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

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

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 



10 



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. 



12 



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 



17 



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. 



18 



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. 



19 



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. 



20 



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, 



21 



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 



22 



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. 



23 



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. 



24 



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 



25 



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 



26 



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. 



27 



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 



28 



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. 



29 



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 



30 



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 



31 



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. 



32 



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 



33 



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 

34 



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. 



35 



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. 



36 



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. 

39 



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 



40 



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 



42 



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 


20 


32 


57 


State Civil 


15 


52 


86 


State Habeas 


12 


34 


51 


Criminal 


26 


53 


90 


211 §3 and Other 








Single Justice Cases 


12 


17 


30 



TOTAL 



238 



432 



783 



43 



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) 



44 



(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. 



45 



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. 



46 



(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 



47 



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 



48 



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. 



49 



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 

4 

N/A 
N/A 



TOTAL 



300 



51 



ECONOMIC CRIME 



CASE DESCRIPTION 


NUMBER OF 


NUMBER OF CASES 




REFERRALS 


OPENED 


Fiduciary and Insider Einbezzlenient 


33 


12 


Home Improvement Fraud 


12 


3 


Identity Fraud 


40 


1 


Immigration Fraud 


6 


4 


Securities Fraud 


10 


6 


Other Consumer Fraud 


88 


16 


Other Larcenous Schemes 


41 


10 



50 



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 


29 


13 


Municipal Employee Corruption 


55 


15 


Procurement Fraud and Other 






Theft from the Commonwealth 


13 


8 


Perjury 


8 


4 


Tax Fraud 


14 


8 


Miscellaneous 


13 


3 


Legal Advice or Assistance 


10 


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 


NUMBER OF 




REFERRALS 


CASES OPENED 


Other Crimes 


24 


4 


Legal Advice or Assistance 


7 


N/A 


TOTAL 


31 


4 


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. 



52 



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): 



53 



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. 



54 



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. 



55 



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. 



56 



(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 



57 



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. 



58 



( 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. 



59 



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. 



60 



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 



61 



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 



62 



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 



63 



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. 



64 



(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 



65 



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 



66 



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. 



67 



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 



69 



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. 



70 



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. 



72 



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 



73 



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. 



74 



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 



75 



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 



76 



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 



77 



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. 



78 



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 



79 



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. 



81 



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 



82 



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 



83 



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. 



84 



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 



85 



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 



86 



(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 



87 



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. 



88 



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 



90 



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. 



91 



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 



92 



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 



93 



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 



94 



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. 



95 



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. 



96 



(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. 



97 



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 

1 

• 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 

1 



158 



Rl IC PROTFrriON Bl'RFAi; FNVIRONMF.N lAI. PROTECTION DIVISION 



NA 



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 



1 


5 


1 


4 


2 


7 


$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 




26 


82 


Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 




29 


54 


Public Charities 




5 


6 


Insurance 




17 


14 


Utilities 










Criminal 




1 


5 



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 Appeals Court awarded S13,0'il.24 in appellate 
attorney's fees, or just S3'>0 more than the SI 2,700 DPH had proposed. 



209 



REGIONAL OFPICES CrNTR^AL MASSACHLiSF.TTS [)I\ISK)\ 

• Piiorro V. Middlesex Sheriff lames DiPaola (Massachusetts Appeals Court) This was a 
wrongful termination case brought b)' a former Middlesex Deput)' Sheriff against Sherift DiPaola. 
The focal issue was the parties' cross-appeals in the case. The Sheriff's appeal contended that 
the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case under Ci.L. c. 35, §51, 
and that the Superior Court erred in ruling that the plaintiff was fired in violation of the 
statute. The plaintiffs cross-appeal challenged the Superior Court's refusal to reinstate him to 
his former position after ruling that the Sheriff had not complied with G.L. c. 35, § 5 1 when he 
was fired. 

• Commonwealth v. Phillips (Suffolk Superior Court) The "Greedy Granny Case"' was a 
civil suit b}' the Commonwealth to recover nearly $ 1 million in pension overpaj-ments made by 
the State Treasury to a retired school teacher. In June 2001, the Court entered a judgment for 
the Commonwealth of nearly $ 1 million. In December 200 1 , the Court ordered the defendants" 
attached assets (approximately $250,000 to $300,000) to be transferred to the Commonwealth. 
In March 2003, the Court denied the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Denying the 
Defendants' Request for Payment of Attorney's Fees and Costs. 

• Fisher v. Massachusetts State Police (Worcester Superior Court) This is a highly litigious 
"Whistle Blower " case arising out of State Police disciplinar)' actions taken against a State Trooper 
for his misconduct in 1 998. Discovery deadlines have been extended, and the case is ongoing. 

• Stephens v. Department of Social Services, et al. (Massachusetts Appeals Court) The 
Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment award to the Department of 
Social Services ("DSS") and several of its employees. The plaintiff contended that DSS and its 
employees violated her constitutional rights and committed other wrongful acts when the soci;il 
workers investigated G.L. c. 119, § 51A reports from medical and police personnel in 
Easthampton, Massachusetts, alleging that the plaintiff's three children had been abused by her 
live-in companion. 

• Kahanic v. Department of Social Services, et al. (Worcester Superior Court) Ihis is a 
wrongful death and negligence action against the Department of Social Services ("f^SS ') and a 
private foster care agency arising out of DSSs placement oi an infant with private foster parents. 
The child disappeared while in the foster parents' care (the child has been missing more than 
five years). The plaintiff, the child's natural father, contends that the child is dead, even though 
Probate Court has not declared the now 5-year-old dead. Discovery is ongoing. 



REGIONAL OFFICES CF.NTRAI. MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

• Kobzav. Massachusetts Maritime Academy (Suffolk Superior Court) Ihe plaintiff, a cadet 
officer at the Acadciin-, filed suit to he reinstated at the Academy and to be allowed to graduate 
even though one evening he became intoxicated, entered the dorm room of two sleeping 
subordinate female caclets, and climbed into one cadets bunk bed without her permission or 
consent. A preliminary injunciion seeking an order to etiectuate his reinstatement was allowed 
after a hearing. The Academy's Petition for InterloLUtorv Review of ihe Superior (Court's 
Preliminar\' InjuiKiion Order was denied b\- a Single |ust ice after a heating. Discovery is ongoing. 

• Ellis V. Commissioner Griffin of the Department of Industrial Accidents (Massachusetts 
Appeals Court) Attorney James N. Ellis, Sr. sought to collect attorney's fees and other legal 
expenses on three workers' compensation cases dating as far back as seven years. The claims 
had been filed by his son, James Ellis, Jr. In an effort to collect the money at issue, Ellis, Jr. and 
later Ellis, Sr. requested hearings before administrative judges of the Department of Industrial 
Accidents (DIA). The hearings were not scheduled because the DIA paperwork reflected that 
Ellis, Jr. had not filed the requisite fee with his Notice of Appeal, pursuant to C.L. c. 1S2, 
§§ ] OA and I 1 A and the regulations 452 CMR 1 .00, et seq. Ellis, Sr. claimed that a fee was not 
due as the respective appeals did not involve medical issues. Instead of petitioning DIA 
(;ommi.ssioner Thomas J. Griffin and requesting a hearing for reasonable cau.se, as allowed by 
the statute, Ellis, Sr. commenced this action in Worcester Superior Court against Commissioner 
Griffin. Framing his verified complaint as one for declaratory relief and mandamus, Ellis, Sr. 
sought an injunction directing Commissioner Griffin to schedule three separate hearings on 
the three third-party claims for attorney's fees and other legal expenses. Commissioner Griffin 
successfully moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because 
Ellis, Sr. had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies available with DIA. Ellis, Sr. appealed. 
Both parties have filed their briefs with the Appeals Court and await a hearing date. 

• Chakrabarti v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts Appeals Court) This was a 
civil rights case against the Department of Public Health (DPH) and several of its employees. 
The Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for DPH. 

PITRLIC. PROTECTION BUREAU 

Highlights of the cases handled b\' Margret Cooke with the assistance of Investigator Jim Gentile in 
Fiscal Year 2003 are the following: 

• Commonwealth v. Great Lakes Camps, Inc. d/b/a Ouabbin Camps, George Deren and 
Charles Sub (Worcester Superior Court) This affirmative litigation case involved approximately 



211 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

50 families who paid between $4,000 and $8,000 to Quabbin Camps, a specialized summer 
camp for children with autism and Asperger's syndrome. The camp was scheduled to open in 
June 2001, but it never opened. Parents were told to contact the camp's lawA'er, Robert M. 
Fuster and Associates ot Pittsfield, Massachusetts, to make arrangements tor reimbursements. 
A few parents were reimbursed between $1,000 and $3,000 tiirough Fuster and Associates, 
which were portions of the $8,000 they had paid tor eight weeks at the camp. A complaint was 
filed in February 2002. In March 2002, an injunction was granted against the owners of 
Quabbin, prohibiting them from reopening the camp. Forty-three families are owed $ 1 39, 1 80 
in tuition reimbursements. In March 2003, final judgment was entered against George Deren 
for the total amount ot the tuition owed the families, plus an additional $50,000 in fines. At 
this time a settlement is being negotiated with Charles Sub. 

• Commonwealth v. Smith/Berkeley. LLC d/b/a Shadow SB, and Teresa Smith ( U.S. Ijistrict 
Court) Between approximately April 2001 and October 2002, Smith sold Apple computers 
through Internet auction Web sites to the public. Consumers were required to pay by cashier's 
check or via wire transfer. To generate immediate sales. Smith sold the computers for less than 
what she paid for them, which amounts to a Ponzi scheme. Smith was unable to provide all of 
her customers with merchandise. A lawsuit was filed against Smith in July 2002, with a 
preliminary injunction being granted against Smith which prohibited her from operating over 
the Internet. During the course of the scheme, she defrauded approximately 375 victims of 
over $880,000. Because of the scope of the investigation, which included victims from several 
different countries, the criminal prosecution was handled by the United States Attorney's Office. 
In December 2002, Smith pleaded guilt)' to five counts of wire fraud and five counts of mail 
fraud in federal court. Smith was sentenced to four years and nine months in prison and 
ordered to pay full restitution. 

• Auburn Racquet and Health Club (Worcester Superior Court) The Auburn Racquet and 
Health Club was a private health club located in Auburn, Massachusetts. In July 2001, the 
owner of the club, Matthew Merritt, began a 20-year anniversary membership drive. 
Memberships were sold at a significant discount. Approximate!)' four month later, Merritt 
entered into negotiations to sell the club, while continuing to sell memberships at discounted 
rates. The potential bin'er, Walter Beede, onh' wanted to bu\- the building, not the existing 
business. Merritt continued to sell memberships knowing that his bu)'er would not honor 
them after the sale was facilitated. In April 2002, the Auburn Club closed its doors to the 
public without warning. In May 2002, the club opened again under the name "Auburn Wellness 
Complex" and now was managed by Beede. The Auburn Wellness Complex refused to honor 



212 



RrciOVM OFFICES CFNTRAl. MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

the discounted memberships sold by Menitt. Despite the contracts Merritt entered into with 
consumers, Klerritt has not reimbursed his customers for "defunct" membersliips to the Auburn 
C^lub. In October 2002, the Attorney Cieneral filed a lawsuit against the Auburn Raccjuet and 
Health (;iub and Merritt for unfair .\nd deceptive acts and practices in violation of consumer 
protection laws. In October 2002, a preliminary injuiictioii was t;ranted against Merritt freezing 
his assets. The Office of the Attorney (ieneral voluntarily agrcei.1 to lifi the injimction, to allow 
for the sale of the property from Merritt to the new ownei. Some of the pioceeds from the sale 
of the property have been deposited into an escrow account in anticipation of litigation and 
possible damages. Approximately 1 2S club members submitted consumer complaint forms to 
the Oftice of the Attorne\- (lenenil. After receivitig and autliting records fiom the Auburn 
(^lub concerning its membership drive, it was determined that there are 90.) victims who are 
owed Si 80, 184.56 in reimbursements. 

• Herb Chambers of Auburn. Inc. v. Jennifer Davis Carey, et al. (Massachu.setts Appeals 
(vourt) In September 2001 , Ann M. Garrity filed for arbitration with the Office of Consumer 
Affairs and Business Regulation ("OCABR") pursuant to G.L. c. 90, § 7N''i , commonlv referred 
to as the Used Car Vehicle Warranty Law or the Lemon Law. After an arbitration hearing in 
November 2001, Garrity was awarded $15,413.12 in damages — the repurchase price of her 
minivan. Seven weeks later, Herb Chambers brought a "declaratory relief" action in Worcester 
Superior Court seeking judicial review of OCABR's arbitration award. OCABR moved to 
dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court allowed this motion. 
Garrity later filed a motion for summary judgment, which was allowed, and Herb Chainbers 
was ordered to pay treble damages in the amount of $46,239.36, attorney's fees in the amount 
of S4,230, and costs. Herb Chambers appealed both decisions to the Appeals Court. Herb 
Chambers acknowledged that it knew of the pending arbitration sponsored by OCABR, vet it 
tailed to avail itself of the administrative process afforded by OCABR. by filing a timely appeal 
with either the District or Superior Court. The parties have filed their respective briefs with the 
Appeals Court and await a hearing. 



SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Being Safe, Smart, and Savvy on the Internet This cross-bureau initiative combined the talents 
of staff who work on issues in Child Protection and High Tech. This training was targeted 
toward middle school students in an effort to educate students to the dangers that thev may 
have heard about, but did not believe that they could be exposed to, as the\- "surf" the Net. As 



213 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTRUM MASSACHl'SETTS DIVISION 

part of the program, students were led through two scenarios which emphasize the potential 
dangers of the Internet. The first Victimization focused on a student who was stalked online 
after she had corresponded with another "student" whom she had met in a chat room. The 
second, Kids as Perpetrators of Internet Crimes, dealt with students who engage in illegal activities 
using the Internet. Ihe training also assisted educators in responding to situations raised by 
new circumstances encountered with the increased use ol the Internet. 

Focus on Elders (Elder Protection Program) This program, developed to educate seniors 
about issues that aftect them, focused on consumer fraud, problems with home improvement 
contractors, lottery and phone scams, financial exploitation, Internet safet\', and elder abuse. 
The program highlighted the Offices Elder Protection Project and Elder Hotline. CMAS staff 
spoke to elders in Spencer and Worcester. 

Rising Stars at Union Hill School Union Hill Elementary School in Worcester and the CMAS 
Division continued to enjoy a special collaboration. Not only have stall read for different 
classes on Community Reading Day , but ;ilso Chief Jacobson initiated the Rising Stars Program 
for students. At graduation, two of these students were selected for a cit)'wide project fair, and 
one student won. A "Rising Star" also received a scholarship to Worcester Academy. 

Bullying, Harassment, and Hate Crimes This training program was targeted toward middle 
school students to address incidents of bullying and harassment that not only affect all students 
but may lead to bias and hate crimes. Ihe training models taught students to appreciate 
"protected classes" through small group discussions and working through case scenarios. It has 
been utilized by several schools in response to incidents at their respective schools. 

Hate Crimes and Bias CMAS staff collaborated with staff from the Community-Based Justice 
Bureau and created three PowerPoint trainings. The first, an intensive two-hour lecture, is 
divided into three sections: (1) Understanding What Hate Crimes and Bias Incidents Actually 
Are; (2) Defining and Describing an Effective Law Enforcement Response — the Police, the 
DA's Office and the OAG; and (3) A Community's Response. The second PowerPoint provides 
an overview of bias and hate crimes. It is an ideal introductory piece and has been proffered to 
many community boards in the Central Massachusetts area. The third PowerPoint was designed 
for graduating high school seniors who are continuing their education or who are headed to the 
workplace. It highlights workplace issues, hazing, and other legally inappropriate beha\ior and 
the resulting consecjuences. Chief Jacobson and Assistant Attorney General Cooke were also 
members of the City Manager's Community Task Force on Hate Crimes and Bias . Jacobson 
and Cooke went to Nashoba Regional High School (Bolton) lor a program, A Global Approach 



214 



rf,(;ionaioffi(:fs central Massachusetts division 

to Hate and H.ir.issnient in the Scluxils: An Update , ('hief Jacohson and Miehelle Bocnh went 
to the IDS I'rojeet \XV)rcestcr — Bias and Hate Clrimes . 

Shaken Baby Syndrome ("SBS") Ihc Central Massachusetts Shaken Rah\- S\'iidr<)nie Prevention 
Campaign was formed in 200 1 in resfioiise to six serious cases, inckidini; one tieath, of SBS in 
Ontral Massachusetts. The C;ampaij;n included representatives from nimieroiis state agencies, 
area commimity groups, l.aw enforcement offices, and area hospitals. To date, (]hief jacobson 
has presented at Worcester Community Action ("oimcil's F.arly Head Start Program in 
Southbridge; Worcester Health)' Start hiitiativc; Qiiincy Medical Onter's Pediatric Educational 
Program; and Stamford Hospital and Greenwich Hospital in Connecticut for the Pediatric 
Nurses Practitioners Associations. She attended a pre.ss conference held by Health Foundation 
of Central Ma.ssachu.setts to announce its support of a comprehensive child abuse prevention 
project, which included a multi-year grant for the Central Ma.ssachusetts Sh;iken Baby Syndrome 
Prevention Champaign. Chief jacob.son also worked with the Children's Justice Act and the 
UMass Memorial's ('hildren's Medical ( A-ntcr as C^hair of the Advisory Board and raised money 
for the Matty Happen Foimdation b\- running the Boston Athletic Association's half marathon 
in October 2002 and the Boston Marathon in April 2003. 

OUTREACH. EDUCATION. AND TRAINING 

Internet CiVIAS staff regularly presented Internet safety programs. Being Safe, Smart, and Sawv' on 
the Internet and The Parents Guide to the Internet , to students, parent groups, faculty members, 
and commimit}- groups, and for programs sponsored by local public libraries. To date, over 
5,000 students and parents have been reached in Ashburnham, Clinton, Fitchburg, Harvard, 
Holden, Lakeville, Lancaster, Leicester, Leominster, Millbury, Northborough, Northbridge, 
Palmer, Princeton, Southbridge, Sutton, Westborough, Westminster, Winchendon, and 
Worcester. Chiel- Jacobson also led a program at UMass Boston's Graduate School on Internet 
Safety and Child Abuse. 

Consumer Fraud CMAS staff conducted presentations on consumer fraud throughout the Central 
KLissachusctts commimit}- lor seniors and for the general public. The\' continued to collaborate 
with the Worcester ConmiunitA' Action Council and the Better Business Bureau to ascertain 
trends affecting consumers and to increase consumer and awareness in Central Massachusetts. 

Participation in Community Groups Staff members participated in Community Reading Day at 
Union Hill Elementary School in Worcester, Edwards Elementary School in West Boylston, 
and Holland Elementary School. Staff continued throughout the vear to read to and tutor 



215 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTR-AL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

Students at Union Hill. Staff worked with several community groups, including the Worcester 
Chapter of Employers Against Domestic Abuse, Moncachusetts Girl Scout Council, Inc., the 
Children's Medical Center Advisory Board (part of UMass Memori;il Health Care), Worcester 
Count}' Bar Association, Boston Inn of Court, St. Stephen's Episcopal C^hurch in Westborough, 
City Managers Commimity iask Force on Bias and Hate C]rinies (Worcester), Central 
Massachusetts Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Campaign, and Department of Social Ser\'ices 
South Central Area Board. Assistant Attorney General Salvatore Giorlandino was a Joshua 
Guberman Teaching Fellow at Brandeis Universit)'. Chief Jacobson took part in the Boston 
College Law School's First Year Law Students' Mentoring Program. 

Speaking Eng a gements Members of the CMAS staff addressed audiences at: che American 
Association of University Women (Worcester); the Lithuanian Society of Worcester; the 
Worcester Healthy Start Initiative; the Worcester Institute for Senior Education; Applewild 
School in Fitchburg; Kids on the Block in Lakeville; Pathfinder Vocational High School in 
Palmer; the Leicester High School; the Leominster Library; Spencer Senior Center; Thayer 
Memorial Library in Lancaster; Linwood Middle School in Northbridge; the AIDS Project 
Worcester; Julie Countr}' Day School in Leominster; and theThomas Prince School in Princeton. 

Office Representations CMAS staff appeared on behalf of the Office at the Annual Labor Ddv 
Breakfast in Worcester, Accelerated Learning Lab School's Family Night featuring a display of 
community agencies, the groundbreaking ceremony with Attorne)' General Tom Reilly for the 
Henry He)'wood Library in Gardner, the NCCJ Leadership Dinner, Red Mass for the Worcester 
County Bar Association (WCBA) and St. Thomas Moore Society, the Trial Court Committee, 
and the meeting of the WCBAs Federal Court Committee, and attended the Eagle Scout 
Court of Honor for former intern Steven Donovan and sever.il Wachusett Area Chamber of 
Commerce events. 



216 



Rl-(^,IONAI OFPICF.S SOUTHF.ASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

llic Southeastern Massacluisctfs Division (SH MA) located at lOS William Street, New Bedford, is 
a eross-biiieau initiative which eoni[irises lawyers, inspectors, metliators, and administrative staff and 
continues to he committed to promoiini; Attorney (ieneral Tom Reilh's imti<iti\es in the Southeastern 
Massachusetts region. The SH MA I )i\ision consists of staff who work through the Business and labor 
Protection Bureaus Fair labor and Birsiness Practices Division; Public Protection Bureau's C^ivil Rights 
and Cjvil Liberties Division and the Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division; Government Bureau's 
Administrative Law and Trial Divisions, and who hatidle a wide range of matters frotn various areas of 
the Office of the Attorney Cleneral. 

During Fiscal Year 2003, SF MA staff included Mary O'Neil, Chief; Cecile Byrne; Todd Davis; 
Diane Lopes Flaherty; Paul Cordon; Anita NLuetta; Stephen Marshalek; Limothy McCuire; Patricia 
Medeiros; i\Luio Paiva; and Patricia dapper. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 



The following provides an overview of cases inidertaken by SF MA staff during Fiscal Year 2003. 



defensive: litigation 

• Barnstable County Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, et aL 

(Barnstable) C^ount)' Board challenged ('RAB ruling that makeup payments for veterans' service 
time can be made by inst;illmcnts. 30A Appeal from decision of CRAB to allow to purchase 
credible service — Voluntar}' Dismissid 

• Ring V. DSS (Plymouth) Court Ordered Dismissal with prejudice 

• St. Anne's Credit Union of Fall River, MA v. loni Miranda, et al. (Bristol) Interpleader 
action after mortgage foreclosure b\' credit union. After the sale there was a surplus, so the 
plaintiff deposited the funds with the court and notified the creditors of the approximately 
S23,0OO in surplus. Fiowever, the tot;d claims of the defendant creditors were approximately 
$ 150,000 of which DOR's share was approximately $8,900. DOR disclaimed any interest in 
this case — Voluntary Dismissal 



217 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOLTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION' 

• Botvin V. Civil Service Commission ( Bristol) 30A alleging Improper Bypass - Appellant's 
Motion h)r Judgment on the Pleadings is Denied and Respondent's Cross Motion for Judgment 
on the Pleadings is Allowed. 

• Barnstable County Retirement Board v. Public Employee Retirement Administration et 

al. (Barnstable) Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on Pleadings is Denied. Defendant's Cross 
Motion for Judgment on Pleadings is Allowed. PERAC's decision is Affirmed. 

• Caswell Sr.. et al. v. Mello and Labrie (Bristol) Motion to Quash Subpoena — Allowed 

• Harrop v. DSS (Bristol) 30A appeal of a fair hearing decision to uphold a DSS finding of 
sexual abuse — Agreement for Judgment 

• Fisher d/b/a, et al. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (Barnstable) Appeal from 
ABCC decision revoking liquor license — Plaintiff s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction 
Denied. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute is Allowed. 

• Souza V. BSEA (Plymouth) 30A appeal from BSEA's decision granting Carver's Motion to 
Dismiss — Appeal Affirmed 

• Ruppert V. RMV (Barnstable) Appeal from RMV suspension of license and preliminar\' 
injunction — Settlement — Default judgment removed and agreement entered whereby RMV 
would not suspend plaintiff's license and would remove all indications of suspension from 
plaintiff's driving histor}' which resulted from the incident on May 1, 2002. 

• Fremaultv. RMV. et al. (Bristol) 30A — Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 
is Denied. Judgment entered for the Defendant. Plaintiff takes nothing and the action is 
dismissed on the merits. Defendant Board of Appeal recover its costs of action from the plaintiff. 

• Miranda v. DSS (Ph'mouth) 30A — Motion to Dismiss Allowed 

• Grimaldi v. RMV (Plymouth) 30A — Dismissed without prejudice based upon the plaintiff's 
failure to prosecute 

• Mandell v. Terry (Barnstable) Habeas Corpus — Court Ordered Dismissal 

• Plaud V. UMass Dartmouth (Bristol) Complainant was hired as a grant administrator and 
alleges that she did not receive the salary increase that was promised with the position. UMass 
General Counsel 



218 



RHCIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

• Seminara, as the Trustee of the Quivett Neck Realty Trust, et al. v. County of Barnstable 

et al . (Barnstable) Motion to C^onipcl Kce(icr ot Records for N.irural Heritage and Kndangercd 
Species Program to appear at deposition ami produce documents — Department ot Fislieries 
• & Wildlife will handle. 

• Bergman v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies &i Bonds (Bristol) Plaintiff 
appealing suspension of his driver's license on account of controlled substance law violations — 
Plaintiff's \totion for judgment on the Pleadings Denied — Defendant Motion for judgment 
on the Pleadings — Allowed 

• Koonce v. RMV (Plymouth) Appeal ot a decision ot the RMV. Defendants Motion to 
Dismiss tor Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Allowed 

• Hoefler v. Bristol County Sheriff's Department and MHD (Bristol) Civil/Defensive — 
Harm Personal Injury — Simimar\- judgment Allowed 

• Andrade v. DSS (Bristol) 3()A appeal trom DSS decision supporting 5 1 A report — Apped 
Attlrmed 

• McFish, Inc. d/b/a McMenamy's Seafood of Raynham v. Raynham Selectman Board, et 

ah (Bristol) 3()A appeal from ABCC's Affirmance of revocation of plaintiff's liquor license. 
Appeal dismissed for failure to comply with Standing Order 1-96 

• Teixeira v. Frank L. Bailey (Bristol) Tort action against MHD alleging negligence by 
emplo\-ee. Accident in\-olving employee who hit plaintiff's vehicle — Stipulation ot Dismissal 

• Chute V. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Barnstable) 30A 
appeal trom Board decision affirming Registry's suspension of plaintiff's license — Appeal 
Reversed 

• Dennis Housing Corp. v. Housing Appeals Committee, et al. (Bristol) 40B-HAC was to 
hear appeal on a related matter. Town of Dennis opted not to participate. A default judgment 
was entered. A comprehensive permit was issued by HAG permitting the construction of 
affordable senior housing by the plaintiff's rendering this case in Superior Court moot. 

• Safety Insurance Co. aso Mathis v. Commonwealth of MA (Suffolk) Subrogation suit 
where insurer sought reimbursement from (Commonwealth. Commonwealth vehicle collided 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIX'ISION 

with insured's veliicle. Insurer tailed to make presentment, and defendant s motion for summar)' 
judgment was granted — Full, for the Defendant 

• Marchetti v. Board o( Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Barnstable) 
30A appeal from decision of Registrar suspending plaintiffs license for three years after plaintiff 
pleaded guilty to three drug law violations — Appeal Affirmed 

• Ford V. RMV (Barnstable) 30A Motor Vehicle Licensure — Plaintiff failed to appeal to the 
Board of Appeals. Court remanded to that administrative agency. Stipulation of Dismissal 



SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The first Youth Court in Massachusetts, New Bedlord Youth Court, convened at the Southern 
New England School oi Law with the Olfice oi the Attorney General as a collaborating partner. Staff 
in the SE MA Regional office trained students, volunteered as judges, and sat on the advisoiy board of 
this juvenile diversion program recognized by the National Youth Court Center. In a most effective 
project. Southeastern Massachusetts' network of elder providers was brought together by SE MA Regional 
staff in October of 2002 at an Elder Fraud and Abuse Conference where Attorney General Reilly was 
the keynote spe;iker. This valuable network was strengthened as the need for awareness of financial 
scams and personal protection of our elders was discussed. 

Connnunin' involvement in 15 neighborhood associations along with the numerous activities that 
they promote. New Bedford's Drug Task Force's Weed and Seed collaboration, and Abandoned Fiousing 
Projects in Taunton and New Bedford continued as SEMA staff promulgate the commitment Attorney 
General Reilly has to the region. 



OUTREACH, EDUCATION. AND TRAINING 

Protecting children remains a priority of Attorney General Reilly, and SEMA staff were involved in 
numerous projects ptovided as part of Safe Harbors, Youth Summit; New Bedford Prevention 
Partnership, Mentor Program; and New Directions' Summer Youth Program. Educational outreach 
was provided to over 500 students on Internet safet}', and the office hosted two interns thrt)ugh the 
School-to-Career program of New Bedford High School. 



RKCilONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

Empowering coiiinuitiitics with coiisunicr aiicl h-.uul .dcrt tips ,u iicigliboihood meetings aiul 
pieseiiring woikshojis iegulaii\' at area ekier housing complexe.s and CJiuncil on Aging locations 
throughout Southeastern Alassacliusetts kept SHMA staff in communication with the pubMc served in 
this region. I'he Annual Symposium for (Consumer Advocates and regular meetings with the regions' 
local (Consumer Programs enabled staff to provide quality assistance. Participating in programs such 
as Domestic Violence Awareness, Ethics Seminar Training, AIDS Awareness, United Way Review Board, 
Threat Assessment Seminar, and Alzheimer Association Forum as well as providing training in the areas 
of workers" rights and civil rights allowed the SF, MA Attorne\- (ieneral's staff to promote the Office's 
initiatives. 

SEMA staff particip.ued in office-wide training programs provided by the A(i Institute, such as 
Emplcn-ment Discrimination I'raining, MCT^A'l'raining, Word & Grammar'1'raining, F^xecutive Etiquette 
101, Anger Management, Evaluation Fraining, Investigator Course, Civil Rights Training, Management 
Fraining/Book Club/Mentor Program, Grant Writing Seminar, as well as various MCLE Trainings 
that ensure high standards and professional current knowledge. Cross-bureau initiatives provided the 
opportunit)' for SEMA staff to coordinate projects facilitated by the Employee Benefits Committee, 
Children's Protection Project, Diversity (Committee, and Web site Committee. 



221