion ot the Iron Horse Park Superfund Site known as "Penn Culvert"
as a storage, handling, and distribution facility that would include an 8 1 ,200-square-foot
warehouse building, a paved parking lot, and a railroad spur to revitalize the site, generate new
jobs, improve the property value, and increase the t;ix base in Billerica. In Fiscal Year 2003, the
applicant informed the Brownfields LJnit that the project would not require a Brownfields
Covenant in order to proceed.

• 395 Lynnway Project, Lynn In June 2003, the current owner and a prospective purchaser
submitted an application lor a Brownfields Covenant to clean-up and reuse idle property located
at 395 Lynnway, Lynn. This project involves a 100,000-square-foot commercial building and
will result in the creation of 10 to 14 jobs.

BROWNFIELDS APPLICATIONS ANTICIPATED

• GenCorp/Lawrence Gateway Project, Lawrence One of the Brownfields Unit's long-term
priority efforts is the Gateway Area of Lawrence. The redevelopment of the GenCorp site into
a parking lot/garage and the abutting Oxford Paper site into a park and an open space recreation
area will be catalysts for revitalization of the Gateway area, inspiring new development and
increased occupancy and use in existing mill buildings as well as expansion of Lawrence General
Hospital services. This project would create hundreds of jobs and spur economic development
of the Gateway area and much of the mill area, creating significant public benefits to Greater
Lawrence. In Fiscal Year 2003, the Brownfields Unit continued to participate in regular Gateway

162

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAL' ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

meetings convened to move the (lenClorp and C~)xford Paper projects forward, promoted the
formation of an entity to assume operation and management responsibiHties of hundreds of
parking spaces on the site that abutting mill owners could use by 2004, and advocated for near-
term parking spaces on appropriate portions of the site. GenCorp has submitted a draft

apiilication tor consideration.

• Rail Yard, New Bedford Anotlier of the long-term priority hrownfields efforts is the New
Bedford Redevelopment Aiithorit}' project involving the conversion of the 30-acre New Bedford
rail yard into a multi-u.se intermodal transit area. The Hrownfields Unit worked with New
Bedford i>fncials to address the project's liability issues.

• BFI/Decor Project, Wliitman A current tenant, with an existing business, formed a company
interested in completing the cleanup and expanding paper manufacturing operations (creating
approximately 30 new jobs), but had liabilit)- concerns associated with these efforts. The
Brownfields Unit continued its eltorts on this project.

• Riverside Avenue Project, New Bedford In April 2003, Norseman Properties, the new
owner of the former Cliftcx Building in New Bedford, submitted a draft application for a
Brownfields Covenant. Norseman intends to redevelop the former mill with a variety of uses
but faces significant challenges relating to liabilit}' and environmental issues as well as financial
complexities. The Brownfields Unit devoted significant time to moving this project forward.

• Manchester Street Project (Part 2), Lowell In Fiscal Year 2002, the Brownfields Unit
issued a Brownfields Covenant for a project at 77 Manchester Street, Lowell, to promote the
cleanup and construction of housing units, including affordable housing. The developer is
interested in expanding the project to include the abutting propert}' located at 125 Manchester
Street.

• Smith & LaMountain Service Corp., Project Monson In June 2002, Smith & LaMountain
Service Corp. submitted a draft application for a Brownfields Covenant for a project in Monson.
The applicant intends to clean up anci redevelop a 5-acre site with a 10,000-square-foot
abandoned auto repair/de;ilership building into its company headquarters, creating 35 new
jobs. The Brownfields Unit clarified some of the liabilit}' issues for the applicant to promote
the project.

• Microfab Site, Amesbury The Brownfields Unit has been working with the City of
Amesbury to assist the redevelopment of an abandoned property subject to a DEP lien. DF.P,

163

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

using a Brownfields grant from EPA, recently completed the Phase II Comprehensive Assessment
of the property', which provides valuable information for potential developers. The Brownfields
Unit has been meeting with a variety of stakeholders involved in the project including the city,
EPA, DEP, and a developer interested in applying for a Brownfields C^ovenant.

• Former Corian Corporation Project, Holliston A prospective purchaser intends to acquire
an abandoned site in an industrial park and create 30 manufacturing jobs, but is concerned
about the complicated environmental conditions at the site. The Brownfields Unit received a
draft application for a Brownfields Covenant in March 2003, met with DEP and the applicant,
and continued to monitor the project.

• Aerovox Building Project, New Bedford The Brownfields Unit and EPD worked with the
Cit)' of New Bedford, DEP, EPA, and USDOJ to settle a bankruptcy matter regarding the
environmental liabilities associated with electrical capacitor manufacturing operations at the
Aerovox facility in New Bedford so that the vacant building can be returned to productive use
as soon as possible.

• South Shore Tri-Town Development Project (Former Weymouth Naval Station),
Weymouth, Rockland, and Abington The Brownfields Unit became involved in a project that
will clean up and redevelop 1,400 acres of land at the former Weymouth Naval Station located
in the towns of Weymouth, Rockland, and Abington. DEP will address some portions of the
property administrativeh' under solid waste laws and regulations, and other portions will be
addressed under Chapter 2 IE. Still other portions of the property will be addressed under
CERCLA.

• Brooks Park Project, Lawrence Lawrence Communit}' Works is interested in purchasing
the site of a former dr)' cleaning operation in the North Common neighborhood to redevelop
it into a park. The Brownfields Unit worked with LCW and the sites owner on site assessment
activities to complete the appropriate response actions for its use as a park.

• Revere Copper and Brass Site, Plymouth In June 2002, the Plymouth Redevelopment
Authorit)' submitted a draft application for the cleanup and redevelopment of a 1.5-acre site
formerly operated by the Revere Chopper and Brass Company. The Brownfields Unit continued
to monitor the progress of this project.

• Former Ford Dealership Project, Attleboro The Brownfields Unit received a draft
Application for a Brownfields Covenant from a prospective purchaser interested in re\itali/,ing

164

PIBLK. PROTFCTIONMU RE-vr ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

a vacant car dealership, worked wirh DF.P to review rhe application, and provided comments
and suggestions to the apphcant.

• lucent Property/Ozz)' Properties Project, North Andover I he Brownfields Unit has been
working on the Lucent Technologies project in North Andover. Ozzy Properties is interested
in purchasing the site with the protections available under a Brownfields Covenant. The
Brownfields Unit received a draft application for a Brownfields (Covenant anil contiiuied to
work with the parties as the project has moved forward.

RRCm-NFIELDS MUNICIPAL GRANTS PROGRAM

In April 2002. in order to assist municipalities with brownfields revitali/.ation, the Attorney General
awarded grants totaling approximately S1.3 million to 27 communities, representing more than 30
brownfields projects. During Fiscal Year 2003, the Brownfields Unit worked closely with recipient
mimicipalities as the)' completed and submitted Status Reports ret]uired imder the program.

BROWT^FIELDS PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Throughout Fiscal Year 2003, the Brownfields Unit explored cleanup and redevelopment
opportunities with a variet)' of prospective developers. These redevelopment projects could lead to the
creation of new jobs acro.ss the Commonwealth, involving significant tracts of land and commercial
space as well as the creation of affordable housing and open space.

In many instances, the Brownfields Unit has encouraged cleanup and redevelopment projects to
proceed b\' providing interested parties with an understanding of the liability relief available under the
statute. Although a Brownfields Covenant is sometimes not necessary for a project to proceed (as with
the Stoklosa and Iron Fiorse projects, for example), a large percentage of the cleanup and redevelopment
projects arc longer-term b\' their nature with complexities that ultimately give rise to the need for a
Covenant. In those cases where the cleanup is complex, the liability is potentially substantial, and the
redevelopment opportunity may be of great significance to the economic viabilir\' of a communit}', a
Brownfields Covenant is often a critical component of the transaction. Fiscal Year 2003 continued to
highlight the important role that the Brownfields Covenant Program plays in both public and private
efiorts to transform brownfields properties throughout the Commonwe;ilth.

LEAD PAINT

Massachusetts has a high-incidence rate of lead poisoning among children due, at least in part, to
exposure to lead-based paint in the states older housing stock. Luckily, Massachusetts also has one of
the nation's strongest lead-based paint notification and abatement laws. The Massachusetts lead law
requires the de-leading or interim control of lead hazards existing in homes built before 1978 where

165

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION |

~ 1

children under age 6 are living. Owners must also notify tenants that a property has not been de- i
leaded, regardless ot whether a child under the age of 6 lives there.

During Fisciil Year 2003, Massachusetts continued a lead paint enforcement initiative in cooperation j

with the EPA and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The initiative |

seeks to enforce the state law requiring disclosure of lead hazards and the abatement of lead paint with |

enforcement of the federal disclosure requirements. EPD s actions are part of a larger Public Protection j

Bureau initiative that includes civil rights actions against landlords who seek to evade the lead law by i

refusing to rent to families with small children, and enforcement actions against unlicensed lead i

abatement contractors. j

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE SCHOOLS j

Consistent with Attorney General Reilly's safe schools priority, EPD participated in numerous
initiatives to address environmental he;ilth and safet)' concerns in Massachusetts" public schools, especi,ill\'
indoor air quality. Attorne)' General Reilly has been a consistent advocate of schools adopting
Environmental Management Systems to address their environmental compliance issues on an ongoing
basis.

During Fiscal Year 2003, EPD continued to work with communit)' groups and other state agencies |
to identif)' the common environmental health and safet}' issues in the schools, the challenges the schools !
face in addressing those issues, and the gaps in the laws and regulations on those issues. EPD is currently
working with several members of the Healthy School Council to develop legislation to address ,
environmental health and safety issues in the schools. j

PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS. TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES ;

Massachusetts has a long-standing commitment to reducing human exposure to harmftil substances, |
such as asbestos, toxics, and pesticides. In Fiscal Year 2003, EPD continued its enforcement initiative
against asbestos abatement contractors and owners/operators of facilities where improper removal of
asbestos has resulted in the release of asbestos into the environment.

• O.Ahlborg EPD reached a settlement against a Rliode Island company that allegedly violated
asbestos-related regulations at a facility in Seekonk. The settlement required injunctive relief \

and payment of a $7S,000 penalty. '

• Massachusetts Innovation Center EPD brought an enforcement lawsuit against a Fitchburg
company for asbestos violations that allegedly occurred during a renovation [iroject at the firm's .
facility \

166

I'l'BI IC PROTECTION BURF-Al' FNVIROWtENTAI PROTK TION DIVISION

• Hopkins EPD settled this case against the owner of a Worcester restaurant and apartment
building who allegedly violated asbestos regulation and the Solid Waste Management Act. The
settlement required payment of a $32,000 penalty, injunctive relief and a SEP worth 510,500
(asbestos abatement work in another property).

CAPFWIND

111 NoNcniber 2001 , ( '.ipc Wind Associates Hied an apfilKafion with tiie Arnn' (Jorps of Engirieers
for a permit, in conjunction with a proposal, to build a "wiiul farm" on Horseshoe Shoals in Nantucket
.Sound. The proposal envisioned 170 (now scaled down to l.^O) wind turbine generators on pylons
standing approximately 260 feet above sea level, spread over 28 .square miles of the Sound. Horseshoe
Shoals is located in the center of the Sound, more than three miles beyond the coa.stline and closing
lines, aiul therefore outside of Massachusetts' territorial waters.

Although federal law establishes a comprehensive scheme for licensing areas of the seabed on the
continental shelf- for mineral exploration and extraction, including oil and gas, there is no such scheme
applicable to other sorts of projects on the continental shelf The developer of the proposed wind farm
appears to take the position that in these circumstances a permit from the Arm\- Corps will suffice to
authorize the project.

The Attorney General has concluded that this position poses a substantial threat to the public
interest and public rights in the Sound and elsewhere along the Massachusetts coast. Quite apart from
the particular proposal, the developers line of reasoning could ignite a "land rush" off the coast by
developers with all sorts of projects. In this way, the rights of the public generally would be appropriated
for private gain with very little control as to siting and permissible uses, and without compensation to
the public for the loss. The immediate proposal illustrates the problem, with its massive industrial
installation located in the middle of a body of water cherished b\' millions for its aesthetic and recreation;il
values and for its contribution to the livelihoods of fishermen and coastd towns.

Accordingly, in Fiscd Year 2003, the Attorney General began to raise these concerns in many
different forums. He submitted testimony in support of federal legislanon to establish a comprehensive
regulatory regime to govern developments such as the Cape Wind proposal, and urged the United
States Attorney General to consider the theoiy of the developer that a mere navigational permit by the
Army Corps could authorize a long-term occupation of the seabed. The Attorney General ;ilso submitted
an atuicus brief in a case in federal district court, refuting an attempt by the federal government to argue
that the United States has no propertA' interest in Horseshoe Shoals.

167

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

MMR LEASE NEGOTIATIONS

The Commonwealth owns most of the Massachusetts Mihtaiy Reservation on Cape Cod, but the
property is subject to long-term leases to the federal government. During Fiscal Year 2003, (governor
Romney signaled his intent to extend these le;ises for another 23 years (to 205 1 ). The Attorney (jeneral
urged the Governor not to extend the leases without first securing environmental concessions from the
federal military. Separate from the lease negotiations, EPD is involved in ongoing discussions with the
k'deral military about its liabilit)' for natural resource damages.

BUZZARD'S BAY OIL SPILL

A barge owned by Bouchard I'ransportation spilled approximately 50,000 gallons of oil into Buzzard's
Bay. EPD has been assisting the state and federal Natural Resource Trustees to ensure that natur.il
resource damage issues are adequately addressed.

TITLE 5 INITIATIVE

Coiisumers across the Commonwealth have to deal with the septic system regulations known as
"Title 5." This exposes them to the potential for consumer fraud by septic system inspectors, brokers,
and people marketing "quick fixes." During Fiscal Year 2003, EPD setded its action against a company
(Caldwell Environmental) that offered a "miracle cure" for failed Title 5 systems, and is developing
cases involving similar violations. EPD also filed suit against B&M Fitzgerald, another Title 5 case that
raises potential consumer protection issues, and issued a consumer advisory. The seller allegedly took
fraudulent actions to make it appear that a non-complying septic system passed an inspection. Finally,
EPD filed an enforcement action against Brick\'ard Marketplace, a Mashpee owner of a strip mall, that
allegedly installed a large septic sj'stem without the necessary state approval.

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS

Much of EPD s legislative work this year was in fighting efforts by the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) to secure additional exemptions from federal environmental laws. For example, in congressional
testimony he submitted opposing such efforts, the Attorney General pointed out that historicalh' DOD
has been one of the worst environmental violators and that the major feder;il environmental laws
already provide DOD with sufficient flexibilit)' to ensure that environmental compliance will not
compromise military readiness.

On the state side. Attorney General Reilly and Senator Brewer submitted legislation that would
create a statute of limitations for cases brought to enforce the state's cleanup statute, G.L. c. 2 IE. The
proposed statute would key the statute of limitations to the discovery of the violation instead of to its
occurrence. This change preserves the integrit)' of the largely privatized state cleanup program.

168

PL'BLIC PRO! ECTION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION

INSURANCE DIVISION

I'lic Insur.iiKc Division icpivscnts rlic |iiibln. nmrcst m .ulministrativc insurance rate setting
pi()ceedint;s. I he C^ommissionei' ot Insurance sets these rales, ami the administrative proceedings are
held at the ( 'ommissioner's l)i\isi()n of Insurance. The InsiuMuce Division also brings actions in state
court against insuiers for unfair acts and practices, provides comnients and testimony legarding proposed
regulations and laws relating to insurance, mediates claims on behalfOf consumers, and provides assistance
on insurance and other issues to members of the Massachusetts eldei' communit)'.

The Insuiance Division included Glenn Kaplan, Chief; Stacy Book; Matt Buehler; Gerald Caliill;
Joyce ("oughlin: Gerald D'Avolio; Lydia Froese; Sue Melucci; Judy dePontbriand; Barbara Fain; Burt
Feinberg; Maureen Forbes; Rebecca Frade; Stacey Gotham; Maureen Hensley-Quinn; Hilary' Hershman;
Tonie Jhun; Peter Leight; Pamela Meister; Tom O'Brien; Mary Jane Preskenis; Katie Rhodes; Rachel
Weiner.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

R.ATE CASE UTIGATtON

• 2003 Automobile Insurance Rate Setting Proceeding (Division of Insurance) The
Automobile Insuiance Rate Setting proceeding is an annual administrative proceeding in which
the Commissioner of Insurance, based on proposals and evidence submitted by the auto industry
and other parties, sets automobile insurance rates for the coming year. The Insurance Division
represents the public interest in these proceedings and submits its own proposed rate filing.
The case, if pursued to its conclusion, requires litigation in four separate dockets, each dealing
with a portion of the overall rate computation. The industry filed for an 8% rate increase, and
the division opposed the increase. The Commissioner's final decision raised rates by
approximateh^3%. The division's intervention saved consumers S200 million in excess premium
increases.

• 2003 Workers' Compensation Insurance Rate Proceeding (Division of Insurance) Workers'
C^ompensation Insurance provides coverage for medical and related expenses stemming from
job-related injuries. Businesses in the Commonwealth must carry Workers' Compensation
Insurance. 1 he rates for Workers' Compensation Insurance are set in a c\'clical rate proceeding.
For this cycle, insurers filed seeking an 1 1% rate increase, which the data did nor support. The
division intervened and litigated for a rate decrease. Aft:er completion of the rate case, the

169

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION

Commissioner ruled that rates should decrease b}' 4%. The division's intervention saved
Massachusetts small businesses and other employers $150 inillion.

• HartFord Life/Medicare Supplement Rate Case (Division of Insurance) Medicare
Supplement insurance provides coverage tor certain medical expenses outside the scope of the
federal Medicare program. Health insurers offering this t)'pe of coverage to seniors must submit
proposed rate increases to the Commissioner of Insurance for approval. Hartford Life filed
seeking premium increases of 40%. The division intervened in this docket and then settled
with Hartford, after negotiating a significantly reduced increase. Under the setdement,
consumers who use Hartford's Medisup II Plan will each save over $ 1 ,200 per year compared to
the company's requested rate increase.

• Bankers Life/Medicare Supplement Rate Case (Division ol Insurance) Bankers Life sought
rate hikes for its various Medicare Supplement plans ranging from 10% to 55%. Ihe division
intervened and settled the case tor significantly smaller increases. Bankers Life consumers
saved an aggregate of $700,000, and customers of certain Bankers' plans saved more than $300
per year compared with what the insurer sought to charge.

• Oxford Life/Medicare Supplement Rate Case (Division of Insurance) Oxford sought rate
increases of 35% to 50% on its Medicare Supplement insurance plans, and the division opposed
the increases as excessive. The case settled after the division intervened. The division saved
Oxford consimiers approximately $1 million compared to what they would have paid under
the requested rate increases.

SUPERIOR COURT L ITIGATION

• Commonwealth v. Delta Dental (Suffolk Superior Court) Delta Dental tailed to give
notice to members of group dental plans terminated for nonpayment of premium by their
employer. Delta agreed to an Assurance of Discontinuance, which included a $25,000 payment
to the Commonwealth.

• Commonwealth v. Gener al Electric Capital Assurance Co. (Suffolk Superior Court) General
Electric Capital Assurance Corp. (GECA) is one of the state's largest providers of long-term
care insurance, a type of private health insurance that provides benefits to individuals who can
no longer take care of themselves due to chronic illness. GECA failed to pay claims from
Massachusetts residents, opining that Massachusetts assisted-living facilities were not "licensed"
(Massachusetts calls those fiicilities "certified ") as required by GECA policies. GECA agreed to

170

BLIC PROTECTION BUREAl' INSURANCE DIVISION

a Consent Judgment including injunctive relief", restitution, and a S5(), ()()() pavment to the
Commonweal til.

• Commonwealth v. CIGNA (Sut'tnlk Superior Court) CICNA tailed to provide legally
required notices to consumers when it cancelled their healrh-care coverage. The division obtained
a (Consent Judgment, which included a S 1 0,000 jnuinent to the C^ommonwealth and injunctive
relief.

• Commonwealth v. Bellingham Chiropractic Center (Suffolk Superior Court) Dr. Clifford
Mclaughlin of Bellingham Chiropractic Outer allegedly charged members of the CIC
Indemnit}- Plan and I'lL'S Plan more than the amoimrs allowed b}'the plans, a violation of the
Balance Billing Law, C.L. c. 32A, § 20. Dr. McLaughlin signed an Assurance of Discontinuance,
agreeing to a $5,000 penalt\- and reimbursements for consumers.

• Commonweahh v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company (Suffolk Superior Court)
Ciuarantee liust Lite Insurance Compan\- violated C.L. c. 175, § 1 17CJ by tailing to update its
insurance rates properl\-. I'he di\'ision filed a Consent Judgment, which required the company
to make a S50.000 payment to the Commonwealth, as well as restitution to consumers.

• Commonwealth v. Insurance Shopping Network (Suffolk Superior Court) Insurance
Shopping Network, d/b/a Insurecom.com, runs an Internet Web site that obtains insurance
rate quotes for consumers. The Web site promises in its privacy policy that it will provide
personal data only to selected insurers who have agreed to keep the information private. In
fact, Insurecom.com shared consumer information \vith third parties in violation of the company's
promises to consumers. The division settled this case with an Assurance of Discontinuance,
including a $15,000 penalty.

• Commonwealth v. Protective Consumer Direct (Suffolk Superior Court) Protective
Consumer Direct misled consumers into believing that its discount medical plan was actually
insurance. Protective agreed to an Assurance of Discontinuance requiring them to send out
corrective notices and reftmds to over 200 Massachusetts consumers, make appropriate disclosures
in future marketing efforts, and pay $7,500 to the Commonwealth.

• Commonwealth v. Labrie (Suffolk Superior Court) Labrie, a long-term care insurance
salesman, gave elders legal advice even though he is not a practicing lavv)'er. The division
entered into a Consent Decree with Labrie in which he was permanently enjoined from, among
other things, misrepresenting his legal qualifications, offering legal advice, and otherwise violating
the long-term care insurance regulations.

171

PUBLIC. PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION

ASSISTING IN THE OFFICE'S CONSUMER PROTECTION MISSION

• Pharmacy Assessment (Suffolk Superior Court) Pharmacies allegedly misled consumers
regarding certain state assessments on the retail pharmacy industr)'. Neither the pharmacies
nor the health insurers were willing to pay for these assessments, which the pharmacies then
unlawhilly charged directly to consumers. Working with the Consumer Protection and Antitrust
Division, the division investigated these matters and prepared to bring actions against several
large pharmacy chains, including CVS, Walgreens, and Wal-Mart. These matters were settled
by Assurances of Discontinuance, which required reimbursements for consumers and more
than $400,000 in payments to the Commonwealth.

• Commonwealth v. Phirong Phat and Phillip Huy (Suffolk Superior CA)urt) Phirong Phat
and Phillip Huy misled consumers and engaged in the imlicensed practice of (.lispensing and
repairing hearing aids. The division obtained an Assurance ol Discontinuance that included
equitable relief restitution, and a $5,000 penalty

TESTIMONY

The division also provides testimony at administrative public hearings and before the legislature
regarding regulatory initiatives and changes in insurance law. During Fiscal Year 2003, the division
provided guidance to the legislature on a number of issues, including auto insurance reform, long-term
care insurance oversight, credit scoring, home insurance coverage for fuel oil spills, gender equalit)' in
annuities, the proposed interstate insurance compact, and concierge medical practices. Similarly, the
division also gave testimony at public hearings at the Division of Insurance on a variet)' of regulatory
issues, including consumer privacy, competition enhancement in auto insurance, changes in standards
for Health Maintenance Organization coordination of benefits, cost-saving measures on auto glass and
auto repair standards, and tiered health plans.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

Insurance Division case activity has more than doubled, and in some cases quadrupled:

FISCAL 2002 FISCAL 2003'

Investigations initiated 11 40

■ These figures do not include recoveries lor cases handled jointly with other divisions, such as the pharmacy
assessment matters brought against the retail drugstore ch.iins. If those were included, 200.^ wotild show .in even
greater increase over the activity in 2002.

172

Bl IC PROTECTION BUREAU

INSURANCE DIVISION

Litigations initiated (Superior C^ourt)
Judgments obtained (Superior C'ourt)
Assurances of Discontinuance
ilestiiurion in consimier cases
Pa\'ments to tiie State

$293,000

$803,000

$ 47,000

$222,000

In addition to insestigations and recoveries relating to court proceedings, the division also saved
consumers vast sums oF money by litigating administrative rate cases before the Division of Insurance.
Ihe successful litigation, and in some instances settlement, of those actions resulted in significant
redLictions from the rates sought b\' insurers in the Commonwealth. For instance, the divisions
intervention in the Workers' Compensation insurance rate case (the first time the Attorney General has
done so under the existing Workers" Compensation regime) resulted in a significant rate decrease and
saved Ma.ssachusetts insurance customers approximately $150 million.

INSURANCE RATE CASE

SAVINGS COMPARED TO
INDUSTRY RATE REQUEST

Automobile Insurance

$200 million

Workers' Compensation Insurance

$ ISO million

Medicare Supplement Insurance

$ 2 million

Finall}-, the division also pursued a mediation mission to help consumers resolve certain individual
disputes without legal action. The division's two mediation projects, the Insurance Mediation Program
and the AG Elder Hodine, handled a significant volume of consumer complaints and provide a vital
service to consumers.

MEDIATION
PROJECT

CONSUMERS
ON HOTLINE

MEDIATIONS

ASSISTED
RECOVERIES

Insurance Mediation
AG Elder

8,900
3,600

1,300
187'

Sl.S million
$100,000

• TWii figure reflects niedi.itions v

173

PUBLIC PROTF.CTION BL'REAU INSURANCE DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

INSURANCE HOTLINE AND MHDIATION PROGRAM

In Fiscal Year 2003, approximately 8,900 people, an average of 750 a month, called the Insurance
Division to ask questions and seek help with insurance problems. More than 45% of the callers were
concerned about health insurance issues. Many of the callers had been recently laid off from their jobs
and needed information about their health insurance rights; others were concerned about the cost of
prescriptions, claim denials, and medical bills. Approximately 25% of the callers sought help with auto
insurance problems. Most of these callers were having ditficulty with accident claims; others raised
questions about premium billing, cancellations, and surcharges.

The division received a large volume of calls and letters in Januar)' and February of 2003, when a
$1.30 assessment on prescription medications took effect. Some 900 people called the division to
protest the assessment; more than 100 wrote letters. Many who conracted the Office were senior
citizens, people with disabilities, and unemployed families. Mediation staff provided consumers with
timely information about the assessment and tracked complaints against each of the major pharmac)'

In addition to the consistenti)' high volume of calls related to he<ilth and auto insurance, the division
also received inquiries related to a broad range ol other issues, including short- and long-term disability
insurance, life insurance and annuities, travel insiuance, credit insurance, and possible insurance scams.
Callers asked questions about how to evaluate insurance before purchasing a policy, how to cancel
unwanted insurance, how to appeal a denied claim, and how to deal with incorrect billing.

The division's mediators answered the questions of callers, providing information and referrals and,
when appropriate, mailing consumer complaint forms.

In Fiscal Year 2003, the division opened 1,300 consumer complaint files, the majorit\' ot which
were submitted on consumer complaint forms or as letters to the division. As with the telephone
inquiries, a significant portion of the written complaints related to health insurance. Over 600 of the
new complaints, approximately 50% of the total, involved health insurance. The most prevalent
complaint category was claim denials.

This past fiscal year, 13 undergraduate interns from nine colleges and universities received training,
from the Insurance Mediation Program to mediate consumer insurance complaints. More than half of
the interns received academic credit for their work. During the summer and academic \'ear, interns
volunteered nearly 3,000 hours in the mediation program.

174

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION

In Fiscal Year 2003. Insurance Division mediators closed 1,100 consumer complaint files and
recovered approximately S 1.5 million for Massachusetts consumers.

AG ELDER HOTLINF

The Attorney General's Elder Hotline (AC Elder) ( 1 -888-243-5337) provides a central place where
senior citizens, age 60 and older, and their families can call for assistance. AC Elder provides written
and oral intormarion, referrals within the (Office ot the Artorne)' (leneral or to other government
agencies, and mediation services on a wide range of consumer complaints. During Fiscal Year 2003,
AC Elder received more than 7,500 calls (from 3.600 consumers) and saved consumers over SI 00,000.

The top four categories of complaints remained constant between Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. The
number one complaint was against busine.s.ses, including auto dealerships and retail stores (over 600
complaints). The number two category comprised complaints related to telemarketing, sweepstakes,
lotteries, mail solicitations, and fraud (almo.st 500 complaints). The third area related to health insurance
issues, including prescription drug coverage (almost 400 complaints). Problems regarding credit card
and other t\'pes of debt remained the fourth most common category of complaint during the last fiscal
year, with o\er 300 complaints registered.

Following these top categories were appro.ximatel)' 200 complaints against home improvement
contractors. 1 50 complaints regarding utilities. 1 30 complaints of financial e.vploitation, 1 30 complaints
against health care businesses or health care workers, 1 20 housing-related complaints (primarily involving
senior housing complexes and assisted-living facilities), and 100 complaints regarding tenant and landlord
issues.

HOSPITAL AND HMO COMMUNITY BENEFITS

Division staff oversee the Attorney Ceneral's Communin,' Benefits Guidelines for hospitals and
HjMOs. including the Attorney General's Community Benefits Advisory Task Force. The Advison'
Tisk Force includes representatives of hospitals, FiMOs, communitv' hedth advocao' groups, and relevant
state agencies. It is organized into several working groups that focus on the key elements of community
benefits, including reporting and community engagement.

During Fiscal Year 2003. the Attorney General implemented revisions to the original Communit)'
Benefits Cjuidelines, working with the Massachu.setts Hospital Association, the Massachusetts Association
of Health Plans, and consumer health advocates in this process.

Division staff also continued to implement the new process and format for communit}' benefits
annual reports developed during the prior fiscal year. This included conducting training sessions for

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION

hospital and HMO community benefits managers, and providing guidance to hospitals and HMOs in
their preparation ot their Fisc;il Year 2002 annual communit)' benefits reports.

Division staff also worked closely with an Internet applications contractor to complete the design
and development of a community benefits Web-enabled database and electronic filing system for annual
reports. The first phase of the Communit}' Benefits Web application was launched at the end of Fiscal
Year 2002; the remaining work was completed in the first half of Fiscal Year 2003. Ihe hospital and
HMO Community Benefits Annual Reports for this period were filed electronically, and the public
access features ol the application are now fully operational.

Finally, division staff worked with an Advisory Task Force working group to design and plan a series
of regional community benefits public forums around Massachusetts. The first two of these forums,
for Central and Southeastern Massachusetts, took place during Fiscal Year 2003.

ELDER PROTECTION UNIT

The Elder Protection Unit seeks to enhance protections for Massachusetts elders by improving
the coordination and monitoring of elder issues, including the Office's outreach efforts, as well as its
response to matters involving elder abuse and fraud. The unit draws on the t;ilents of staff throughout
the Office.

The Unit coordinated two conferences on elder fraud and abuse. The conferences, held in New
Bedford and Pittsfield, were collaborative efforts involving the Attorney Generals Public Protection
and Fair Labor Bureaus and Southeastern and Western Massachusetts Offices, and state protective
services offices. Conference panelists discussed telemarketing, identit)' and home improvement fraud,
local scams, and how to recognize and report abuse in nursing homes and in the community. More
than 1 50 elders, elder providers, and law enforcement professionals attended these free, half-day events.

Unit staff trained municipal police cadets on elder fraud and abuse, participated in a National
Association of Attorneys General presidential listening conference on end-of-life issues, and collaborated
with the Massachusetts End of Life Commission to educate the public about health care proxies and
hospice care.

Unit staff conducted extensive outreach to elders and elder providers during Fiscal Year 2003 on
unfair debt collection, telemarketing, home improvement fraud, charity fraud, and identity theft. In
addition to participating as panelists for a series of televised programs on elder issues in Western
Massachusetts, staff provided information at 12 different events around the Commonwealth. These
events, for the most part, were speaking engagements at different sites where seniors live t)r gather.

176

PI Bl IC PROTKCTION BUREAl' IWESTICATIONS DIVISION

including assisted-Iiving facilities, senior centers, and community groups. Staff information tables also
were set up at the annua! conference of the Massachusetts Councils on Aging and at a public event in

C^anibiidgf.

Staff also serve as representatives on various elder advisor)' boards.

HIDHR ABUSE CR./^NT

In late 2002, the Office oi the Attornc}' Ciciieral was awartlcd a 24-nionth Department of Justice
training grant to establish an inter-disciplinary initiative and training programs designed to improve
the capacity of law enh)rcement, elder service, and domestic violence [irofessionals to recognize,
in\estigate, and prosecute abuse perpetrated against older indi\'idiials.

During this fiscal year, staff met with project partners and others, attended a technical training
conference, hired a project man.igcr, aiu! convened a Steering Committee.

INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

The Investigations Division conducts investigations primarih' for divisions within the Public
Protection and Government Bureaus. In addition, the division also investigates cases or matters on
occasion for the Executive Bureau, or in conjunction with the Criminal Bureau.

Division investigators locate and interview victims, witnesses, subjects, and others; obtain and
review documentar)' evidence from numerous sources, including individuals, corporations, and federal,
state, county, and municipirl agencies; conduct surveillance, background checks, and asset checks; analj'ze
financial records and perform other forensic accounting functions; and testify' before grand juries and
at trial. In some cases investigators worked closely with other state attorneys general, district attorneys,
local and state police departments, the U.S. Attorneys Office, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Trade Commission.

The Investigations Division included Quinton Dale, Director; Dante Annicelli; Kerri Burridge;
Maria Yola Cabrillana; Monic^ue Cascarano; Mayra Connolly; Todd Davis; Ashley Dizel; Jim Gentile;
Karen Leary; Nozomi Murakami; Nicholas Paras; Lou Russo; Janice Spillane; Dawn Valchuis; and
Nancy W.nd.

177

PUBLIC. PROTECTION BUREAU INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

In Fiscal Year 2003, the division initiated 239 investigations in the following major areas:

CONSUMER PROTECI'ION AND ANTITRUST

Investigators helped bring G.L. c. 93A enforcement actions against businesses and individuals in
major consumer areas. The division initiated several investigations and surveys to determine compliance
with existing consumer laws and regulations, including multi-state and nationwide investigations into
fraudulent sweepstakes promotions and telemarketing scams. The division also participated in Internet
scams, the gun enforcement initiative, and hcidth care.

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

The division investigated hate crimes, allegations of police misconduct, and other violations of the
Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. The division also conducted investigations 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.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The divisions role in EPD cases primarily involved locating and identifying assets of potentially
responsible parties liable for paying costs incurred by the Commonwealth in the cleanup of polluted or
hazardous waste sites. Investigators also located former employees and officers of dehmct companies
responsible in part for such violations, and reviewed, evaluated, and analyzed financial documents and
prepared ability-to-pay analyses. The investigators also provided investigative support to the lead paint
enforcement project.

PUBLIC CHARITIES

The division investigated individu.ils associated with organizations who raised funds Irom the public
in violation of Massachusetts law. 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.

INSURANCE

Investigators continued to work with attorneys in the Insurance Division to review and investigate
businesses and organizations that withheld employee contributions for health insurance premiums bin
tailed to actually purchase the health insurance coverage. The division also investigated an imlicensed
insurance company and an Internet Web site that offered insurance cjuotes and conducted a sting
operation testing the unlawful sales practices of long-term care insurance agents.

178

PL'BLIC PRCVn-CTICW BUREAU

I NVFSTIGATIONS DIVISION

CRIMINAL BURKAU

Investigators worked on cases that resulted in indictments and convictions against individuals for
violations of the Commonwealth's Ltiminal laws, incluiling larceny against the eliterlv and vulnerable
b\- home improvement contractors.

TRIM niX'ISlON

The division pla\ed a major role in tort actions filed against the (Commonwealth by investigating
allegations oi abuse, mistreatment, and deaths ol individuals in state care; alleged wrongful termination
of state employees; and personal injuries and other damages occurring on state-owned property and/or
in accidents on state roads or involving state vehicles. I'he division also investigated cases involving
contract disputes and eminent domain proceedings.

SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INI riATlVE (SNl)

The division assisted the Attorney General's Abandoned Properties Project by conducting research
on target properties in several communities, primarily to determine the status of ownership and existence
of encumbrances on the buildings, and, in some instatices, helping inspect properties scheduled for
renovation. The division researched properties located in Taunton, New Bedford, and Worcester.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

The di\ ision opened 239 investigations in Fiscal Year 2003, with 327 investigations ongoing as of
June 30, 2003.

OPENED

ONGOING AS

DIVISION/BUREAU

DURING FY 2003

OF 6/30/03

Consumer Protection and Antitrust

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Public Charities

Insurance

Utilities

Criminal

179

IBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU

DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES

Government

Environmental Protection
Trial

6
11

144

6
23

137

TOTAL

239

327

DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES

The Division of Public Charities carries out the Attorney General's responsibilities to represent the
public interest in the proper solicitation and use of charitable funds and 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. 12, § 8.

More than 22,000 charities are registered with the division in addition to over 300 professional
hmdraisers presently soliciting donations on behalf of charities in Massachusetts. A public charity is a
non-profit entity, whose purpose is charitable and that benefits a portion of the public, in addition to
philanthropic organizations. Examples of public charities include non-profit 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 charit)'^ or to change the terms of a charitable trust.

The division focused much of its efforts on health care. Consistent with the Attorney Generals
strong interest in resolving problems related to the deliver}' of health care, the division monitored the
actions of a number of the significant health care institutions that are public charities in Massachusetts,
including both hospitals and insurers.

The division engages in these corporate governance and oversight initiatives, whether directed at
health care organizations or other kinds of charities, to ensure that the governing boards of these
institutions carry out their fiduciary duties of due care and loyalt)'. The division also continued its
activities during Fiscal Year 2003 in rwo areas central to its mission: enforcement litigation to address
deception and fraud in charitable fundraising and estate and trust actions to ensure that charitable trust
funds were appropriately adniinistered and applied.

180

I'lBLIC PROTECTION BURF.Ai: DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES

The division also recognizes that charities provide vital services in our communities while both
enjoying certain benefits fi-om their t;ix-exempt status and assuming certain obligations. As a result, the
division was involved in a number of initiatives in Fiscal Year 2003 intended to strengthen the charitable
sector. These efforts included making presentations to various public groups and bar organizations on
charities issues, issuing the division's annual report on charitable fundraising, and working with the
Boston Bar Association on legisl.uion that would revise the non-profit corporation statute.

The Public Charities Division included Jamie Katz, (diief; Marion Antonucci; C^aitlin (balder;
Sandra C'ardone; Kric (^arriker; Patricia (Clifton: Kevin Fennessey; Daniel Ferullo; Ann Ciroux; Ann
Higgins; Cathy Hoffman; Beth Mc( iillicuddy; Kathleen 0'( lonnell; Richard Reuss; Deirdre Rosenberg;
and Johanna Soris.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

CHARITY GOVERNANCE

The Attorney Cenerals oversight of charitable corporations focuses on stewardship by charir\' boards
of directors. I'he division may become involved when directors breach their individual fiducian' duties
of due care and loj'alt)', or to prevent the misuse of charitable funds. In some cases, the division has
engaged in investigations and then negotiated governance agreements that provide for reforms in how
charities will operate. In other cases, the division has filed enforcement actions in court after
investigations.

The Yawkey Foundation II Following the Attorney Generals investigation of the sale of the Boston
Red Sox to determine whether the Yawkey Foundation II would receive full value for its ownership
share of the Red Sox, the Attorney General entered into a setdement providing $30 million
more lor the Yawkey Foundation II, and a new foundation to be set up by the group of Red Sox
purchasers led by John Henry. That settlement also included an extensive governance agreement
with the Yawkey Foundation II. After the board of the Yawkey Foundation II made certain
substantial gilts to a variet}' ol charitable institutions, the division reviewed whether the board
had approved those gifts in a manner that violated the terms of the Foundation's own b\--laws
and the governance agreement. During the course of Fiscal Year 2003, the division looked into
the circumstances under which the Foundation made the gifts, the Yawkey Foundation II board
ultimately agreed to accept the division's interpretation of its by-laws, and the parties agreed on
a process for discussing issues that might arise under the governance agreement.

181

PLiBLIC PROTECTION BliREAU DIVISION OF Pl-BLIC CHARITIES

Roxbiiry Action Program Ihe Roxbiiry Action Program (IlAP) is a Boston charit)' tiiat owns
housing projects in Roxbury and advocates on behalf ot affordable housing. The division
became aware of RAP s intent to sell a subsidized housing project to a for-profit developer.
After attempts to negotiate a resolution based on the division's concerns failed, the division
sued RAP for a variety of charities law violations. The division continues to litigate this case.

Young Dimensions This non-profit provider ot services (such as transportation, administrative

services, and training) to tamih' da\' care centers received substantial funds trom the

Commonwealth and was regulated by the Office for Child Care Services (OCCS). After the

division determined that the individuals running this charity had violated charities laws, the

division alerted OCCS to its concerns, and OCCS determined that Young Dimensions owed

the Commonwealth substantial amounts of money as a result of the charity's improper actions.

The division supported the Administrative Law Division in an action brought against Young

Dimensions that resulted in a receivership for the charity. The charity has been closed, and the i

Commonwealth will recoup perhaps as much as $1 million. |

I
FOR-PROFIT ACQUISITIONS j

1 he division continued to devote considerable time and resources to reviewing proposed for-profit I
acquisitions of health care providers and other charitable corporations. Massachusetts charitable '
organizations may not, on their own, "convert" to for-profit status. If a charity transfers assets to a for-
profit, the transfer 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 conflicts
of interest. The division reviewed a number of proposed transactions and either agreed to the transactions |
or negotiated resolutions. 1

REVIEW OF ASSET DISPOSITIONS ]

A charitable corporation must give 30 days advance written notice to the Attorney Gener;il before I
making a sale or other disposition of all 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). On a regular basis and in substantial volume, the division reviewed correspondence i

and documents about transactions involving charities. ''

Bradford College The college closed following the conclusion of the spring semester in 2000. I
Following the closing, the division discussed and resolved a variety of issues concerning the

college's handling of its remaining assets. In addition, the division met with college representatives (

and others to deal with ongoing issues related to the disposition of the college's assets in the face ]

of substantial debts owed by the college. After Bradford College went into bankruptcy during j

Fiscal Year 2003, the division dealt with issues that arose concerning the final sale of the college's i

182

PUBL IC PROTECTION BUREAU [-)IVISIO\ OF PUBLIC CHARITIES

real estate (which was completed during Fiscal Year 2003) and with questions surrounding the
disposition ot Bradford's remaining restricted funds, whicii will extend into Fiscal Year 2004.

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 fiduciar)' 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.

• FTC Educational Efi'ort and Commonwealth v. American Police Officers Association

The division, ,ilong with other state regulatory bodies, participated with the Federal Trade
Commission ( F IC) in a coorclinatcd set of events designed to educate the public about fraudulent
solicitation and to bring attention to certain cases. The FTC and state regulators jointK-
announced a series of educational initiatives and a number of lawsuits against telemarketers
and charities engaged in improper fundraising from the public. For its part, the division brought
an action against an out-of-state charit)', the American Police Officers Association, which engaged
in fundraising in Massachusetts without having registered here. In addition, the division issued
a memorandum to police and fire departments throughout the Commonwealth outlining facts
pertaining to the telemarketers that police and fire groups most frcc]uentl]i' use and the
contributions to charities those telemarketers actually pay.

• Commonwealth v. Jeffrey R. Scott and Dawn A. Scott This action filed in Hampshire
Superior Court in Fiscal Year 2002 alleged that the Scotts engaged in deceptive, unauthorized,
and unregistered solicitation uncier the banner of 9/11 disaster relief The Scotts solicited
funds and sold flag decals, purportedly for 9/1 1 charities, but never turned iner the funds to
charities and commingled the charities' funds with their own. The division and the Western
Massachusetts regional office prosecuted the Scotts.

ESTATES AND TRUSTS

In furtherance of his authorit}' 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 partv in
the probate of 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 involving 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, § 2S.

183

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU DIVISION OF PLiBLIC CHARITIES

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

CHARITABLE CORPORATION DISSOLUTIONS

In order to cease corporate existence, charitable corporations must dissolve through a proceeding in
the Supreme Judicial Court. To enforce the publics interest in the disposition of charitable assets, the
Attorney General is a part)' to all voluntary dissolutions of charitable corporations under G.L. c. 180,
§ 1 lA. After review, negotiation of necessary modifications, and assent by the division, the pleadings
are filed by the dissolving charit)' in the Supreme Judicial Court. The division reviewed many transactions
involving proposed dissolutions and assented to 139 final judgments dissolving charitable corporations
pursuant to section §1 lA during Fiscal Year 2003.

^ILLS. TRUSTS. AND OTHER PROBATE STATISTICS

During Fiscal Year 2003, the division received and reviewed 811 new wills, and received and
reviewed 1,071 interim accounts for executors and trustees as well as 570 final accounts. In addition,
the division received, reviewed, and assented to 41 petitions for license to sell real estate and received
and reviewed 1,268 miscellaneous complaints and filings.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Enforcement of laws requiring accountability by public charities is central to division responsibilities
with respect to charitable hmds. With the exception ol religious organizations and certain tederalh'
chartered organizations, all public charities must register with the division, and all registered charities
must submit annual financial reports. The registrations and financial reports are public records. The
division responded to over 868 requests to view files in the past fiscal )'ear and, in response, provided
approximately 1 ,935 files for public viewing.

CHARITABLE ORCANIZATIONS: REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT

From July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, the division processed approximately 17,325 annual
financial reports and annual filing fees totaled $1,662,391. During this period, the division reviewed
1,232 new organizations, determined them to be charitable, and registered them. The division sent
each new organization information about the division's registration and filing requirements.

As part ol an ongoing compliance program, division stall contacted charities whose annual filings
were deficient or delinquent to rectil}' filing deficiencies.

ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES TO CHARITIES IFiAT FUNDRAISE

Under G.L. c. 68, § 1 9, eveiy charitable organization that intends to solicit funds from the public,
except religious organizations, must apply to the division lor a st)licitation certificate belore engaging in

184

I'lBI IC PROTF.CTION BUREAf DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES

hiiulr.iisiiii;. U[ion icccipt, the division reviews certificate applications for compliance with sraruror\'
requirements. L'nle^s there is a deficiency in the application, all certificates are issued within a lO-da)'
statutor\' period.

RF.GISTRATION OF PROFESSIONAL SOI.ICITORS AND FUNDRAISING COUN.SHL,

Under Ci.l.. c. 68, §§ 22 and 24, all persons acting as professional solicitors, professional fundraising
counsel, or commercial co-venturers in conjiuKtion with soliciting charitable organizations must register
annually with the division. Solicitors and commercial co-venturers must also file a surety bond in the
amount ot S 1 (),0()(). All fundraisers must also file with the division a copy of each fundraising contract
the}- sign with any charitable organization. Solicitors mirst later file a financial retiun regarding each
fiuulraising campaign.

L')uring Fiscal Year 2003, the division received and approved 301 registrations, resulting in S59,750
in fees to the C^omtiionwealth. 1 he Commonwealth received registrations from 90 solicitors, 148
fundraising counsel, and 63 commercial co-venturers.

MONEY RECOVERED FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

Charitable and Fundraiser Registration Fees $1,760,065

Other fees, requests for copies,

requests fiir computer information $ 1,975

TOTAL $1,762,040

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

HMLIH CARF INITIATIVES

The division was involved in a variety of efforts to anah-ze and stabilize the health care sector:

• CareCroup The division continued to monitor the financial and operating condition of
CareCroup and its affiliates (Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Mt. Auburn Hospital, and
New England Baptist Hospital). Division staff reviewed substantial amounts of financial and
operational data and met regularly with representatives of the system and the affiliates. In
addition, division and office staff worked with experts to assess, on a regular basis, how effectively

185

I'LIBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION

the board and ottlcers ot the heahh care system were performing in turning around the s\'Stem's
finances.

• G.L. c. 180, ^ 8A(d). reviews The division also reviewed, under C .L. c. 1 80, § 8A(c), CareGroup's
sale of Nashoba Valley Medical Center (formerly Deaconess Nashoba Medical Center) to Essent
Healthcare. The review included scrutiny of the valuation of the hospital and its financial
prospects, whether the transaction was in the public interest, and a public hearing. 1 he division
ultimately approved the sale.

• Harvard Pilgrim Health Care During Fiscal Year 2003, the division worked with Harvard
Pilgrim in connection with its retention of an independent health care analyst.

TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC ACCESS

The division began designing and implementing a new computer database for charities registered
with the division. While that database will not be accessible to the public, it will allow the division to
retrieve far more information about charities than is possible with its existing database. In addition, the
database is an important step toward implementing electronic registration for charities. The division is
also continuing to scan images of filed documents, and this project, too, will ultimately assist both
information retrieval and compliance efforts and will allow the public better access to the documents.

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

The division continued its ongoing public education efforts regarding charitable giving and charit}-
stewardship. In addition to continuing distribution of a wide variety of public education materials,
division staff spoke to numerous charitable groups, served on several continuing professional education
panels and national educational conference panels, and contributed to educational publications.

UTILITIES DIVISION

The Utilities Division represents utility consumer interests and is authorized to intervene in
administrative and/or judicial proceedings on behiilf of consumers in coiuiection with any matter
involving the rates, charges, prices, or tariffs of an electric, gas, telephone, or telegraph compan\' doing
business in the Commonwealth and subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of I'elecommunications
and Energy (DTE). G.L. c. 12, § 1 IE. The division appears before state and federal courts as well as'
administrative regulator)' bodies such as the DTE, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),
and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In many of these matters, particularly public

186

PIBIIC PROTECTION BUREAl' UTILITIES DIVISION

utilit\- rate cases, the division is tlic onU' active participant advocating on hclialt ot Massachusetts
consumers.

The LItihtics Division inchuled Joseph Rogers, Chief; Kdward Bohlen; W'llner Borgella: Michelle
Cataldo; Alexander Cochis; Mary Fiohr; I'at Kellcy; Judith I.aster; Colleen McConncll; limothy
Ncwhard; Doc Pichard; and Karien Reed.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

U riLlTV RATE CASES

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company. DTE 02-24/02-25 (Department of
leleconinuuiications and Fjierg)') Fitchburg Cas and Electric Light Company proposed a

48.5% or $3.4 million increase in its gas distribution or b;ise rates and a 27% or $3.7 million
increase in its electric distribution rates. The Company's proposed gas rate increase would not
be evenly distributed across all of Fitchburg 's customers or cla.sses of customers. The division
raised concerns about the performance of the Company's management, and the DTE, agreeing
with those concerns, granted the Company a 42% or $2.9 million increase in gas distribution
rates and a 14% or $L96 million increase in electric distribution rates and set the Company's
rate of return at the lower end of the reasonable range. The DTE concluded that the record
"demonstrates sub-par management performance . . ., with particular respect to Fitchburg's
failure to provide the department with complete information regarding a nuinber of issues that
have the potential to affect ratepayers." As a result of the division's efforts, customers saved
SI. 79 million.

• Boston Gas d/b/a KeySpan Energy Delivery New England, DTE 03-40 (Department of
Telecommunications and Energy) On April 16, 2003, KeySpan filed a general rate case seeking
a $65 million annual increase for its distribution base rates, the largest general rate case the
division had seen since 1995, and asked the DTE to renew, and continue indefinite!)', its
performance-based regulation that began in 1995. The division promptly intervened, executed
an aggressive discovery plan, and retained experts. At the end of the fiscal year, the division was
cross-examining the compan)'"s numerous witnesses.

• Boston Edison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Commonwealth Electric
Company and NSTAR Gas Company, DTE 03-47 (rjepartment of Telecommunications and
Energy) On April 16, 2003, the Boston Edison Company, Cainbridge Electric Light Company,
Commonwealth Electric Company, and NSTAR Gas Company (NSTAR) filed a request with

187

PUBLIC PROTF.CTION BURFiAU UTILITIES DIVISION

the DTE for approval of a new recover)' mechanism related to pension and post-retirement
benefits other than pensions (PBOP). The DTE ordered the tariff suspended until August 1,
2003, and proposed an expedited discovery schedule. Ihe matter was pending at the end of
the fiscal year.

ELECTRIC MATTERS

FERC Wholesale Rate Issues

• Sithe New Boston. ER02-648 (Federal Energ}' Regulatory Commission) On December 28,
2001, Sithe New Boston filed with FERC a Reliability Must Run (RMR) agreement among
Sithe New Boston, Sithe New England Holdings, LLC, and the hidependent Service Operator
New England, hic. (ISO-NE) seeking recovery of the charges allegedly associated with provision
of up-lift/congestion services to ISO-NE from Sithe New Boston's electric generating facilit)'
located in South Boston. The division intervened and then participated in FFLRC settlement
conferences. On December 20, 2002, the FERC commissioners approved the agreed-upon
settlement but held that the case did not constitute precedent for other RMR agreements.

Electric Utilir\^ Transition Charge Reconciliations

The transition charge is a mechanism established by the Electric Utility Restructuring Act ot 1 997
for an electric distribution company to recover its allowable stranded costs as a charge to customers.
The Restructuring Act, G.L. c. 164, § lA(a), and 220 C.M.R. 11.03(4)(e), requires a company to
annually reconcile or "true-up" its transition charges between what it forecast it would recover and
what it in fact did recover through its rates. The division reviews the filing to ensure that the company
recovers only costs permitted by the Restructuring Act.

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, DTE 1 - 1 03 (Department of Telecommunications
and Energ)') On December 3, 2001 , Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company filed a petition
rec]uesting approval of its electric reconciliation mechanism and inflation adjustment. The
division conducted discovery and questioned the Company's accounting ot the proceeds of the
sale of its generating units and interest calculations. The division and the Company reached a
Settlement Agreement, and as a result, the Company's electric customers will save $7.2 million
on their electric bills over the next several years.

• Western Massachusetts Electric Company. DTE 01-36/02-20 (Department ot
Telecommunications and Energy) The DTE opened an investigation into the 2000 and 2001
reconciliation filings of the company's transition charge, energy efficiency, renewable charges,
and other matters. After extensive negotiations, the parties agreed on a lump sum settlement

188

Pl'BLIC PROTECTION BUREAI : L'TILITIES DIVISION

that addressed several accounting and cost reconciliation issues without specific findings. I lie
DTE approved the settlement on December 27, 2002, which saved customers $21 million by
the end of" 2002 (and the total value of the scitlemcnr could grow to S33 million in present
\alue over the next several \-ears).

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, DTE 02-84 ( Department onelecomnnmications
and Energ}') In December 2002, Fitchburg Clas and Electric light ( ;()mpany filed a petition
requesting approval oi its electric reconciliation mechanism and intlation adjustment. The
division asked the D IE to den\- the ("ompan^'s ret]uest to recover congestion costs, require the
C^ompany to correct its miscalculated working capital requirement, and require the Compaii)'
to monitor a S4'iO,()()0 uniform transition charge under-collection from its G-3 customers,
riie DTE had not issued a Final Order at the end of the fiscal year.

• Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company. DTE 02-79 (Department
ofTelecommunications and Energ)') In November 2002, Mass. Electric and Nantucket Electric
filed their Transition Charge Rate Reconciliation and Adjustment with the DTE. The sole
issue in dispute was whether customers should pay for the Company's estimated $2.1 million
error in misclassifying several thousand standard-offer customers as default service customers.
The division objected to the recovery; the DTE had not i.ssued a Final Order at the end of the
fiscal year.

Affiliate Transactions

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, DTE 03-9 (Department ofTelecommunications
and Energy) During the course of'Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Company's last rate case, the
division learned that the Company had procured its most recent electric default service through
an Internet exchange platform, and that Unitil, the Company's parent corporation at the time
of the procurement, partially owned the operator of the exchange, Enermetrix. The division
asked DTE to conduct a public hearing and assess monetary penalties against Fitchburg for
violating the DTE's affiliate transaction regulations. The DTE opened an investigation and
the division urged the DTE not only to iissess an appropriate penalt}', but to order the Compain'
to refund the $19,1 26 brokering fee that its customers had indirecdy paid to Enermetrix. This
matter remained open at the end of the fiscal year.

Electric Industry Restructuring Related Cases

• Default Service Notice of Inquiry. DTE 02-40 (Department ofTelecommunications and
Energy) On June 21, 2002, the DTE opened a proceeding to investigate all aspects of the
manner in which default service is provided to ensure that it is compatible with the development

189

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION

of an efficient competitive market. The division took the lead in securing agreement among
low-income, labor and business representatives, and NSTAR on a set of Guiding Principles for
Default Service changes and on the design for Default Service. C^n February 13, 2003, the
DTE issued an order adopting those joint positions.

• Distributed Generation Notice of Inquiry. DTE 02-38 (Department of Telecommunications
and Energy) On October 3, 2002, the DTE opened a proceeding to investigate the potential
technical, economic, and regulatory barriers to the development of distributed generation.
The DTE granted the division's request to establish a collaborative under the auspices ot the
Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust to implement distributed generation. The collaborative
met over several months and on May 16, 2003, filed a consensus interconnection tariff lor
approv.ll. This matter was still pending at the end of the fiscal year.

• Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company. DTE 03-67 C^n Februar)'
27, 2003, Massachusetts Electric and Nantucket Electric asked the DTE to approve an
Amendment to the Company's Standard Offer supply contract(s) with Constellation Power
Source, a standard offer supplier, that would resolve a delivery point/congestion cost dispute by
allowing the company to pay an additional annual fee of $3.2 million to Constellation. The
company proposed to recover the fee from its customers. This matter remained open at the end
of the fiscal year.

Wholesale Market Restructuring Issues

• New England/New York Regional Transmission Organization (NERTO), RTO2-.3-000

(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) On August 23, 2002, ISO-Nt^ and the New York
Independent System Operator filed a declaratory request at FERC seeking approval to merge
and create a single entity to operate the wholesale grid and power markets in New York and
New England. The division opposed the formation of the Northeast Regional Transmission
Organization without a showing of substantial benefits to Massachusetts customers (the cost/
benefit analysis conducted for the proposed merger indicated that it would cost New F^ngland
customers $65 million/year for the next 10 years; since Massachusetts is 46% of the total New
England load, this proposal would cost Massachusetts customers approximately $30 million).
The division coordinated with other New England Attorneys General and Consumer Advocates
on this issue and filed joint comments with FERC. As a result, the ISOs withdrew their merger
proposals, saving Massachusetts customers $30 million.

• National Standard Market Design (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) On July 31,
2002, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to establish a national Standard
Market Design (SMD) for wholesale electric markets. On November 15, 2002, the division

190

PL BllCPR(^TECTIO\BrRIAr UTILITIES DIVISION

filcii jiiint comments with the other New England consumer advocates objecting to this proposed
rule. 1 he matter was still pending before FERC at the close of the fiscal year.

• New England Standard Market Design, ER02-2330-000 (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission) On July 1 S, 2002, ISO-NE and the NEPOOL Participants Committee jointly
filed a New England version of "standard market design" (SMD-NE), including locational
marginal pricing and .i multi-settlement system. The division intervened because there had
been insufficient analysis of the rare impact of the new design on Boston-area customers and
the proposed designated congestion area pricing plan, and opposed the ISO-NE propos.rJ to
create a "safe harbor" for generators in (dearer Boston to sell power with virtually no regulatory
scrutiny The division also intervened in Connecticut's appeal before the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeds challenging the start of SMD-NE. FERC approved the designated congestion area
pricing plan but made a number of changes, including the removal of the safe harbor provisions.

Nuclear Power Plant Sales

• New England Power Company, DTE 02-33/Cambridge Electric Light, DTE 02-34

(Department of Telecommunications and Energ}') On May 17, 2002, New England Power
Company (NEP), Canal Electric Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, and
Commonwealth Electric Company asked the DTE to approve the sale of NEPs interest in
Seabrook Nuclear Power Station to FPL Energv' Seabrook, LLC pursuant to CL. c. 164,
§§ lA, IG, 76. The division objected to the sale on the grounds that Massachusetts customers
should receive equal treatment regarding the sharing of excess decommissioning funds. On
September 6, 2002, the DTE approved the sale and adopted the divisions position on the
sharing of decommissioning funds.

Power Plant Siting

• Massachusetts Technology Collaborative Cape & Islands Offshore Wind Public Outreach
and Education Initiative The Massachusetts Technology' Collaborative established a stakeholder
collaborative to discuss issues surrounding Cape Winds proposal to develop a wind farm on
Horseshoe Shoals in Nantucket Sound, and convened a five-month stakeholder group process
to examine those issues. The division and more than 40 key individuals representing the interests
of the Cape and Islands as well as state and federal agencies and elected officials participated in
the process, and at the end of the fiscal year the division continued to monitor the issues.

• Salem Harbor Power Plant (Federal Energ}' Regulator)' Commission) On Ma)- 9, 2003, PG&E
National Energ)- Group filed a petition with ISO-NE seeking permission to retire all four
power plant units it owns in Salem on the grounds that it cannot afford the $17"^ million of

191

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAll ITIL ITIES DI\'ISIO\

equipment needed ro comply with Department of Environmental Protection air regulations
requiring sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide reductions, and cannot comply as required bv !
October 2004. The DTE ;ilso opened an inquiry into this matter. This matter remained
pending at the end of the fiscal year. j

Utilit)^ Financing Proposals |

• Western Massachusetts Electric Company. DTE 02-49 (Department of Telecommunications
and Energy) Western Massachusetts Electric Company (WMEC) petitioned the DTE for I
authorization to issue up to SI 05 million in long-term debt and for authorization to use some i
of the proceeds from the SI 05 million to create and finance a trust to meet prior spent nuclear
fuel (PSNF) obligations. The division urged the DTE to grant WMEC's request for authority

to issue the long-term debt, but to den\' the compan\' authorit)' to establish the separate trust.
WMEC has collected approximately $48 million from its customers that, at some point in the
future, it must pay the U.S. Department of Energy for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel (related
to its ownership of the Millstone nuclear power plants in Waterford, CT). Customers receive j
interest payments from the company (in the form of a credit on their bills) for the prepaid $48 |
million, and WMEC proposed reducing the interest rate paid from 1 1.84% to around 1.3%, |
resulting in a loss of approximately $5 million/year in interest credited to customers. In response,
WMEC withdrew its PSNF request, saving customers $5 million/)'ear. i

NATURAL GAS

Appe^ils i

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, DTE 99-66 (Supreme Judicial Court) In a May
31, 2001, order, the division prevailed in securing a refund of approximateU' $1.5 million,
including interest, from the company when the DTE agreed with the division that the company
had double-charged its customers interest costs related to financing its natural gas supplies.
The company appealed the order to the Supreme Judici;il Court; briefs arc due in the next fiscal
)'ear.

Natural Gas C^ompan)' L.ong-Range Load Forecasts and Resomce Plans

• NSTAR Gas Company, DTE 02-12, KeySpan Energy Delivery New England, DTE 01-105,
Bay State Gas Company, DTE 02-75 (Department of Telecommunications and Energy)
Natural gas companies must get DTE approval of their Long-Range Load Forecast and Five-
Year Resource Plans. The DTE reviews gas company sendout forecasts for the appropriateness
and accuracy of the forecast, and reviews gas company supply plans tor their adequac)- and cost.

192

PI BLIC PROTECTION BUREAl' li IIIITIES DIVISION

The division intervened in a number of these proceedings to ensure that the gas company's
plans are adequate and offered comments on a number of aspects of these resource plans.

(i.is ('osr lncenci\e Mechanisms

• Bay State Gas Company. DTE 01-81 (Dcpartinciir of lelcconitmitiic.uioiis and Energy) On
October 26, 2001, Bay State Gas Company filed a Petition to establish a Gas Cost Incentive
Mechanism that entails "innovative portfolio management " in connection with gas commodit)'
options and futures. The division asked the DTE to protect the company's customers from the
potential financial risk and harm associated with Bay State's efforts to engage in gas commodin'
derivative trading and other hedging activities in the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).
On December 5. 2002, the DTE approved the company's proposal but limited it to onlv
residential customers.

Cost ol Cias Adjustment

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company's 200.3 Winter CGA (Department of
Telecommunications and Energ)') Noting concerns with increasing energ)' costs in the Fitchburg
Gas and Electric Light Companj' service territor\', the division filed a Motion for an Investigation
and Public Hearing into Temporary Rate Relief for Utility Customers. The companv filed a
response urging the DTE to deny the rate relief motion. This matter remained pending at the
end of the fiscal year.

Alfiliatc Transaction Proposals

• Bay State Gas Company. DTE 02-73 (Department of Telecommunications and Energy 1 The
compan\- filed a petition to incur up to S50 million in long-term debt from its affiliate NiSource
Finance, and to be exempt from the advertising and competitive bid requirements of G.L.
c. 163, § 15. Arguingthat the proposed affiliate transaction was fraught with problems and the
potential for abuse, the division urged the DTE to condition terms of the company's financing
to those of NiSource Finance's near future S350 million bond issue in order to safeguard against
possible abuse. On February 4, 2003, the DTE approved the proposal without an\' of the
Attorney General's requested safeguards.

TELECOMMUNICATION.S

Appeals

• WorldCom et al. v. Federal Communications Commission. D.C. Cir. 01-1 198 (D.C. Circuit
Court ol Appeals) The division appealed an FCX decision that ;illowed Verizon to enter the

193

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIN'ISION

Massachusetts long-distance telephone market under Section 271 of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996. The division contended that the FCCs findings on switching rates are arbitrary
and capricious because the FCC illegally relied on its New York findings on switching rates as
conclusive evidence, and because the Massachusetts switching rates were not cost-based, Verizon's
failure to offer DSL at a resale discount merits reversal, and the FCC erred in not considering
evidence of a price squeeze as part of its public interest determination. On October 12, 2002,
the court denied the first two claims but granted the third claim, remanding the price squeeze
issue back to the FCC tor consideration.

Retail Rates

• Verizon's Alternative Regulation Plan, DTE 01-31 (Phase II) (Department of
Telecommunications and Energy) Verizon filed an Alternative Regulation Plan to establish the
method by which the DTE will regulate the intrastate residential retail rates that Verizon charges
its customers. In May, Verizon received pricing freedom (no regulation) for most rates the
company charges its business customers. For residential customers, the company proposed, in
its Phase II Plan, to increase residential dial-tone rates and cap annual increases to 5%, or
higher it given DTE approval. On April 1 1, 2002, the DIE denied Verizon's request to raise
rates annually by up to 5% and stated that it will continue to review Verizon's service qualit}'
plan. The division saved residential telephone customers nearly $31 million this year, and
more each year thereafter.

• Wireline E911 Surcharge, DTE 03-63 (Department ot Telecommunications and Energy) On
May 29, 2003, the DTE opened a new docket to set the interim Emergency-9 1 1 services
surcharge for all residential and business telephone customers in Massachusetts. Acts of 2002,
c. 239, § 1. Verizon and the Statewide Emergency Telecommunications Board (SETB) filed a
joint proposal tor an interim surcharge amount ot $.85 per month per customer (calculated
over five years). The division intervened in the case and asked the DTE to adopt an interim
surcharge of $.64 per month rate for only Sept. 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, until the DTE fully
investigated Verizon's claimed Emergency-9 1 1 deficit. The matter remained pending at the
close ot the fiscal year.

'Wholesale Rates

• Verizon's Unbundled Network Elements (LINE) Tariff, DTE 01-20 (Department of
Telecommunications and Energy) On May 1, 2001, Verizon filed its proposed unbundled
network element (UNE) rates. In this docket, the DTE examined the prices that Verizon
charges its competitors to lease parts of its telephone system. In its Final Order, the DTE

194

BLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES niVIS I ON

agreed with rhe division's position tliat die wholesale rates should be set at a level where
competitors can buy the network elements and provide service at competitive rates and set
UNE rates at a reasonable level.

Telephone System Seciuity Procedures

• Verizon's Collocation Security Procedures. DTE 02-8 (Department of Telecommunications
and Energ)) The DTP, opened a docket to investigate the alleged securit}' concerns Verizon has
with the DTE's collocation securit)' rules for competitors' cageless collocation equipment placed
in Verizon's central offices and remote terminals. This matter remained pending at the end of
the fiscal \-ear.

Wireless Telephones

• National Association of Attorneys General Wireless Inquiry The division participated in a
joint eHort by 26 states to investigate the rates, terms, and conditions of three wireless carriers:
Verizon "Wireless, Cingular "Wireless, and Sprint PCS. The states, led by Massachusetts, Illinois,
and Tennessee, worked to resolve complaints concerning wireless service and carrier business
practices, prevent poor service, and stop unfair and deceptive acts and practices by the carriers.
This matter remained pending at the close of the fiscal year.

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

During Fiscal Year 2003, the Utilities Division saved customers approximately $90,990,000:

Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Company, D TE 02-24/02-25 S 1,790,000

Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light Company, DIT 01-103 $ 7,200,000

Western Massachusetts Electric Company, DTE 1 -36/02-20 $2 1 ,000,000

New England/New York Regional Transmission Organization (NERTO)

FERC Docket No. RTO2-3-000 S30,000,000

Verizon, DTE 01-31 (Phase II) $31,000,000

TOTAL $90,990,000

195

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU LTILITIES DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

UTILITY SERVICE OUALl 1 Y

The division examined the issue of Utility Service Quahty, working with consultants to review
service qualit)' performance ot Massachusetts-based companies in comparison to each other and in
other states based on identifiable performance measures, and speaking with unions, customer groups,
and other interested parties. At the end of the fiscal year, the division was reviewing recommendations
to improve service qualit)' standards and oversight in Massachusetts.

Investigation by the Department into the Remaining Utilities' 2002 Service Quality Report. Filed
pursuant to Service Quality Standards for Electric Distribution Companies and Local Gas
Distribution Companies. DTE 99-84, Art. 1. IX dune 29. 2001), DTE 03- 11. 03-12. 03-13,
03-14, 03-15, 03-16, 03-17, 0.3-18, 03-19, 03-20, 03-21, 03-22, 03-23 (Department of
Telecommunications and Energy) The states gas and electric companies made their annual
2002 service qualit)' reports to the DTE. The division asked the DTE to initiate an investigation
and made recommendations to enhance the annual service quality reporting and review process.
The matter remained open at the end of the fiscal year.

Special Commission to Conduct an Investigation and Study Relative to the Adequacy and
Effectiveness of Existing Licensing and Regulation of the Cable Television Operations b)'
Municipalities and the Commonwealth (Massachusetts Legislature) The division participated
in the Special Cable Commission's review of issues pertaining to cable television operations,
including customer service, rates, slamming/cramming, franchising, increasing competition
statewide, access, and high-speed Internet service, and began preparing a Cable Consumer Bill
of Rights for inclusion in the Commissions final report. This matter was still pending at the
end of the fiscal )'ear.

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

The division, working with the AG Elder Hotline, made several presentations on telephone and
consumer fraud issues.

Enhanced Outreach Program The DTK approved an Enhanced Outreach Program, developed as
a settlement among NSTAR, the Attorney General, and the Low Income Energ)' Affordabilit)'
Network (LEAN), on August 31, 2001. This program would increase low-income customer
participation in energy efficiency programs and prevent the shut-off of low-income customers

['IBLIC PROTECTION BLIREAI' MFDIATION SERVICES DIVISION

who are in arrears on their electric bills. The division conriniied to monitor the program and
worked with LEAN and NSTAR during Fiscal Year 2003 to enhance the program by revising
the eligibilit}' requireineins, changing the schedule of arrearage reductions, and initiating post-
Program monitoring.

Utility Shut-oFFand Low Income Assistance Brochures 1 he division worked with the (XILS, the
National Consumer Law Center, and the Community' Action Programs to prepare consumer
inFormation brochures addressing utilit)'shut-oFFprocedures and low-income heating a.ssistance.
The division also issued a consimier advisor)- concerning natural gas increases and describing
programs to help customers with high hearing bills.

MEDIATION SERVICES DIVISION

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

SCORE

Founded in 1989, the Student Ct)nflict Resolution Experts program (SCORE) is a school-based
program that uses trained student mediators to resolve conflict among peers. In fiscal \ear 2003, the
Attorney (General awarded S396,000 to 26 schools across Massachusetts in Boston, Dartmouth,
Creenfield, Holyoke, Lowell, Lynn, Maiden, Medford, Quincy, Pittsfield, Somerville, Springfield,
Tiunton, ^Xakefield (serving 1 2 communities), and Worcester. Student mediators in SCORE programs
mediated 1 ,900 conflicts involving 4,750 youth, and 97% of these conflicts were resolved through the
use of peer mediation. The conflicts included situations involving physical fights, harassment, name-
Ciilling, stealing, threats, bullying, property damage, and rumors.

Division stafl maintained close contact with participating schools, monitored grants, and provided
technical assistance. During the fiscal year, division staFF .served as training Facult}' For student mediator
training events in which over 150 new mediators received training. In addition, division staff also
provided ad\anced training and support to adult mediation program coordinators.

FACE-10-FACE

The Face-to-Face Consumer Mediation Program (FTF), established in 1983 to provide mediation
services For the resolution of consumer and landlord/tenant disputes, offers disputants a convenient,
non-adversarial alternative to court action. In fiscal year 2003, the Attorney General awarded grants
totaling $3 1 5,000 to nine community mediation programs across Massachusetts in Brockton, Fitchburg,
Creenfield, Haverhill, F^yannis, Lowell, Somerville, Springfield, and Worcester.

197

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU MEDIATION SERVICES DIVISION

This $315,000 investment in mediation resulted in the return of $953,977 in cash and $170,198
in non-cash value to Massachusetts consumers. The nine community programs mediated 1 ,909 disputes
involving auto repairs, home improvement, landlord/tenant issues, debt collection, and broken contracts.

Division stall monitored grant activities, provided technical assistance, served as training faculty
for basic training sessions for new volunteer mediators, provided advanced training for experienced
community mediators, oriented new program coordinators, and provided regional lorums for
participating programs to share strategies and resources.

CONFLICT INTERVENTION TEAM

The Conflict Intervention Team (CIT) is a collaborative project among the Attorney General, the
Massachusetts Department of Education, and the Massachusetts Association of Mediation Programs
and Practitioners. Composed of a network of specially trained community mediators, CIT provides
mediation services, on a short-term basis, to schools experiencing large-scale conflicts. In addition tt)
the in-kind contributions ol the Attorney General's staff assigned to the project, a grant from the
Hewlett Foundation has funded CIT since 1992.

Although the CIT was not dispatched for an on-site response to school conflict, division staH
responded to six school conflict situations to assess the need for a CIT inten'ention and/or otter
information and referral services to support resolution of the situations.

YOUTH MEDIATING SOLUTK^NS

Funded b)' a grant from the Executive Office of Public Safet)', Youth Mediating Solutions
(YNIS) is a community-based, peer mediation program modeled after the SCORE program. During
the fiscal year, division staff began implementing VMS in three pilot communities — Brockton,
Dorchester, and Roxbury.

198

I'L BLIC PROTECTION BLIRFiAl Ml DIATION SERVICES DIVISION

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

Duriiit; f-isc.il Year 2003, tlixision staff paiiici|i,ut(.l in a uide twn^u otOiitreacli and training
events concerning the application of mediation and violence prevention strategies. Ilicse trainings
included advanced trainings for mediators; trainings for experienced mediators to coordinate or
participate in future CIT activity; the Federal Reserve Banks 2003 Life Smarts Youth Consumer
Kducation competition; workshops for middle school and high school students; and the 10'*' Annual
Peacemakers Sumniii for middle and high school mediators. In .idditioii to outreach e\ents, division
staff scr\ed on the Attorne)' Cioncral's Childrens Protection Project, Diversit^■ (Committee, Post-9/1 1
Working Croup, Safet}'Task Force, Massachusetts Task Force on Hate Crimes, and Affordable Housing
Initiative.

REGIONAL OFFICES

Western Massachusetts

Central Massachusetts

Southeastern Massachusetts

RFC^IONAL OFriCES WESTERN MASSACHbSETTS OIXISION

WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION

The Western Massacluisetts Division of the Office of the Attorney General, located at 1350 Main
Street, Springfield, and a part of the Regional Operations Division of the Executive Bureau, is responsible
for handling affirmative criminal and civil investigations and litigation, ;is well as civil defensive litigation
and administrative law matters arising in the four Western Massachusetts counties: Hampden,
H.impshire, Franklin, and Berkshire. The (io\ernnient Bureau's statewide Municipal Law Unit is also
housed in the Western Massachusetts Division and prosiiles l-»\--hi\v review and approval, as well as
training and advice to town and niunicipal officials throughout the state. The Business .uul Labor
Protection Bureau ( BITB) Lair 1 abor I )ivision's Western Massachu.setts office is responsible tor enforcing
the state's wage and hour laws on behalf of tiie citizens of Western Ma.ssachu.setts. The division also
responds to a laige nimiber of consumer complaints and piovides educational outreach to area residents.

The tii\ision consists of the following full-time staff members: a division chief, tieput)' tlivision
chief, 10 assistant attornej's general, three civilian investigators, a consumer liaison, one investigator
assigned to the BLPB's Medicaid Fraud Unit, four Massachusetts State Police Officers, four Fair Labor
Division inspectors, one administrative assistant, one paralegal, and six support staff

During Fiscal Year 2003, the Western Massachusetts Division staff included: Janice Healy, Division
Chiefi Michelle Aube; James Clark; Susan Decker; Susan DeVine; Joseph Drz^-zga; Robyn Gay; John
Gibbons; Sandra Giordano; Bart Hollander; Timoth\- Jones; Karen Kapusra; Michael Konderwicz;
Kelli Lawrence; Fom Nartowicz; William O'Neill; Robert Ritchie; Laurie Rowan; Amy Ro\'al; Michael
Russo; Palmer Santucci: Matthew Shea; C\'nthia Sherman-Black; Maria Smith; Steven Spencer;
Christopher Speranzo; Richard Steward; John Talbot; Rosemary Tiratitino; Theresa Ukleja; Eva Wanat;
James Whitcomb; and Judy Zeprun Kaiman.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

The following provides an overview of several significant cases undertaken by the Western
Massachusetts Division during Fiscal Year 2003:

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU

• Dunkin' Donuts : Oiu' investigation began with a sweep of designated Dunkin' Donurs
stores located in Metro Springfield in June of 1998, h)llowing an injur\- to a l4-\'ear-old. Lhe

203

REGIONAL OFFICES WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION

investigators found multiple child labor violations. The division provided training and ordered
the company to remedy these infractions. The division thereafter conducted a comprehensive
audit of all stores.

The audit showed a continuing pattern of child labor violations, particularly minors working during
prohibited times. Other infractions included: permitting minors to work over the maximum allowable
hours per day, failing to obtain proper working papers, and failing to observe the da)' ot rest requirement
for minors. In all, the investigators found over 2,000 child labor violations. In a settlement agreement
signed by the OAG and the franchise owner, a $ 1 50,000 civil penal t)' was paid and a three-)'ear corporate
compliance plan was put into place.

CRIMINAL BUREAU

• Commonwealth v. Tehran Lewis (Hampden Superior Court) The defendant was arrested,
following an investigation in which a StateTrooper, acting undercover, made a purchase of 100
grams of crack cocaine. Following a jury trial, the defendant was sentenced to 10 years in State
Prison.

• Commonwealth v. Girard Davis, Pedro Alvarez (Hampshire Superior Court) This case
arose out of an investigation and purchase ol crack cocaine by an undercover state trooper of
over 200 grams of cocaine with a street value of $8,000 + . Following a jury trial, the defendants
were found guilty of trafficking and sentenced to state prison.

GOVERNMENT BUREAU

• Robert Pannone v. Division of Employment and Training (Hampshire Superior Court)
The plaintiff, whose employment contract was terminated by DET following a complaint by a
co-worker, claimed he was fired in retaliation lor rejecting advances of his supervisor. The
defendants Motion for Summar}' Judgment was allowed by the Court. The plaintiff has, however,
filed a notice of appe;il.

• Paul, et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Hampden Superior CA)urt) In this Ci.L.
c. 258 claim, the plaintiff alleged that she had sustained personal injuries after being rear-ended
by a State Police Officer. The plaintiff's son also alleged that he sustained person;il injuries, as
well as a loss of consortium. Following a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in which they
found that the State Trooper had been negligent in the operation of his vehicle, but that the
negligence was not the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by either the plaintiff or her
son. As a result, a defendant's verdict was entered bv the Court.

204

RB.IONAL OFFICES WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION

• Perez, jr., et al. v. Department of Social Services (Hampden Superior Court) This case
involved a 6-year-()ld h).stci child who was allegedh' sexually molested by an 8-year-old foster
child, while in foster care. The plaintiffs alleged that the Department of .Social Ser\'ices breached
its duty when it failed to place the child in an appropriate foster home and, after he was placed,
failed to adequately monitor the child's placement and pio|->eilv ensure his safety and well-
being. The plaintiffs alleged emotional distress, great bodily harm, conscious pain and suffering,
and negligently inflicted emotional distress. Although the Plaintiffs" settlement demand was
for S300.000, the case was ultimately .settled for $7,500.

• Libby v. MCAD, et al. (branklin Superior Court) In this wrongful termination case, the
plaintiff a.s.serted claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. The Ma.ssachu.setts Commission
Against Di.scrimination (MCAD) found in favor of the Department of Agriculture based on
the statute of limitations bur indicated that the plaintiff would have otherwise prevailed on the
merits. A Motion to Dismiss file on behalf of the Commonwealth defendants was allowed bv
the Superior Court.

PUBLIC PRO lECTION BUREAU
Civil Rights Division

• Commonwealth, Housing Discrimination Project and Edward Fleming v. loseph Collette

(Housing Court-Western Division) This housing discrimination case involved an allegation
by the Housing Discrimination Project ("HDP ") that defendant Collette made derogator)'
remarks and discriminator)' statements to plaintiff Fleming and HDP testers about the availabilit)'
of housing in an apartment complex that he owns and manages. It was additionally alleged
that the defendant made false statements to testers regarding the availabilitv of housing and
failed to show available housing because of their race, color, national origin, handicap, or status
as a recipient of public a.ssistance. Following mediation, a settlement was reached in which the
defendant agreed to pay S3 1,000 in damages and also agreed to the entr\' of Consent Decree.

• Commonwealth &: Michelle Repollett v. ludy Thompson &: Abaladejo Management

(Housing Court- Western Division) This housing discrimination case involved allegations that
the defendants made discriminator)' statements through an agent which indicated a preference
against renting to families with children. The case was settled for 535,000 and specific injunctive
relief was obtained through a Con.senr Judgment.

• Commonwealth & Patricia Knight v. Russo, et al. (Housing Court- Western Division) In
this housing discrimination case, the defendants were alleged to have discriminated against the

205

REGIONAL OFFICES \X'ESTERN .VIASSACHISETTS DIVISION

plairuifiF based on her race. While attending Mt. Holyoke College, Ms. Knight, who is African-
American, was denied housing by the defendants, who used a rental agency to rent the apartment
in question to a white person/family. Following mediation, a settlement was reached in which
the detendants agreed to pay $30,000 and abide by the terms ot a (Consent Judgment containing
specific injunctive relief

Consumer Protection and Antitrust l)i\isi(Mi

• Commonwealth v. McKnight Homeowners' Association and David Gaby (Hampden
Superior Court) 1 his case arose out ot the filing ol illegal liens against 109 properties in the
historic McKnight neighborhood in Springfield by the Executive Director of the McKnight
Homeowners' Association. Following the filing of the Commonwealth's complaint, the
defendants signed a Consent Decree in which they agreed to discharge all liens.

Public Charities Division

• Commonwealth v. lefFrey and Dawn Scott (Hampshire Superior Court) The
Commonwealth filed a civil action against the defendants alleging that they illegally solicited
funds from the public in the aftermath of the September 1 1th tragedy, by fuling to register as
a charity and lailing to properb' account tor the hinds that the)' collected. It was also alleged
that the defendants violated C.L. c. 93A and the Attorney General's regulations by engaging in
a course of action that was deceptive and breached the public trust. Following a jury-waived
trial in March 2003, the court took the matter under advisement.

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES

GOVERNMENT BUREAU

Civil Defensive Litigation The Attorney General's Western Massachusetts (WMAS) Division
continued to provide the highest qualify of legal representation to agencies and individual state employees
required to respond to litigation filed by members of the public. During Fiscal Year 2003 there were
159 civil defensive litigation matters active in the division.

206

RF(;iONAl OFFKKS WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION

PLiRi.ic: PRcrrHCiiON burfau

Civil Rights Division The WMAS Division continued to meet its statutory responsibilities to
afHrmativch- prosecute housing discrimination actions throughout Western Massachusetts and obtained

significant settlement resuhs in tour housing disciimination cases.

During Fiscal Year 2003, the WMAS Division also continued with its efforts to assist schools
throughout the region in ensuring that students" ci\il rights are protected. To that end, division staff
participated in numerous outreach and training efforts designed to educate school personnel at all
le\els regarding the key components of a comprehensive student civil rights polic}', along with more
specific trainings focusing on the prevention of bullying, harassment, hate crime, and civil rights
violations.

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division Through the efforts of our divisions Consumer
Liaison, as well as the efforts of our civil investigative staff, and local consumer protection programs
which are funded through our office, the needs of consumers throughout the region were effectivelv
met. AdtlitionalK', our division continued to advance the Attorney (General's priorities in the area of
eltler prorecti<in through cross-buieau outreach and education programs and an elder protection
conference designed to educate senior and elder protection providers regarding scams, fraud, and abuse.

CRIMINAL BUREAU

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Shea and Trooper Tom Nartowicz both received "Special
Achievement Awards" from the New England Narcotics Enforcement Officers Association. The awards
were in recognition of successful undercover operations and prosecution of several drug traffickers in
2003.

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING

During Fiscal Year 2003, staff in the WMAS regional office were actively engaged in advancing
numerous OAG cross-bureau initiatives and trainings. Division staff advanced the Attorney Gener;il's
child protection and school safety priorities by assisting the Springfield School System with the
implementation of its student civil rights policy and conducting numerous civil rights training programs
for school personnel. The I>pur\' Division Chief four Assistant Attorneys General, and six support
staff participated in a variety of programs, including the Springfield School Volunteers Program. The
di\ision"s Criminal Bureau AAC and Insurance Fraud Division AAC conducted Internet Safet}' Training

207

REGIONAL OFFICES WESTERN MASSACHLiSETTS DIVISION

programs to over 500 school students. WMAS staff also participated at the local level in the Attorney
General's office Holiday Toy and Food Drive by coordinating a clothing and food drive, as well as a
holiday toy drive to benefit ARCH, the YWCA's domestic violence shelter program. Additionally
addressing the needs of elder-consumers was designated as a priority of the Public Protection Bureau.
Regional staff advanced this priority by conducting numerous educational training programs for area
seniors and elder service providers.

In order to foster commimication and cooperation among local law enforcement agencies, staff
attended the monthly meetings of the WMAS Chiefs of Police Association. Increasing our connections
with local community groups was advanced through staff participation in the Springfield Violence
Prevention Task Force, the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program, and the Peacemakers Peer Mediation
Summit. AAG staff also actively fostered our office's relationship with the local legal communit}'
through participation in tiie Women's Bar Association and the Hampden County Bar Association and
as panelists for legal programs at Western New England College School of Law. Additionalh', staff in
the Municipal Law Unit continued to provide numerous training and educational programs for towns
and municipalities throughout Western Massachusetts.

Division staff also actively participated in numerous cross-bureau working groups, including
the Diversity Committee, the Web site Committee, and the Professional Development Unit working
group. Lastly, Western Massachusetts staff participated in numerous professional development training

programs presented b)' the Attuniey Gfiifnil's Institute.

208

RF(;iONAL OFFICES CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION

CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION

The Central Massachusetts Division (CMAS) strives to be an office reflective of and responsive to
the needs of the Central Massachusetts communit)'. CMAS strives to increase the offices visibility and
acccssibilir}' to the region's constituents. (]MAS pursues affirmative litigation in the areas of Consumer
Protection and Insurance Fraud and stcadfistiv defends the ("oinmonwealth's interests in numerous

This Division during Fiscal Year 2003 included the following staff members: Maria Fiickevjacobson,
Chiefi Patricia Bopp; Margret Cooke; John Gatti, Jr.; James Gentile; Salvatore Giorlandino; Karen
Lear)'; John 0'Lear\'; Kristen O'Rourke; Wendy Parsons; and, Suzanne Uncapher.

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

(;o\F,RNMENT BUREAU

Highlights of the cases handled b\' SaKatore Giorlandino, Kristen CVRourke, and Maria Hickev
Jacobson of the Ciovernment Bureau's Trial Division in Fiscal Year 2003 are the following:

• Wojcik V. State Lottery Commission, et al. (U.S. Court of Appeds for the First Circuit)
This was a federal civil rights suit against several Massachusetts officials, including former
Treasurer Shannon O'Brien, arising out of the Lotter}' Commission's firing of the plaintiflFfor
misconduct. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants in June
2001. The plaintiff appealed to the First Circuit. In August 2002, the First Circuit panel
affirmed the summary judgment award.

• Tamasy v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts Appeals Court) The Department
of Public Health ("DPH ") appealed from a S500,000 jur)' verdict in an age discrimination case
tried before a Suffolk Superior Court jury in May and June 1998. In June 2002, the Appeals
Court affirmed the decision. DPH chose not to seek further appellate review from the Supreme
Judicial Court. After DPH did not seek further appellate review, the plaintiff filed a motion in
the Appeals Court seeking $71,450.26 in appellate attorney's fees and costs. DPH opposed
this request because it was excessive. The