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

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

Public Document 



No. 12 




^I)e Commontoealtf) of jlasisiacljusiettsi 



Report of the 
Attorney General 



for Fiscal Year 2005 



July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005 




Publication of this Document AppRo\'En by Ellen M. Bickelman, State Purchasing Agent. 
Publication Number CR1523-09/06-4.40-Docuprint Express 




Thomas F. RbiLLV 
ATTORNEY GENERAL 



The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
Office of the Attorney General 

Onf. Ashburton Plac r 
Boston, Massac hush ns 02108-1698 



In accordance with the provisions ol Section 1 1 of Chapter 1 2 of the Massachusetts 
General Laws, I hereby submit the Annual Report for the Olfice ol the Attorney General. 
This Annual Report covers the period Irom July 1 , 2004 to Jiuie 30, 2005. 



Respecthillv submitted, 

-T3:.' 



Thomas F. Reilly 
Attorney General 




TABLE OF CONTENTS 



ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL APPOINIMENTS i 

EXECUTIVE BUREAU 1 

C)eneial Coimsel's Office 2 

Human Resource Management Office 4 

External Affairs Office 6 

Information Technology Division 7 

Budget Office 9 

Operations Division 10 

Communications Office 1 1 

Francis X. Bellotti Law Library 12 

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 15 

Fair Labor and Business Practices Division 15 

Medicaid Fraud Control Unit 25 

CRIMINAL BUREAU 55 

Appellate Division 35 

Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime Division 39 

Victim/Witness Assistance Division 47 

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division 51 

Environmental Crimes Strike Force 62 

Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division 64 

Criminal Justice Policy Division 77 

Victim Compensation and Assistance Division 84 

Financial Investigations Division 88 

Safe Neighborhood Initiative Division 94 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 109 

Administrative Law Division 1 12 

Trial Division 126 

PUBLIC PROTECnON BUREAU 137 

Children, Youth and Comminiities Division 137 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division 139 

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division 146 

Environmental Protection Division 160 

Insiuance Division 178 

Investigations Division 187 

Division of Public CTiarities 191 

Utilities Division 196 

REGIONAL OFFICES 211 

Western Massachusetts 211 

Central Massachusetts 219 

Southeastern Massachusetts 225 



APPOINTMENTS 



Fiscal \ear 2005 (7/01/04 - 6/30/05) 

OFFICH OF THE AI TORNRY (iFNKRAL 



ATTORNEY GENERAL THOMAS F. REIl.l .^■ 
FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL STEPHANIES. LOVELL 



ANN B. ACKIL 
MICHELE L. ADELMAN 
JENNIFER A. ADREANI 
ALEXANDRAALLAND(iO) 
ALISON ANDELMAN (2) 
BRUCE F.ANDERSON 
DAVID B.ANDREWS 
JAMES ARGLTN 
FREDERICK D. AUGENSTERN 
EVA BADWAY 
CHRISTINE BAILY 
ANNAPURNA BALAKRISHNA 
THOMAS BARNICO 
CHRISTOPHER K. BARRY- 
SMITH 

JASON BARSHAK 
DENISE M. BARTON 
R. DAVID BECK. 
ANNETTE C. BENEDETTO 
LESLIE BENNETT 
MATTHEW O.BERGE 
CRISPIN BIRNBAUM 
WILLIAM F. BLOOMER (23) 
EDWARD G. BOHLEN (45) 
WILNERBORGELLA(25) 
JOHN E. BOWEN 
JULIE BRADY 
MATTHEW T BROCK 
MONICA A. BROOKMAN 
TRACED' A. BROWN 
RANJANA BURKE 
CHRISTOPHER A. BUSCAGLIA 
(1) 

JOSEPH CALLANAN 
ROME.CAMBA 
JESSE CAPLAN 
SANDRA CARDONE 
JENNIFERS. CARGILL (19) 
ERICB.CARRIKER 
JENNIFER CARTEE (20) 
JULIE CHATTOPADHYAY 
KAJAL CHATTOPADHYAY 
NORACHOROVER 



JOHN J.CHRISTIN. JR(23) 

JAMES CLARK 

PETER CLARK 

ALEXANDER COCillS 

RICHARD COLE 

VTCrORIACOLE(47) 

JEFFREY T COLLINS 

JOHNCOMPTON 

ROSEMARY CONNOLLY 

PATRICIA CORREA 

PIERCE O.CRAY 

GEORGIA CRITSLEY( 14) 

GLENN CUNHA 

PAMELA M. DASIIIELL 

LINDAS. DELCASTILHO 

STEPHEN DICK 

THOMAS V. DIGANGI(4!) 

JENNIFER DOHERTY(27) 

JOHN D0RSEY(16) 

DENISES. DURAN(ll) 

KIRSTENENGEL(34) 

APRIL ENGLISH 

BENJAMIN ERICSON 

BARBARA A. FAIN 

JAMES D.R FARRELL(32) 

LISA J. FAUTH 

DANIELS. FIELD (36) 

ROBERT FISHER 

SUSAN M. FLANAGAN-CAHILL 

(40) 

MARY B. FREELEY 

GAILGABRIEL(5) 

ROSALYNGARBOSE 

MELISSA GAVEGNANO{ 10) 

SALVATORE M. GIORLANDINO 

I.ANDREW GOLDBERG 

LORRAINE GOLDENBERG- 

lARROW 

JULIE GOLDMAN (18) 

ELIOT GREEN (29) 

BERNARD W.GREENE 

JOHN A. GROSSMAN 

RICHARD D.GRUNDN(X) 



KELLICiUNAGAN 
DAVIDHADAS(9) 
DANIEL J. HAMMOND 
BETSY E. HARPER 
KATHERINE HAICH 
JANICE HEALY 
MARGARET HEGARTY (20) 
RICHARD HEIDLAGE 
HILARY' HERSHMAN 
SARAIIINCHE'»(22) 
JOHN R. HITF 
STEVEN HOFFMAN (13) 
BARTO- HOLLANDER 
PAMELA HUNT 
MARSHA HUNTER 
CAROL lANCU 
MATTHEW IRELAND 
MARIA HICKEY JACOBSON 
(24) 

JOSEPH JANEZIC (13) 
THOMAS M. JOHNSON 
JOCELYN JONES 
MARC JONES (16) 
TIMOTHY JONES 
SARAH JOSS 
ROSALIND KABRHEL 
STEPHANIE KAHN 
JUDYZEPRUN KALMAN 
GLENN S. KAPLAN 
JAMIE W. KAFZ 
RONALD KEIIOE 
JEAN MARIE KELLER' (12) 
DAVID KERRIGAN 
KAIIIARINE KLUBOCK (26) 
MARK R. KMETZ(42) 
PAMELA KOC}UT 
CHARISMA LAM 
SIUTIPLAM 
ROBERT M. LANG 
JUDITH LASTER(33) 
JENNIFER M. LAVERTN(IO) 
DIANE LAWTON (4) 
DANA LECCESE 



APPOINTMENTS 



PATRICK LEE (37) 
PHTHR LHIGin 
MADELINE LEONE (43) 
JUDYLEVENSON 
DAVID M. LIEBER 
ANITA V.MAIETTA 
DAVID MARKS 
LAURA MARLIN 
STEPHEN MARSHALEK 
INGRID MARI IN (36) 
TINA MATSUOKA 
LEAB. MAY (38) 
COLLEEN MCCONNELL 
CONSTANCE M. MCGRANE 
(21) 

TIMOTHY MCGUIRE 
IAN MCKENNY 
MAURA D.MCLAUGHLIN 
PATRICIA MEDEIROS 
PAMELA J. MEISTER 
BETH MERACHNIK 
HOWARD R. MESHNICK 
NICHOLAS J. MESSURI 
JAMES R. MILKEY 
PAUL MOLLOY 
DAVID MONAHAN 
NATALIE S. MONROE (35) 
ALICE L. MOORE 
TIMOTHY MORAN (30) 
CATHRYN N EAVES 
EILEEN O'BRIEN 
JAMES H. O'BRIEN 
THOMAS M. O'BRIEN 
CHERYL O'CONNELL 
JONATHAN OFILOS (19) 
MARYO'NEIL 
WILLIAM P O'NEILL 
QUENTIN PALFREY (14) 
EMILY R. PARADISE 
WILLIAM L. PARDEE 
MARGARET PARKS 
MAITEA. PARSI 
ROBERT PATTEN 
SUSAN PAULSON (36) 
MARY A. PHILLIPS 
MARYB. PHILLIPS (43) 
KEVIN PLANTE(31) 
WILLIAM W. PORTER 
JASON QUEENIN 
ROBERT L.QUINAN 
RANDALL RAVITZ (5) 
SUSANNE REARDON 
KARLEN REED 



DOUGLAS RICE (15) 
JULIANA D. RICE 
SUSAN RIEDEL(7) 
ROBERT W. RITCHIE 
JOSEPH W. ROGERS 
DEIRDRERONEY 
RAYMOND ROWLAND (28) 
JOSEPH RUCCIO 
PETER F. RUSSELL (34) 
PETER SACKS 
ERNEST L.SARASON 
SCOTT D. SCHAFER (9) 
KURT SCHWARTZ 
JEFFREYS. SHAPIRO 
MAITHEWSHEA 
SOOKYOUNGSHIN (17) 
GLEN M.SHOR 
ADAM SIMMS (39) 
GINNYSINKEL(47) 
TINA L. SMEATON 
DANIEL I. SMULOW 
DONNASORGI(6) 
JOHANNA SORIS 
AMY SPECTOR 
DAVID STANHILL 
DEBORAH S. STEENLAND 
CATHERINE SULLIVAN 
MARK P SUTLIFF 
JAMES SWEENEY 
ROSEMARY TARANTINO 
NEILS. TASSEL (43) 
DANAH TENCH 
STEVEN E.THOMAS (34) 
MARCTONASZUCK(3) 
BRUCE TRAGER 
TOBY UNGER 
THUY WAGNER (46) 
DEBRA WALSH (35) 
TERESA WALSH 
JAMES S. WTJITCOMB 
DORIS H.WHITE 
JUDITH WHITING 
BETSY K. WHITTEY 
GEOFFREY WHY 
JESSICA WTELGUS (39) 
JANE L. WILLOUGHBY 
MEREDITH WILSON 
CHARLES WYZANSKI 
SHEILA YORK (44) 
KARLAZARBO 
CATHERINE C.ZIEHL 



APPOINTMENTS 



APPOINTMENT DATE 



TERM INATION DATE 



(1) 7'6 04 


(2) 8 ') 04 


(3) X23()4 


(4) S 30 04 


(5) 9 13 04 


(d) 10/25/04 


(7) 11/15/04 


(8) 12 20 04 


(9) 13 05 


(10)2 28 05 


(11)3 21 ()5 


(12)4 4 05 


(13)4 11 05 


(14)4 25 05 


(15)5 23 05 


(1(1)5 31 05 


(17)6 5 05 


(18)6605 


(19)6 1305 


(20)6/20/05 



(21) 7/2/04 

(22) 8/13/04 

(23) 8/20/04 

(24) 9/1/04 

(25) 9/3/04 

(26) 9/24/04 

(27) 10/13'04 

(28) 10/22/04 

(29) 11 5 04 

(30) 1112 04 

(31) 11/15/04 
11/29/04 
12 10'04 
12 31 04 
1/7/05 



(32) 
(33) 
(34) 
(35) 



(36) 1/21/05 

(37) 2/4/05 

(38) 2/11/05 

(39) 2/18/05 

(40) 2/25/05 

(41) 3/4/05 
(42)3/11/05 
(43)3/25/05 
(44)4/1/05 
(45)4/8/05 
(46) 6/3/05 
(47)6/17/05 



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 BL'REAU 



Executive Bureau 

The Executive Bureaus priniary kinction is to provide tlie OfHce with overall administration 
management, policy setting, staff supervision, and employee training. It is also responsible tor 
administering technical support to over 450 emplo\-ees located throughout the (lommonwcalth. 
Additionally, the Executive Bureau pertorms a number of specialized hinetions, inclui.ling the 
coordination of legislative affairs, constituent relations, commiuiity outrcich, <uul all eommimic.itions, 
both internal and external. 

The Office of the Attorney General is located in four areas in Massachusetts. The main 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 (Jeneral to fimction productively and effectively for the benefit ol the ( Commonwealths 
citizens. 

The Office of the First Assistant Attorney General, which oversees all legal matters and includes 
the Office of the General Counsel, is located in the Executive Bureau. Other offices within the bureau 
include Human Resource Management, Budget, Information lechnolog)-. Operations, Support Services, 
and the Francis X. Bellotti Law Library. 

In recognition of the t^xecutive Bureaus dual responsibility to provide leadership on the Office's 
overall mission and priorities, and to support administratively the Office to ensure efficiency and 
effectiveness, the management of the bureau is carried out by the Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, 
and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Administration and Finance. 

The Chiefof Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff oversee 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 Chiefof Staff is responsible for working directh' with 
the bureaus to develop and coordinate the key policy initiatives and priorit)' issues of the Office. The 
Deputy Chief of Staff for Administration and Finance is 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. 
The Deputy Chief of Staff for Administration and Finance has responsibility for the management of 
Human Resources, Operations, Budget, Information Technology, and the Law l.ibrar\'. 

In Fiscal Year 2005, the Executive Bureau included Stephanie Lovcll, First Assistant Attorney General; 
Stephen Kerrigan, Chief of Staff; Laura Marlin, Deputy Chief of Staff; Ellen Donaghey, Deputy Chief 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE 

of SvAi tor Adminisrration and Finance; Dee Barkett; Keni Bunidge; Diane MacDonald; Labrini 
Malatantis; Cllen Shor; Marie Urciuoli; and (Christine Wilson. 

Smooth operation ot the Attorney Cieneral's Office also is reliant on the dedicated professionalism 
of the following staff members in the I^ellotti Law Library and the lelecommunications Division: Karin 
Thurman, Law Librarian; Michael Ball; Catherine Douglas; Susan Lindsey; Raymond Manigault; and 
Denise McCartin. 

GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE 

The General CounstTs Office is within the Office of the First Assistant Attorney Gener;il. This 
C^ffice provides recommendations on legal and policy matters to the Attorney General, the First Assistant 
Attorney General and the Chief of Staff. Staff within the General Counsels 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; 
dirough the AG Institute 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 the 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 coimtry in letters of support and/or opposition to proposed legislation or regulations; 
provides technical support to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) by issuing warning 
letters to respondents and by reviewing OCPF paperwork and serving its complaints; reviews public 
records law appeals referred for enforcement action by the Secretary of State through the Supervisor of 
Public Records; provides support to the bureaus on requests for internal documents and information 
under the public records law and Fair Information Practices Act (FIPA); and investigates open meeting 
law violations by state agencies. 

Lhe Cieneral C^ounsel's Office started Fiscal Year iOOS with h)ur attorneys, one paralegal and one 
secretary: Pamela M. Dashiell, (ieneral Counsel; Deborah Steenland, Deputy General Counsel; Judy 
Zeprun Kalman, Senior (Counsel; Lorraine Goldenberg-Tarrow, Assistant Attorney General; Fjleen 
Care)', Paralegal; and Akiti Chandler, Support Staff. 



KXEC:iiI IVE BURKAll (^F.NF.RAI. (XHiNSl-L'S OrVlCt 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

The General Counsel's Office manages all internal personnel matters in conjunction vvirli the 
Human Resource Management Office. It is responsible for handling workers' compensation claims, 
union arbitrations and grievances, tliscriminati(Mi complaints and cliscip!in,u\' proceedings up to and 
incliuling employee terminations. 

On occasion, the General Gounsel's Office will provide assistance to other bureaus wiih respect 
to cases involving litigation. Therefore, some members of the staff carry an active caseload of work 
unrelated to the core responsibilities of the General Counsel's Office. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Amicus I^riefs Received 37 

NAAG Sign-ons Received 38 

Legal Services Contracts Received 29 

SAAG Appointments Made 19 

SAAG Appointments Amended 20 

SAAG Appointments Vacated 10 

Public Records Enforcement Appeals Received 10 

Public Records Requests Received 32 

Public Records Trainings 4 

Open Meeting Law Complaints Received 2 

OCPF Cases Received 14* 

Board of Bar Overseers/Tix Settlements Received 14 

OUI Notices Received 3,939 



* This tor.il reflects tlie number of warning letters sent to non-filers. We also reviewed OCTF p.iperwork .ind pleadings 
(to be Hied in court) and responded to questions by telephone and e-niail. 



EXECUnVt BURtAU HUMAN RRSOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The members of the General Counsel's staff were involved in cross-bureau initiatives, including 
the Diversity Committee, the Employee Benefits C^ommittee and The Elder Protection Unit of the 
Public Protection Biueau. I his Office had a staff member serve as the Attorney Cjcneral's representative 
on the Governors Diversity and Equal Opportunity Advisory Council. Ihe staff also distributed an 
updated supplement to the statewide record retention policy for dociunents unic^ue to the Office of 
the Attorney General. 

In keeping with the Attorney Generals priority of ensuring staff has access to the latest information 
and training available, and in fiutherance of their professional development, the AC! Institute provided 
continuing education to legal and nonlegal staff on a variety of topics. During Fiscal Year 2005, the 
ACS Institute offered 26 programs and brought in two "Distinguished Lecturers. " 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Dining Fiscal Year 2005, the staff of the General Counsel's Office provided training to state and 
local government agencies on open ineeting law issues and public records law matters. 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. A staff member made a presentation 
at a career forum at an area law school. Members of the staff also participated in the Citizen Schools 
mock trial program, and volimteered as tutors in its Eighth Grade Academy and worked with other 
community groups in their own neighborhoods. 

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE 

The Human Resource Management Office is responsible for job vacancy announcements, the 
recruitment and hiring of employees, benefits administration for full and part-time employees, the 
coordination of hiring for legal and collegiate interns, and employee and labor relations. During Fiscal 
Year 2005, staff members included Diana LaRochelle, Director; Sandra Macdonald, Recruitment 
6c Hiring Coordinator; Joyce Delgardo, F,mplo)'ee Benefits C.oordinator; and Lauren Murray, 
Administrative (xxjtdinator. 



EXECUTIVt- BUREAU HUMAN Rl-Sdl 'RCr. MANAC^EMTNT OFFICE 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

AN ri-DlSCRlMlNAriON AND SEXUAL HAIUSSMEN 1 POLICY 

The HRM Office reissued the Anti-Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Policy in April, 2005 
to all employees, contractors and volunteers, file OtHce remains committed to the goal ot having a 
workplace that is respectful, inclusive and diverse, and reinforces that commitment on a coruinuing 
basis. 

OFFICE-SPONSORED BAR ASSOCIALION MEMBERSHIPS 

In addition to sponsoring memberships for all attorneys in the Boston Bar Association or a coimty 
bar association, assistant attorneys general also were offered the opportunity to join one of the many 
minority and women's bar associations in Massachusetts. This benefit was again offered during Fiscal 
Year 2005 to further the C^ffice's commitment to enhance attorneys" professional development, and 
to encourage involvement with professional legal organizations comprised of diverse membeis and 
experience. 

LEGAL AND COLLEGIATE INTERN PROGRAMS 

The Office of the Attorney General continued its strong commitment to the Legal and Collegiate 
Intern Programs during Fiscal Year 2005. Each winter, the Office participates in the Massachu.setts 
Law School Consortiimi interview process to recruit and select summer legal interns. In addition to 
this valuable source of candidates, the HRM Office coordinates and holds dozens of interviews in late 
winter and early spring with students from numerous local law schools as well as many out-of-state 
law schools. 

The HRM Office placed 54 law students in the Office, the majority of whom took part in the 
Summer Legal Intern Program. The law students are afforded a imic]ue opportunity to participate in 
a full-time, structured nine-week summer program which is imfunded, 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 ciuring the spring and summer months. In Fiscal Year 2005, the HRM Office 
placed 48 collegiate interns. These interns volunteer at least 1 5 hours per week and are assigned in all 
five bureaus across the office. I he term of their internships varies from student to stuilent, but often 
exceeds nine weeks. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE 

Aelilitionally, three assistant attorneys general ran clinical programs throughout the year for students 
at area law schools — Harvard Law School, Boston (College Law School and the New England School 
of Law. 

PERSONNEL ACTIVITY 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Attorney General's Office hired 23 attorneys and 27 nonlegal staff, for 
a total of 52 new employees. There were 85 staff members who separated from the Office. 

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE 

The External Affairs Office of the Executive Bureau responds to the daily needs of the public 
and the legislature. It serves as a direct liaison between the comnumity, legislature, and the Attorney 
General. 

In Fiscal Year 2005, Deptity Ghief of Staff Laura Marlin oversaw the External Affairs Office, which 
included the following staff members: Malisa Brown, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs; Amanda 
Goulombe; Leah Green; Erika Gully-Santiago; Kenneth Hardy; Aaron Labaree; Tony Melius; Janis 
Noble; Alejandro Rodric]uez; Lori Suher; and Tom Weber. 

COMMUNITY LIAISON 

The Ct)mmunity Liaison is responsible for constituent services. The position was created as a 
resource for citizens to obtain information for either internal or external assistance through e-mail, 
letters, telephone calls, or office visits. In 2005, we received approximately 5,760 e-mail rec]uests and 
2,600 telephone calls. 

OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS 

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



EXECl'IlVE BL'REAU INrORMATION TECHNOUh;'* DlVISIdN 

INTERGOVF.RNMENTAL. AFFAIRS DIVISION 

riic Iiitcrgovfiiimcntal Affairs Division is rcsjionsiblc f()rcst.ihlishiiii;.UKl iniplcmciitin^ the Attorney 
Ceneral's legislative agenda as well as working with other offices throughout state and local goveriuiient. 
The Legislative Affairs Division directs legislative policy, coordinates the filing of legislation, and approves 
written and oral testimony. The division provides external liaison services, including apprising legislators 
and other state and local government offices of issues that may imjiact their communities or the work 
of their office and responding to their calls and correspondence with regard to constituent problems 
and legislative concerns. In addition, the division disseminates legislative information throughout the 
bureaus, acting as an internal liaison between the legislature and the Office of the Attorney ( iencral. The 
Intergovernmental Affairs Division advises the Attorney Ceneral on matters of polic\' and participates 
in the overall development and implementation of office-wide initiatives. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION 

The Attorney General's Information Technology Division (11 Division) is responsible for the 
operation and maintenance of the agency's computer network and related technical resources. The 
division operates both local and wide area network communications equipment from the main office 
in One Ashburton Place providing electronic communication throughout the agency. Fhe wide area 
network connects the Boston offices at One Ashburton Place, 100 Cambridge Street and 200 Portland 
Street with the local area netwoiLs installed in the regional offices in Springfield, Worcester and New 
Bedford. 

The II Division's mission is to maintain network communications and provide hardware, software 
and end-user assistance for all agency staff in all locations. The division's staff supports a variety of 
servers which host applications, e-mail, databases and ec]uipment providing DNS and firewall services. 
Additionally, the technical staff oversees a number of routers, network switches and more than 600 
computer devices, including desktop PCs, Notebook PC's, printers, scanners and other peripheral 
et]uipment. During Fiscal Year 2005, IT Division staff included Paula M. Durant, Director; Claudette 
Clement, Administrative Coordinator; Bruce Crosby, Technical Support Specialist; Jean Exantus, 
Technic;il Support Specialist; Christine Heneghan, Notes Database Administrator; Jack Ngan, Technical 
Support Specialist; Ronald Ros.setti, Network Manager; Visakha Samaraweera, Relational Database 
Developer; and Thomas Smith, LAN Manager. 



EXECUTIVl- Bt'REAl.' INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Attorney General's IT Division continued to upgrade and enhance 
computer systems and network operations as part of its ongoing effort co improve the quality of the 
Agencys technical resources. Replacement servers were acquired to replace outdated models unable 
to support planned operating system upgrades, faster backup technology was put into place and, to 
meet increasing storage needs, the division will be bringing newly acquired storage servers on line. 
Enhancements also continued at the desktop level with the installation of more scanning equipment 
and the replacement ai a number of outdated desktop PC's and notebook PC's. 

In addition to agency-wide improvements, the IT Division works to meet the needs of particular 
divisions. During Fiscal Year 2005, Ihe 11 Division assisted the Irial and Insurance Divisions with 
their implementation of litigation support software and continued to work with the Medicaid Fraud 
Control Unit and the Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crimes Division to acquire additional computer 
forensics equipment and resources. IT staff also worked with the Public Charities Division to implement 
a new Registrations Database and assisted the Elder and Insurance Hotline staff as they converted to 
their new database software. The IT Division has also acquired a new server which will be installed to 
provide support and additional storage for the CCIS, Elder and Insurance Hotline databases as well as 
the Public C]harities Imaging System and Registration Database. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

The Information Technology Division provides end-user assistance both in scheduled sessions and 
upon request. A central Help Desk is maintained at the main office in One Ashburton Place 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 lechnical Support Specialist, any requiring particular 
expertise are directed to the IT staff member best qualified to assist. 

Orientation sessions are conducted for new employees and interns upon start of work and, in 
addition to issuing new feature instructions, policy reminders, virus alerts and technical bulletins, the 
IT staff provides individual and group training as needed. 



tXECin IVE Bl'REAl' BlDCl.l OPI K:F 



BUDGET OFFICE 



As \n previous fiscal \cars, a cliallcngc for the Bu(.lt;i.-t Olticc was to (irovide tor the cv(.r-iiKrcasiiii» 
needs of the Office wliile anticipating that Fiscal Year 2()()'S fiuuhng would most Nkeh' be level 
funded. 

During Fiscal Year 20()'>, liowever, tiie most important acti\ it\' of the Budget Office involved the 
use of the new Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System (MMARS) that was 
implemented at the start of the fiscal year on July 1 , 2005. Budget Office staff had been preparing for this 
event for more than a year by undertaking training — primarily individual, internet based — reviewing 
the many changes from the prior system, ensuring that relevant information rolletl from the old system 
to the new correctly and setting up procedures to conduct the agency's financial business. 

Since little of the old system terminology or processes are part of the new accounting system, changes 
have been dramatic. Budget staff interacted closely with each other to ensure that business would be 
conducted as normally as possible and Fiscal Year 2005 was successfully closed in the new system and 
Fiscal Year 2006 opened with little or no interruption. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, Budget staff processed over 9,200 accounts payable (AP) documents 
totaling $16,675,242. Among these totals were 1,913 documents totaling $2,936,21 1 to victims of 
violent crimes and 2,710 documents totaling $3,138,775 to claimants who benefited from wage recovery 
settlements or other settlements made with various retailers. 

The Budget Office included the following staff members: Frank Velluto, Director; James Creedon; 
Kcristollia Ford; Mary Jane Grace; Jennifer Hanly; Shanita Hill-Davis; Christina Kennedy; and Gail 
Sarno. 



EXECUTIVE- BUREAU OPER.ATIONS DIVISION 



OPERATIONS DIVISION 



riic Operations Division provides professional, timely, and valuable ancillary services that allow 
the Office of the Attorney General to effectively carry out its mission, fhe nmltitude 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 2005, the division continued to be fully engaged in daily 
facility and operational matters, and supported the Office of the Attorney General staff with the latest 
multi-media technology enabling them to effectively and efficiently perform their duties. 

In Fiscal Year 20()S, division staff included Kristine Hill, Director; (]hris Adams; Kevin Nolan; Pasha 
Polihronidis; and Michael Whelan. Ihe Support Services staff included William (^oughlan, Manager, 
Joseph Barnes; Stephen Cress; Tim LeBlanc; Nestor Morales; Dave Scafati; and Harold lafier. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS AND ACTIVITIES 

In Fiscal Year 200S, the Operations Division continued the major office renovation project at One 
Ashbiuton Place. Ihis project rcc]uired a collaborative effort between all affected divisions and the 
Support Services, Information Technology, and Telecommunications divisions. During the construction 
phases, this project included relocating the Criminal, Executive and Government Bureaus to temporary 
space within the McCormack building and to satellite locations; moving hundreds of active and non- 
active case files, law books, office furniture and ec]uipment without the use of professional moving 
services; and, disposing or creating surplus of hundreds of pieces of office furniture and miscellaneous 
items through the Commonwealth's Surplus Property program. State agencies, local cities and towns 
and non-profit organizations received AGO surplus office furniture through the program. 

The Operations staff also provided multi-media and production support for various types of cases, 
training sessions, anci special events. The creation of complex trial exhibits, graphs of numerical data, 
PowerPoint presentations and audio enhancing are examples of the tools provided by Operations for 
various cases and investigations. In addition. Operations staff also transport many exhibits and equipment 
to courthouses and provide technical assistance during trials and grand jury hearings. 

Operations also played a major role with the technical setup and coordination of the Annual 
Garden of Peace Ceremony and reception, which took place on the plaza of 100 Cambridge Street in 
September. This emotional ceremony honored homicide victims with a program that included speakers, 
a monimient dedication, musical arrangement and a candle light vigil. Over 1,500 people, including 
victims" families, attended this event. 

10 



EXECl'llVt- BUREAU COMMUNIICAI KIN'S OlEICE 

Operation staff trcqiicincd the rei^ioiial otHccs to pick-iip or deliver imiiortant docuiiKiits, or to 
provide technical or physical assistance with investigations like the Riverside matter in (Aiiiral Mass. 
Operations staff along with CMAS staff loaded and iniioaded over 150 imorgani/ed, hatllv torn and 
overflowing boxes containing sensitive contract dociunents related to potential claims by former 
customers of the defunct dealership. 

Other fimctions within the scope <if Operations incluiled agency security, building ev.icuation 
plans, responding to after hoins emergency calls, furniture inventory, vehicle mainten.uice, staff 
parking, docimient archiving, press conference and training session set-ups, and general plnsical facility 
upkeep. 

COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 

The C^omminiications Office coordinates all media-related matters tor the Office of the Attorney 
General. 1 he chief responsibiHty of the Commimications Office is to serve as a centralized piibhc 
voice for the agency. To that end, the C^omnumications Director, Press Secretary, and IXputy Press 
Secretaries work with Executive staff and Bureau Chiefs to ensure that the Attorney Cienerals 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.stare.ma.us), and other public 
appearances and events. 

To effectively commimicate within the agency and with the public, the ("ommunications Office 
has implemented policies to handle media inquiries, create publications and biochmes, and manage 
content on the Attorney Generals Web site. 

The Communications Office staff are David Guarino, Communications Director; Corey Welford, 
Press Secretary; Sarah Nathan, Beth Stone, and Terence Burke, Deputy Press Secretaries; AJexandra 
Bauermeister, Press Assistant; and Jen Adams, Web site Manager. 

WEB SITE 

In existence since December 1999, the Office Web site continued to expand during Fiscal Year 
2005. The Attorney Generals Elder Abuse Project launched successfully in October 2005. This project 
was a training grant to help professionals across the state to address the growing issue of elder abuse. 



11 



EXEC:i'TIVE BLIREAl! FRANCIS X. BELLOTTl EAW LIBRARY 

The project was hinded by the Office on Violence Against Women at the United States Department of 
Justice. Current publications continued to be added to the Web site in PDF and, if possible, HTML 
and rtf formats (for accessibility compliance). The site traffic reports demonstrated between 58,000 to 
69,000 visitors per month. 

FRANCIS X. BELLOTTl 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 2364 book titles and 
161 periodical, law review, newspaper, and newsletter titles. The attorneys also have access to Westlaw 
for online searching of legal and newspaper databases. 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 from the Fair Labor and Business Practices Division. Individuals who are not affiliated with 
the Office must make an appointment with the library staff in order to use the special collections. 

1 he library is a member of the Boston Region;il Library System, facilitating interlibrary loans from 
nonlegal libraries. Included with membership is access to OCLC, a national bibliographic database. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the library staff included Karin Thiuman, Director; and Raymond 
Manigault, Library Assistant. 



12 



BUSINESS AND LABOR 
PROTECTION BUREAU 

Fair Labor and Business Practices Division 
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit 



BUSINESS AND LABOR I'RC) ILCI KIN Bt'RI-.Al' PAIR lABOR AND Bl'SINl-SS PRACTICES DIVISION 

Business and Labor Protection Bureau 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

riie demands placed on the Fair Labor and Business Practices Division (FI.BP Division) tor Fiscal 
Year 2005 remained liigli. Flie telephone hotlines continue to serve the public who make over 1,330 
inquiries per week. C'allers are responded to and advised how to best handle tiieir complaints and 
inquiries, many resulting in formal complaints being filed with the division while others referred to 
other agencies to assist them with their individual needs. The hotline has been supplemented by an 
improved Web site which continues to experience a significant vohmie of inquiries made through the 
Workers' Rights section of the Web site. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, FLBP staff included I^an Field, Division C'hief; (Christopher Buscaglia, 
Deputy Division Chief; Randy Berg, Chief of Investigations; Leah Green, Outreach Director; JefF 
Ambrose; Bruce Bergman; Bruce Bussiere; Cecile Byrne; Ronald Cabezas; Jay Clark; Nick Dean; Susan 
Decker; Joseph Drzyzga; Mary Duilinger; Patrick Faherty; Michelle Gamble; Alex Guardiola; Erika 
Ciully-Santiago; Paul Gordon; Edward Horniak; Marsha Hunter; Tom Johnson; Jocelyn Jones; Barbara 
Kane; Patricia Kelleher; Noreen Kelly; Robert Lamarre; Brian Macera; Jeffrey Mahoney; Anita Maietta; 
Mildred Markham; Katherine Mulligan; Mario Paiva; lona Powell- Fieadley; Greg Reutlinger; Mario 
Rosado; Jed Ruccio; Elizabeth Rufo; Palmer Santucci; Steven Spencer; Bruce Trager; Theresa Ukleja; 
and Karia Zarbo. 



SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The division continues to take a multi-faceted approach to ensuring compliance with the 
Massachusetts wage and hour laws including enforcement, education and outreach as well as oversight 
of public bidding requirements. Lhe division also is responsible for reviewing and ruling on applications 
by busines.ses for waivers for certain workplace laws. 

OVERALL IN\'E$TIGATORY ACTI\aTY 

The FLBP Division received and investigated in excess of 3,300 formal complaints in Fiscal Year 
2005. In many instances, FLBP's inspectors recovered payment of full restitution or provided another 
appropriate remedy to the aggrieved employee without initiating the civil citation process or litigation. 
In other cases, consistent with its law enforcement mission and approach, FLBP's staff employed its 



15 



BUSINESS AN[) LABOR I'ROl ECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

prosecution authoriry to pursue instances of unlawful conduct and sought civil and criminal sanctions 
which were imposed on workplace law offenders. Ihrough these efforts, FLBP recovered in excess of 
$2,074 ,000. 00 in wages that were owed, but unpaid, to Massachusetts workers, as well as administrative 
and criminal penalties and costs. 

PREVAILING WAGE ENFORCEMENT 

Attorney General Tom Reilly continued to place a high priority on enforcement of the prevailing wage 
laws. FLBP inspectors conducted unannounced site inspections at numerous public construction projects 
across the Commonwealth to encourage compliance and a level playing field for all employers. During 
Fiscal Year 2005, FLBP investigators conducted over 203 site inspections related to public construction 
up from 174 site inspections the prior year. The division continued its enforcement efforts regarding 
prevailing wage violations on public construction projects issuing 105 prevailing wage citations. 

The following provides a representative sampling of prevailing wage cases undertaken by FLBP 
during Fiscal Year 2005: 

• Milton Marder Defendant was indicted on 12 coimts of Larceny by False Pretenses and 
Prevailing Wage violations. These charges stemmed from multiple complaints and a lengthy 
investigation involving the exploitation of immigrant workers who were performing work on 
public construction projects across the state. Marder was sentenced to 30 months in jail to run 
concurrent with a Federal sentence, $75,000.00 in restitution and an eight-year debarment 
from public works projects. 

• Marathon Fire Protection Rhode Island sprinkler fitter company that performed prevailing 
wage work in Worcester County had apprentices working out of ratio. A settlement agreement 
was executed which included $10,000.00 in restitution and a compliance plan to comply with 
all applicable statutes. 

• Lighthouse Masonry, Inc. Two intentional citations issued relating to violations regarding 
the failure to submit certified payroll records to the awarding authority on a weekly basis. The 
citations were for projects at U-Mass Dartmouth and the Middlesex House of Correction. The 
penalty amount for each citation is $2,000.00. 

• Capeway Roofing Westport roofing company that worked on three public schools in 
Chicopee failed to pay 17 employees the increase in the prevailing wage rate that occurred 
during the contract. Restitution and civil penalties totaled $4,300.00. 



16 



Bl'SINESS AND LABOR I'ROI LCTION BUREAU I AIR LABOR AND Bl'SINFSS PRACI ICES niN'ISION 

• Heritage Heating/William Deeley/Kevin Deeley 1 his partiurship hiilccl to pay pavailing 
wages on tlic Dartmouth Hotel renovation project. 1 he partners made significant restitution 
payments during the course of investigation and did not contest the failure to pay prevaihng wages. 
Settlement negotiations resulted in an agreement inuler whicii the partners paid approximately 
$12, 700. 00 in restitution to three employees. The emplo\'er also ailmitted to imiiuentional 
prevailing wage and record keeping violations and paid S2,()0().n() in penalties. 

• Priority Wall Systems Three citations were issued to this Waltham contractor relating to 
the misclassification of appro.ximately 34 employees as independent contractors, the failure to 
maintain accurate certified payroll records, the failure to submit certified payroll records timely, 
and the failure to maintain accurate payroll records. 

• Ramco Six citations were issued to this West Bridgewarer survey/soil erosion control 
company regarcling the failure to pay four employees approximately $ 1 ,770.00 in prevailing wages 
on six public works projects. Additionally, the employer fouled to maintain true and accurate 
certified payroll records on each of these projects. As a result the company made payment of 
approximately $1,770.00 in restitution and $2, S 10.00 in penalties. 

• Ajax A citation was issued to this Rhode Island steel erection company regarding the 
continued failure to submit certified payroll records directly to the awarding authority relating 
to a Pembroke school project. Company paid a $2,500.00 penalty and entered into a settlement 
agreement that included a compliance plan. 

• Lonsdale Concrete Construction This ( Aimberland, R.l. corupan\' failed to pay the correct 
prevailing wage rate to its laborers on the Kingston down Hall project. A citation was issued 
resulting in a $650.00 penalty and $3,146.00 in restitution. 

PAYMENT OF WAGES ENFORCEMENT 

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 issues 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. During Fiscal 
Year 2005, FLBP issued 232 civil citations for violations of the payment of wages and prevailing wage 
statutes. This number represents an increase over Fisc;il Year 2004 in which 227 civil citations were 
issued and a significant increase compared to the 165 civil citations i.ssued in Fiscal Year 2003. 



17 



BUSINESS ANO LABOR t'ROTLCTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

I he following provides a representative sampling ot unpaid wage cases undertaken by FLBP during 
Fiscal Year 2005: 

• Ground Round Company declared bankruptcy and terminated virtually all employees 
without any prior notice, owing wages and vacation pay to the affected employees. 1 he Office 
recovered over $328,400.00 in outstanding wages owed to 430 employees in Massachusetts. The 
balance of all outstanding wages owed to Massachusetts employees was paid upon completion 
of auctioning the property of Ground Round. The Office was also instrumental in assisting 
employees from other states to obtain their back wages which was over $1,000,000.00 from 
130 restaurants in 23 states and Canada. 

• Mediplex Group, Inc. d/b/a Sunbridge Healthcare Nursing home owner in Millbury 
sold the facility. Simbridge had an agreement to fund Paid Time Off pool for employees to 
retain benefits with new owner. Discrepancies in the tracking of time between local and central 
management during changeover to centralized tracking system led to an under-funding of the 
pool. Employer paid approximately $38,000.00 in restitution and penalties as part of settlement 
agreement which included a compliance plan. 

• Marguerite Concrete, Inc. Overtime investigation involving this Franklin concrete company 
who failed to pay overtime to employees. An audit revealed that $31,208.00 was owed to 24 
employees. A settlement agreement was executed including full restitution and a $4,000.00 
penalty. 

• Bilafer Landscaping Company Paul Bilafer pleaded guilty at Framingham District Court 
for multiple violations of the wage and hour laws and was placed on probation with a six month 
suspended sentence until 2004. Bilafer has twice been found to be in violation of the terms of 
his probation. Bilafer appeared in Framingham District Court on November 12, 2004, for a 
violation of probation hearing and was sentenced to 10 and 20 days in the House of Correction, 
respectively. The basis for the violation was his failure to pay $3,380.00 in restitution due to 
immigrant employees from a civil citation issued by this Office. Bilafer appeared at the hearing 
with a certified bank check for the outstanding restitution amount. Judge Robert Greco 
terminated probation upon payment of all outstanding restitution. 

• MVP, Inc. A settlement agreement was reached with this employer arising from investigation 
into payroll record-keeping practices for all Massachusetts locations, following allegations from 
former employees relating to retroactive changes in employer's vacation policy affecting 29 
employees. As part of the agreement, employer remitted $69,394.29 in unpaid vacation pay 
to affected employees and made a $2,000.00 charitable donation, in lieu of a penalty. 



BUSINESS AND LABOR I'ROnci ION Bl'Rl-.AU I AIR LABOR AND BL'SINLSS I'RACI IC l,s |)l\ ISION 

• Maiyo Professional Services Ihis cinploymLiit agcnc)' inisclassifictl IS tiii[i|()yees as 
indcpeiuleiit contractors, hilled to pay overtime, and biled to maintain true and acciuate payroll 
records. A citation was issued which included restitution in excess of $ 10,5 18.00 and penalties 
of $2,420.00. 

• Santiago's Plaza, Inc. Worcester based grocery store failed to pay Suiul.i)' premium p,i\' 
over the past several years. A settlement agreement resultetl in o\er $ 19, ()()(). 00 in restitution 
to 67 employees and a $2, 500. 00 penalty with an assurance of future compliance. 

• Charlotte Russe National retailer C^h.irlotte Russe h.id polic\' to pay only managers, and 
not regular retail employees, tinie-and one-half holiday pay lor New Year's Day, 1 hanksgiving, 
and Christmas, and as a result, 208 employees were not paid holiday pay. Total restitution was 
approximately $7,000.00. Final settlement agreement included full restitution and a $500.00 
penalty as well as a compliance plan. 

• KTl Recycling This investigation involved the employer evading overtime pay requirements 
by luilizing a temporary employment agency. A settlement agreement included an admission 
to an unintentional violation of the overtime statute, the payment ol $79,678.00 in restitution 
to approximately 30 employees and the payment of a $5,500.00 penalty. 

• Alutiiq-Wackenhut Security Services Alutiiq-Wackenhut is a security company doing 
business in Natick. Complaint was for failure to compensate employees who were not 
allowed to leave the facility for meal breaks. Alutiiq agreed to pay emplo)'ees back wages in the 
amount of $ 18,560.06 and Wackenhut agreed to pay employees back wages in the amount of 
$17,274.93. 

• City Express This company employs messengers. The couriers were not being paid for 
all hours worked and also were not being paid time and one half for overtime. Company paid 
$2,690.00 to employees for impaid overtime and wages that were due and payable. 

• Yoozed A citation was issued to this internet company that went out of business. Ihree 
employees were not paid all outstanding wages that were due and payable. A citation for t.iilure 
to pay wages was issued resulting in over $2,71 1 .00 in restitution with a $620.00 penalty. 

• Other non-payment cases Another portion of the cases resolved by the division involved 
successfully concluding 570 cases that resulted in $250.00 or less in restitution, amoimting to 
$64,750.78 tor individuals, and another 341 cases resulting in restitution of between $251.00 



19 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTFCTION BURKAl) FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

- $500. 00 tor iiidividuals, amounting to $111,036.56. The restitution for these low wage 
earners was in excess ol $175,730.00. These matters were time con.suming and small, but no 
less significant to the employees who were owed their wages. 

PUBLIC CONTRACTS OVERSlCiH T 

The Attorney General's Olfice continued to provide a professional and accessible torum lor the 
resolution ol public construction bidding disputes, including investigating allegations of impropriety 
in connection with public-works project bidding. Tlie Attorney Generals primary enlorcement efforts 
in this area have been undertaken by FLBP s Public Contracts Unit. Ihe primary tool employed by the 
Public Contracts Unit includes adjudication of disputes through an administrative hearing process. In 
Fiscal Year 2005, tlie Unit issued 40 written decisions for these cases. The division received 45 protests 
which resulted in 20 hearings. 

The Unit also responded to 1 ,345 telephone inquiries by the Commonwealths awarding authorities, 
contractors or other interested parties who are involved with public works projects. The Units telephone 
support has become an important resource for contractors and awarding authorities. Telephone assistance 
has served as a significant prevention tool, often delivering the information necessary to prevent or 
c]uickly remedy a violation of the public bidding laws. 

Enforcement efforts also included an educational component that provided public contracting 
participants with information regarding the ptiblic bidding laws. In addition, FLBP's staff participated 
in educational programs that provided substantive and procediual 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. 

rhe following are examples of significant public contract disputes resolved by FLBP in Fiscal Year 
2005: 

• Commonwealth v. Lower Pioneer Valley Collaborative and Corporation Collaborative 
established a corporation (consisting of the same individuals) to act as its alter ego in order to 
avoid public bidding rec]uirements, including advertising for competitive bids on a $9 million 
project to construct a vocational techinical school. Protest ALLOWblD. The Office of the 
Attorney Cieneral sought preliminary junction against Collaborative/Corporation. The Superior 
Court concluded that while the collaborative was subject to these ret]uirements, the corporation 
was not. We petitioned the Appeals Court Single Justice for review, but relief was denied. Still 
pending is our action for a declaratory judgment regarding the applicability of public bidding 
laws to collaboratives h)r future projects. 



20 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU lAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

• U.W. Marx Construction Co. v. Division of Capital Asset Management $5.9 million 
general contract by DCAM to renovate dormitory at the Mass. ('ollege ol liberal Arts. Siib- 
bidcler list distributed to all general bidders included one price for certain waterproofing work. 
The first and second general bidders added this price to their bid forms even though DCAM 
neglected to include a space on the form for this price. This was not an addition not called for, 
as alleged b\' the protestor, the third low general bidder, biirthermore, the [Protestor submitted 
calculations with its bid showing that it also added this price to its total bid. Protest denied. 

• David Roach and Sons, Inc. v. Town oF Southbridg e $1 million water treatment plant 
contract. Town had tliscretion to waive unit price error as obvious, clerical error. The error 
regarding the power of attorney was also writcable. It did not affect bit! bonds enforceability 
and was a matter of form that the Fown had discretion to waive inuler the bidding statute. 
Protest denied. 

• FFCM V. City of Fall River $111 ,000, three year contract to maintain cit)' street light 
system. FHCM claimed that contract was not a services contract subject to C.L. c. 3()B, but 
rather, a contract for the alteration and repair of public works subject to G.L. c. 30, §. 39M. 
Contract was not bid upon uniform specifications and not advertised in ("entral Register as 
required by c. 30. Protest ALLOWED becau.se work on components other than photocells and 
bulbs is c. 30 alteration and repair work, and there is sufficient amount of such work to trigger 
the statute. 

CHILD LABOR 

The Attorney Cjeneral remains committed to ensuring a safe workplace for the \'oiuh of the 
Commonwealth. During Fiscal Year 2005, FLBP inspectors investigated reports of child labor violations 
and conducted workplace site inspections, visiting businesses where minors were employed, noting 
violations and advising employers of their responsibilities and legal obligations to provide a safe and 
harmonious work environment for minors. The division has also provided oiureach to chikhcn through 
programs presented at the schools and through career day events. 

Among the routine investigations handled throughout the year, the division also continued to 
monitor the cases mentioned below for compliance with the child labor laws. 

• Dunkin Donuts The Office completed the final year of a three year compliance plan following 
an investigation that revealed thousands of child labor and wage violations. The agreement 
included a $150,000.00 civil fine as well as an oversight plan by an outside auditor. 



21 



BUSINLSS AND LABOR PROTECTION BURKAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS r'R/\CTICES DIN'ISION 



• Six Flags New England The OtHce issued a waiver to Six Flags to address ending work 
times for 16-17 year olds. I'he division continues to monitor Six Flags lor compliance with 
the child labor statutes. 

WAIVERS AND INDUSTRIAL HOMEWORK 

FL.BP is charged by statute with the authority to waive certain requirements ol the labor laws under 
certain conditions. During Fiscal Year 2005, FLBP processed more than 340 waiver applications and 
industrial homework certificate requests. Each reciuest lor a waiver was carefully evaluated before a 
determination was made to grant or deny the request. FLBP enforced the industrial homework laws 
(work perlormed lor a company in the employee's home) by issuing permits to the employers and 
certificates lor each employee, where applicable. FLBP also monitored these companies to ensure 
compliance with the minimum wage and overtime laws. 



STATISTICAL SUM^4ARY 

Restitution Recovered In excess ol $ 1,920,975 

Fiotline Calls In excess of 69,305 

Formal Complaints Filed 3,372 

Cases Closed 3,553 

Civil Citations Issued 232 

Public Contract Dispute Decisions 40 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Attorney Ceneral Reilly has long believed that public education is an important part in promoting 
compliance with workplace laws. Accordingly, outreach to the employee and employer communities, 
and their unions, trade associations, counsel, and other advocates, has been an FLBP priority. One 
means to tliis end has been FLBPs telephone hotline, which has served as an inlormation source lor 
workers and businesses. In Fiscal Year 2005 the FLBP hotlines received over 69,300 inquiries. In many 
instances, workers were inlormed ol their rights and were assisted in obtaining their rightful wages. 



22 



BUSINESS AND LABOR I'ROI FXH ION BUREAL! MEI)IC:Ain FRAUn C:ONTROL DNIT 

1 he lmmii;i\int Worker Outa.icli I'roitct, wliicli was established several years ago, toniinues to be 
successful. Ihroiigii this program, FLBP continues to receive a large volume of complaints and referrals 
from the immigrant commimiry. FLBP staff members made seven presentations to immigrant advocacy 
groups during the year to maintain this important program and also made presentations to employer 
groups in an effort to educate them regarding their rights and responsibilities concerning immigrant 
employees. 

Outreach was conducted in other areas, as well. During Fiscal Year 2()()'i, FLBP staffmaile a total 
of S2 presentations to bar association and continuing legal education groups, professional organizations, 
trade associations, labor unions, and employee advocacy groups. These presentations covered such topics 
as wage and hmu' l.iws, einplo\ee and empKner rights and responsibilities under these laws, as well as 
presentations on such topics as worker classification under the prevailing wage law and the treatment 
of accrued vacation time as wages. 

MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) was established to protect the Massachusetts Medicaid 
program from fraudulent practices. T he Office of Medicaid administers the provision of over $6 billion 
of health care services to over 900,000 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 individu;ils who abused, neglected, 
or mistreated elderly and disabled residents of the Commonwealth's 525 long-term care facilities, most 
of which have been funded extensively by the Medicaid program. 

During this reporting period. Attorney General Tom Reillys MFCLI 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 sever;il 
recover)' actions utilizing the state's civil Medicaid fraud statutes anci reviewed over 525 patient abuse 
and neglect referrds. In addition to the criminal cases reported herein, the Massachusetts MFCU 
returned $24,295,426.73 to the Medicaid program through restitution, 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 Reillys MFCU has been a leader in the number of succe.ssful 
criminal prosecutions and affirmative civil actions it has produced. 



23 



Bl'SINESS AND LABDR I'RcVI tCTION BUREAU MEDICAID FR,-\UD CONTROL UNIT 

MFC'U included the h)ll<)vviiig staH members during Fiscal Year 2005: Nicholas J. Messuri, Division 
Chief; David Marks, Deputy Division Chief; Steve McCarthy, Deputy Division Chief and Chief of 
Investigations; Steve Devlin, Deputy Chief ot Investigations; Ann Ackil; Bruce Anderson; Amy Beth 
Baron; Al Brown; Eileen Casey; Julie Chattopadhyay; Peter Clark; John Curley; Bessie Curtis; Catherine 
Fielding; Richard Heidlage; Steven Hoffman; Timothy Johnson; Justine Lamarre; Linda Landry; Teresa 
Ho Liu; Anthony Megathlin; Robert Molvar; Robert Patten; Shirley Rokosz; Mike Russo; Joseph Shea; 
Christine Soloperto; Jody Soucie; Nang Tran; Toby Unger; and Kris Wilhelmi. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

During Fiscal Year 2005, MFCU brought both criminal and civil enh)rcement actions against 
hospitals, nursing home owners, pharmacies, physicians, dentists, home health care companies, billing 
intermediaries, and other medical providers. These enforcement actions focused on providers that 
misrepresented the services they provided to the Medicaid program, inflated the costs of their services, 
provided medically unnecessary services, or violated Medicaid's anti-kickback laws. As a result of its 
efforts, MFCU initiated and conducted approximately 145 investigations, in addition to reviewing over 
500 patient abuse and neglect referrals, obtained indictments and secured convictions against corporate 
and individual defendants. 

In the past fiscal year, MFCLJ 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. 

In addition, MFC^U investigated physicians and psychiatrists that prescribed controlled substances 
for non-medical reasons, or were not supported by medical diagnosis or necessity. MFCXI investigated 
dentists and durable medical equipment companies for upcoding and unbundlingtheirservices. 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 2005, MFCU also investigated the 
relationships between physicians, hospitals, and laboratories to detect illegal referrals, kickbacks and 
issues of sub-standard patient care. 



24 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BL-'REAl' MEOKIAID FRAID CONTROL UNIT 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

Consistent with its mission to protect the Medicaid program on a statewide basis, MFCU made 
extensive use of the Special Cirand hiry sitting in Boston, as well as its statutory and regulatory discovery 
authority, to obtain indictments and convictions and to recover kinds for the Medicaid program well 
in excess of MFClU's budget. 

With increased protcssion.d iraining and a nuilri-disi.iplliiar\' apinoach to investigating and 
prosecuting heahh care fraud and nursing home abuse, the Massachusetts MFC^LI is proud to higiiHght 
the following significant case activities during this reporting period. These accomplishmeius represent 
a sampling of activities during this period and do not reflect all cases handled by the Unit during the 
fiscal year. 

The following is a sample of cases undertaken by MFCU during Fiscal Year 2005: 

SUMiMARY OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 

Orthopedic Footwear Providers to Pay State Medicaid Program $550,000 to Settle 
Overpayment Allegations. Sixteen members of the Massachusetts orthopedic footwear industry 
agreed to pay $550,000 to the Massachusetts Medicaid program to settle allegations that they 
were overpaid as a result of incorrect billing and documentation deficiencies that violated 
Medicaid regulations. 

The settlement follows an April 2000 report by the state Inspector Ceneral (IG) on the 
Commonwealth's top 15 orthopedic footwear providers that concluded there was widespread 
waste and abuse between 1995 and 1999 in the Medicaid Orthopedic Footwear Program. As 
a result, AG Reilly's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) commenced an industr)'-wide 
investigation and Medicaid revised its orthopedic regulations. 

Nursing Assistant Indicted For Alleged Abuse of Elderly — Bellingham. A former certified 
nursing assistant has been indicted on charges she allegedly physically abused four elderly 
patients at a Franklin nursing home. The former certified nursing assistant faces two counts of 
indecent assault and battery, three counts of assault and battery and five counts of patient abuse. 
The charges follow an investigation by AG Reilly's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) into 
alleged abuse that occurred at the facility. 

The indictments allege that in five incidents over several months, the certified nursing assistant 
physically and emotionally abused four elderly residents who had dementia. These residents 



25 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROI'EC'I ION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

were aged 75, 78, 86 and 105 at the time. The indictments allege that in five separate incidents, 
witnessed by seven ditferent co-workers, she allegedly punched, slapped, inappropriately touched 
or emotionally abused tour patients. 

New Bedford Pharmacist Pleads Guilty to Filing Claims For Phony Prescriptions to Steal 
More Than $85,000 From Medicaid — New Bedford. A New Bedford pharmacist pleaded 
guilty to charges that he filed claims tor more than $85,000 with the state's Medicaid system 
tor prescriptions that were never ordered by physicians. 

The registered pharmacist pleaded guilty in New Bedford Superior Court to 30 counts ot violating 
the Medicaid False Claims Act, and one count each ot larceny over $250, making false entries 
in corporate books and uttering talse prescriptions. In addition, the pharmacist's corporation 
admitted to 30 talse claims counts and one count of larceny over $250. 

Superior Court Justice Robert J. Kane sentenced the New Bedford pharmacist to 18 months 
in the House of Correction, suspended tor three years. During that time, he will be placed 
on probation with the conditions that he surrender his license to practice pharmacy and agree 
not to reapply tor three years. He must also pay restitution in the amoimt ot $85,747 within 
six months. 

Springfield Personal Care Assistant Sent to Jail for Medicaid Fraud, Theft of Medicaid Funds 

— Springfield. A personal care assistant was sentenced to 1 8 months in the House ot Correction 
atter pleading guilty to charges she fraudulently billed the state Medicaid program nearly $8,000 
tor services to elderly and disabled individuals that she never rendered. 

For a period of 18 months, the personal care assistant billed tor services she never provided to 
three clients: a 52-year-old wheelchair-bound woman with cerebral palsy, a 68-year-old man 
with numerous disabilities, and a 72-year-old man. She had been hired by these clients to 
provide various household tasks including housekeeping and cleaning, laundry and meals. 

The personal care assistant pleaded guilty to three counts ot Medicaid fraud, two counts ot 
larceny over $250 and one count of larceny under $250. She was sentenced to serve 1 8 months 
in the Hampden Coimt)' House ot Correction tt)llowed by three years ot probation. She was 
also ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution and was prohibited from working with elderly or 
disabled individuals during the period ot her probation. 



26 



Bl'SINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 



MEDICAID HRAUD CONTROL UNIT 



Dental Corporation Pleads Guilty to Medicaid Fraud Charges For Services That Were Never 
Rendered — Boston. A cieiual corporation with offices in W.ilpolc and Hanover plcadcJ t;iiih\- 
in Suffolk Superior (iourt on charges that it billed Medicaid for dental services that were never 
rendered and was ordered to pay $45,000 in restitinion and fines. The corporation and the 
dentist also entered into a separate settlement agreement that reqiures it to pay an atlditional 
$20(),()()() to the Commonwealth. 

Nursing Home Assistant Sentenced to Jail for Patient Abuse of Elderly — Orleans. A former 
certified nursing assistant was .sentenced to serve eight montlis in the Barnstable County House 
of Correction after being found guilty of physically abusing elderly Al/.heinier's patients at a 
Harwich nursing home. The investigation by the Medicaid Fraud (Control Unit found that 
over several months, the certified ninsitig assistant verbally, ph\'sically and emotionally abused 
two elderly Alzheimer's patients who were residents at the facilit\'. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 



Health Care Fraud Investigations 
Formal Health Care Fraud Cases Opened 
Formal Health Care Fraud Cases Closed 
Patient Abuse Referrals Reviewed 
Patient Abuse Investigations 
Civil Dispositions 
Criminal Indictments 
Criminal Dispositions 
Restitution and Fines Recovered 



82 
90 
54 
525 
93 
24 



$24,295,341.73 



27 



BUSINESS AND LABOR I'ROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Tlie Massacluisetts MFCU is committed to providing its personnel with 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 procediual operations. 

riie MFC^U's training directive is consistent with Attorney General Reiily's overall commitment to 
enhancing the breadth, c]uality and professionalism of services provided by the Office of the Attorney 
General. In addition, assistant attorneys general, investigators and support staff have participated 
in training seminars and conferences offered by various state, federal and national organizations. 
External training opportunities provided a major vehicle through which the MFGU staff stay abreast of 
investigative and prosecutorial technic]ues 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 law to outside 
groups, such as the F^ealthcare 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. MFCU's Director of Investigations continues to 
lead the Northeast Health 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 healthcare fraud working group. 

MFCJU 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. The Massachusetts MFCU Director served as President of the National 
Association of Medicaid Fraud C^ontrol Units. The A.ssociation coordinates multi-state investigations and 
creates and sponsors health care fraud training sessions for assistant attorney generals and investigators. 

28 



BUSINESS AND l.AKOR PRCTI TC I ION BUREAll MEDICAID rR,.\l'n CONTROL UNIT 



Staff also coiuiiiucil ro .ittcrul iii-housc pi()t;rams tliat targeted siah areas as ini|iruv(.\l (.ourtnioiii 
techniques. 

During the upeoiuing year. Attorney General Reilly will Lontinue to target healthcare providers 
that connnit Medicaid jirovider fraLid as well as caretakers who abuse and neglect elder and disabled 



29 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 

Appellate Division 

Corruption, Fraud, and 
Computer Crime Division 

Victim/Witness Assistance Division 
Specl\l Investigations and Narcotics Division 

Environmental Crimes Strike Force 
Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division 

Criminal Justice Policy Division 

Victim Compensation and Assistance Division 

Financial Investigations Division 

Safe Neighborhood Initiative Division 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 



Criminal Bureau 

The Attorney General's Criminal Bureau has four broad missions: investigate and prosecute violations 
of state criminal law, promote effective law enforcement and criminal justice, crime prevention, and 
provide assistance to crime victims. 

Ihc (jiminal Bureaus staff of experienced Assistant Atrorneys (ieneral. State i'olice detectives. 
Environmental Police officers, antl civilian investigators, focirs on investigating and prosecuting 
violations of state criminal law that result in or involve significant economic loss or injury, harm tt) 
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 Bureaus 28 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 2005, the 
Criminal Bureau received more than 2,886 incjuiries and complaints from citizens and other agencies. 
Additionally, Assistant Attorneys General in the Criminal Bureau reviewed 103 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 lustice 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 Bureau's Safe Neighborhood Initiative Division promotes crime prevention in 
communities by fostering partnerships between schools, community groups, prosecutors, police 
officers, courts and other criminal justice professionals. Ihrough 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 

33 



c:riminai, bureau 



aggressively prosecute those responsible tor crimes that severely impact the commimity's cjuality of life. 
During Fiscal Year 2005, there were Sate Neighborhood Initiative programs in Taunton, Brockton, 
Orange, and the Dorchester and Grove Hail sections of Boston. Additionally, the AGO supported and 
participated in federally recognized "Weed & Seed" partnerships in Lawrence and Methuen. 

Tile toiirth primary mission ot the Griminal Bureau is to provide support to victims of crime. The 
Bureaus Victim (Compensation & Assistance Division provides financial support and social services 
assistance to crime victims and relatives of homicide victims. The division reaches victims and their 
femilies through outreach efforts and relationships with police departments, court officials, and social 
service agencies. During Fiscal Year 2005 the division received more than 1 ,253 applications for financial 
assistance from crime victims and their family members, and distributed almost $3,164,571.50 to these 
victims and family members. 

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

The Criminal Bureau is organized into the following eleven divisions, each of which reflects an 
area of specialization and expertise: Appellate; Corruption, Fraud & Computer Crime; Victim/Witness 
Assistance; Special Investigations and Narcotics; Environmental Crimes Strike Force; Insurance and 
Unemployment Fraud; Financial Investigations; Criminal Justice Policy; Safe Neighborhoods Initiative; 
Victim Compensation & Assistance; and State Police Detective Unit. 

1 he Divisions Chiefs within the Criminal Bureau during Fiscal Year 2005 were: Appellate Division, 
Cathryn Neaves; Corruption, Fraud & Computer Crime Division, John A. Grossman; Victim/Witness 
Assistance Division, Kathleen Morrissey; Special Investigations and Narcotics Division, Eileen O'Brien; 
Environmental Crimes Strike Force, Paul J. Molloy; Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division, 
Eliot Green followed by Glenn Cunha; Financial Investigation Division, Paul Stewart; Criminal Justice 
Policy Division, James O'Brien; Victim Compensation & Assistance Division, Deborah Fogarty; Safe 
Neighborhoods Initiative, Ellen Frank; and State Police Detective Unit, Captain Stephen Matthews. 

The Criminal Bureau also had three Bureau Attorneys during Fiscal Year 2005. Assistant Attorney 
General Mary A. Phillips served as the Bureau's Grand Jury Coordinator, and Assistant Attorneys General 
Beth Merachnik and William Bloomer served as Senior Trial Counsel for the Bureau. 



34 



CRIMINAL Bl'REALi AI'I'll LAf t DIVISION 



APPELLATE DIVISION 



1 lie Appellate Division haiuiies a wide varier)' of criminal, federal habeas corpus, state habeas corpus, 
and other civil cases that impact criminal prosecutions and the criminal justice system. The divisions 
caseload includes appeals and post-conviction matters in criminal cases prosecuted at the tri.il lesel 
by the Attorney (ieneral's Clriminal Bureau and from convictions of criminal contempt throughout 
the (Commonwealth; all habeas corpus petitions filed in federal court that challenge Massachusetts 
convictions, parole siurenders, civil commitments, anil renditions; and appeals in the First Circuit 
C^ourt 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 criminal justice process. The assistant attorneys general in the 
division defend the constitutionality of criminal statutes, as well as other statutes, comt rules, practices, 
and procedures that concern all Aspects of the criminal justice system; represent the interests of prosecutors 
when subpoenaed to testifj' or provide documents in federal civil cases; supervise agenc)' staff attorneys 
handling litigation involving the Department of Correction, the Parole Board, and the CCommissioner 
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 the criminal justice expertise or perspective is important. The 
division also works closely with the District Attorneys' Offices, especially their Appellate Divisions, in 
identif\'ing and acting as a clearinghouse on criminal law issues of statewide importance and interest. 

The Appellate Division files approximately SO 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 amicus 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' ;is the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth. Fhe division also files in the 
United States District Court approximately 130 substantive memoranda of law per year in opposition 
to federal habeas corpus petitions. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Appellate Division included Assistant Attorneys Gcnenil Cathryn Neaves, 
Division Chief; Eva Badway; Annette Benedetto; Olivia Blanchette; David Lieber; Maura McLaughlin; 
Natalie Monroe; Jonathan Ofilos; Randall Ravitz; Susanne Reardon; and Daniel Smiilow. 



35 



CRIMINAL BURLALI APPKLLATE DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

• Wayne BIyth Healy v. Luis Spencer (U.S. District Court) Federal habeas petition from 
1981 Hampden (^oiiiity conviction tor first-degree murder alleging, among others, a Brady 
claim. Magistrate Neiman issued a Report and Recommendation on September 9, 2004 that 
the court grant the petition in part and hold an evidentiary hearing. 

• Jorge Gonzalez V. Justices of the Municipal Court of Boston (U.S. Court of Appeals, First 
Circuit) Appeal hom denial ot feder.il habeas petition challenging Suffolk County complaint 
for distribution of cocaine as violating Double Jeopardy. First Circuit affirmed the denial of 
habeas relief on August 18, 2004. 

• Commonwealth v. Joseph Silvestri (Massachusetts Appeals Court) Direct appeal from 
delendant's convictions tor trafficking, alleging illegal warrantless eavesdropping, insufficient 
evidence, and improper denial ot motion tor new trial. On October 19, 2004, the Appeals 
Court atfirmed the convictions and the order denying the motion tor new trial. 

• Wilfred Evicci v. Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Corrections (U.S. Court 
ot Appeals, First Circuit) Appeal trom denial ot tederal habeas petition challenging Middlesex 
County conviction tor aggravated rape and subsec]uent oftenses. On November 1 9, 2004, the 
First Circuit atfirmed the district courts denial of the habeas petition. 

• Richard Allison v. Edward Ficco (U.S. Court ot Appeals, First Circuit) Appeal trom denial 
ot tederal habeas petition challenging 1995 Middlesex County convictions tor first-degree 
murder, armed robbery, and perjury claiming inettective assistance ot counsel, closing argument 
violated due process, and insufficient evidence ot joint venture. The First Circuit atfirmed the 
district court's denial ot habeas relief on November 5, 2004 

• Edward Paulding v. Peter Allen (U.S. Coiut of Appeals, First Circuit) Appeal from denial 
ot tederal habeas petition challenging 1999 Suttt)lk County conviction tor first-degree murder 
alleging that it was a denial of due process both to not define the elements ot second-degree 
minder and h)r the SJC] to not require its new rule — that second-degree murder be defined 
— be applied to petitioner. The First (Circuit atfirmed the district comt's denial ot habeas relief 
on January 5, 2005. 



36 



CRIMINAL BUREAU AIM'El.LATE DIVISION 

• Julie Pike v. Barbara Guarino (U.S. District ('oiiir) Federal li.ibc.is petition Lli,ill(.ii^ing 
1 99S Franklin ("ounty conviction for second-degree murder claiming petitioner suffered from 
battered women's syndrome and was therefore unable to meaningfully conmiunicate with her 
counsel, rendering her incompetent to stand trial, and violated her right to present a defense. C )n 
March 24, 2()()'i, die district comt granted the [letitioner's motion h)r an evidentiar\' hearing. 

• Melvin Smith v. Massachusetts (United States .Supreme ('ourt) IViition tor writ of certiorari 
to the Massachusetts Appeals ( ]oint concerning its liecision that a trial judge can reconsider an 
order granting a motion for rec]uired finding and submit tiie charge to the jury without violating 
the Double Jeopardy Clause. C^n February 22, 2005, the Supreme C^ourt reversed and remanded 
the case to the Appeals C^ourt, determining that the Double Jeopardy Clau.se is violated in such 
circumstances absent a state court rule that specifically states that orders granting such motions 
are not final. 

• Commonwealth v. Robert Newell (Massachusetts Appe;iJs Court) AGO defendant's appe.il 
from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to numerous indictments for larceny 
and violation of home contractor laws, alleging that the motion judge both incorrectly admitted 
evidence of trial coimsel's hearsay affidavit at the evidentiary hearing and abused his discretion 
in denying the motion. 1 he Appeals Comt affirmed the convictions on February 17, 2005. 

• Commonwealth v. John Williams (Massachusetts Appeals Court) Appeal from defendants 
conviction secured by Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division for worker's compensation 
fraud, presenting a false insurance claim, and larceny, claiming insufficient evidence and 
evidentiary error. On May 25, 2005, the Appeals Court affirmed the conviction for presenting 
a false insurance claim and reversed the conviction for larceny by faLse pretenses. 

• District Attorney for Norfolk County v. Quincy Division of the District Court Department 

(Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) Appeal from single justice's denial of Norfolk County 
District Attorney's 21 1/3 petition seeking reversal of district court judge's order refusing to issue 
criminal complaints on misdemeanors following arrests of three individuals, after determining 
that no probable cause existed to support the applications for complaints. On May 10, 2005, 
the Full Bench reversed the single justice and ordered the complaints to issue. 



37 



CRIMINAL BUREAL) 



APPELLATE DIVISION 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

CASES CASES TOTAL CASES 

(OPENED DISPOSED HANDLED 



Federal Habeas 


160 


143 


558 


Eederal Civil 


13 


15 


36 


Federal Subpoena 


14 


3 


14 


State Civil 


20 


28 


75 


State Habeas 


8 


8 


25 


Criminal 


40 


17 


83 



211 §3 and Other 
Single Justice Cases 

Other 



11 
10 



27 
23 



TOTAL 



276 



220 



841 



SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

In addition to the large caseload handled by the division, the division became involved in a number 
)t significant initiatives. Among these elhirts were the lollowing: 

• Writing C^oach, Citizen's Schools' Eighth Crade Academy 

• Attendee, BBA New Lawyers Section Annual Judicial Conlerence 

• Paul McLaughlin (Center, Volunteer lutor 



38 



t:RIMINAL BliRKAU CORKl'l'TION, 1R,AII|), AND COMl'l' lER CRIMi: DIVISION 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND IRAINING 

The Appellate Division devoted a substantial amount of energy am.! resources to training and 
oiitreacli. These efforts included frec]uent attendance at A(iC) and BBA trainings, as well as the 
lollovving: 

• Massachusetts District Attorneys Association (Conference 

• CCommonvvealth Appellate Attorneys Action Project 

• Lecturer and Cdinical CCot)rdinator at Harvard I, aw School 

• ("omnients Editor, Massachusetts Law Review 

• lutor at the Paul McLaughlin Center 

• Moot Judge, Esdaile Moot Court Program, Boston University Law School 

• Teacher, First Year Writing Program at Boston University Law School 

• Advisor, Tifts University (Career Advisory Network 

• 'Teacher for a Day , Brookline High School Program 

• Lecturer, BBA Law Day in the Schools Program 

• Moot luclge, Ames Moot Court Competition, Harvard Law School 

CORRUPTION, FRAUD, AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION 

The Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime Division (CFCC) within theCaiminal Bureau protects 
individuals and businesses residing or working in the CCiommonwealth by focusing on the following: 

( 1 ) Public Cdorruption: investigating and prosecuting crimes that compromise the public's confidence 
in the government or harm public agencies. These cases include crimes committed against state and 
local public entities and government-funded organizations as well as crimes committed by government 
employees, agents and contractors. Cases successfully prosecuted by the division have included charges 
of bribery, larceny, procurement fraud, tax fraud, perjury, filing false reports, and accepting unlawful 
gratuities. 



39 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CORRL'PTION, FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIX'ISION 

(2) Economic Crime: investigating and prosecuting all types of private sector economic and wliite 
collar crime, including cases involving fiduciary embezzlement, complex financial fraud, and insider 
theft. 

(3) Consumer Crime: investigating and prosecuting crimes targeting consumers, with an emphasis 
on cases involving the Internet, charitable solicitations, unlicensed practice oi law and other professions, 
and home improvement contracting. The division pursues high impact cases, such as frauds perpetrated 
against children, the elderly, immigrants, and cases involving multiple victims in multiple coimties. 

(4) Computer Crime: Increasingly, criminals, including con artists, cyberstalkers, hackers, child 
pornographers, and child predators, use computers, the Internet and other forms of technology to 
victimize others. In response, the division's specially trained prosecutors and computer forensics specialist 
work with the State Police and financial investigators to investigate, arrest and prosecute cybercriminals, 
whether they try to attack the computer infrastructure, compromise the safety of our children as they 
"surf the net," or defraud consumers and businesses. In addition, the division provides support and 
training in computer searches and forensics to law enforcement throughout the Commonwealth. 
Cases handled by the division have included charges of larceny, trademark infringement, unauthorized 
access to computers (hacking), possession and dissemination of child pornography, and stalking and 
harassment. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, CFCC included the following staff: John Grossman, Chief; Carolyn 
Bradshaw and Lillian Cox, support staff; Assistant Attorneys General Denise Barton, Marc Jones, Dana 
Leccese, Madeline Leone, Laura Marlin, Ingrid Martin, Molly Parks, Tina Smeaton and Debra Walsh; 
and Dave Swan, Computer Forensic Analyst. A significant number of our cases were also handled by 
the Criminal Bureau's representative in Western Massachusetts, Assistant Attorney General Matt Shea, 
and by Senior Trial Counsel Beth Merachnik. Our cases, however, were in no way pursued alone; we 
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 
Advocacy Division. On various occasions, we 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. 



40 



CRIMINAL BUREAU aiRRL'PTION. I RAl'D, AND COMIH'TER CRIME DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

• The Registry of Motor Vehicles Cases (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts) The 
division charged sixteen individuals, including seven RMV employees, in relation to three 
corrupt schemes involving branch offices oi the RMV. In Watertown, we used an luidercover 
operation that involved multiple Blood warrants and video surveillance to uncover a scheme 
that had been going on for at least eight months. Several people were selling identification 
documents and then connecting their customers to one of three corrupt RMV employees who 
would in turn issue learners permits, without testing the applicants or \etting their identification 
documents. In Melrose, we charged three people — including two RMV employees — with 
selling licenses to people without adecjuate documentation. And in Chinatown, six people have 
been charged in relation to a scheme whcieby two RMV employees accepted money to alter the 
records of drivers whose licenses had been suspended, thereby allowing these drivers to return to 
the road earlier than the law allowed. So br, one of the middlemen in the Watertown scheme, 
William Matos, has pleaded guilty, receiving four years in the House of (Correction, and the 
two Chinatown Registry employees, Christopher Macy and Henry Fenton, have pleaded guilt\', 
each receiving 2.5 years in the House of Correction with six months to serve and the balance 
suspended for rvvo years. 

• Commonwealth v. Heroin Karburnara. et al. (Middlesex Superior Court) 7 he division 
indicted five people in connection with an organized retail theft ring that ran a number of 
schemes targeting high-end chain stores. Most often they would steal merchandise, return the 
goods to other branches of the stores for credit, and then sell the store credits on the Internet. 
We believe they stole over $350,000 in goods. All five pleaded guilty. The ringleader. Heroin 
Karbunara, received a sentence that included 14 months in the House of Correction. Ann 
Leeman and Helen Macy were sentenced to probation. Lindsay Holland was sentenced to two 
years of probation and ordered to serve the first six months in home confinement. Christina 
DeCrandis was sentenced to two years in the House of Correction with four months to serve 
and the balance suspended for three years. 

• Commonwealth v. Cynthia Perry-Alves (Suffolk Superior CCourt) Perry-Alves stt)le st)me 
$700,000 from her employer by manipulating expense records. She pleaded guilty and was 
sentenced to two years in the House of Correction, with a year to serve and the balance suspended 
for three years, during which rime she is to pay re.stitution. 



41 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CORRUPTION, FRAUD, AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. John Kilcommons (SuHolk Superior (xnirt) Kilcommons was an 
independent investment advisor associated with John Hancock who managed a large program 
investing kmds deducted from (]ity ot Boston employees' paychecks. Beginning in 2000, 
Kilcommons began directing some oi tiiose funds into his own accoimts. He pleaded guilty 
to multiple counts of larceny over $250 and received two years in the House of Correction, 
suspended for five years and was ordered to pay $235,000 of restitution and perform 200 hours 
of community service. 

• Commonwealth v. David Gill and Patricia Chu (Norfolk and Plymouth Superior Courts) 
Gill and his wife Chu ran a boiler room operation that solicited advertising money from local 
businesses for a publication they dubbed "Youth Sports News." In reality, their operation was 
a con and they never intended to publish anything. Each pleaded guilty to multiple counts of 
larceny. Chu was placed on probation and Gill received two years in the House of Correction 
hallowed by three years of probation. 

• Commonwealth v. Kevin Bruce White (Middlesex Superior Court) White was a con 
man who stole tens ot thousands oi dollars by impersonating executives of large companies, 
persuading merchants to "sell" goods to him on the companies" credit, and re-selling the goods. 
White received three years in the House of Correction. 

• Commonwealth v. Kenneth Cook (Boston Municipal Court) Cook was an airline pilot 
based in Boston who failed to pay Massachusetts income taxes. He pleaded guilty to four counts 
of failing to file his tax returns and received three years of probation. 

• Commonwealth v. Marcus Aponte ; Commonwealth v. Davis Gousie (Bristol Superior 
Court) Aponte and Gousie each disseminated child pornography over the Internet. They both 
pleaded guilty and served House of Correction sentences and are now on probation for ten 
and five years, respectively. 

• Commonwealth v. Joan Pierce, et al. (Worcester Superior Court) Pierce was an employee 
of Carrier Trucking in Fitchburg. Hiking advantage of her access to the system that her employer 
used to wire money to truckers around the country, she wired over $600,000 to 1 1 co-conspirators 
and split the proceeds. Joan Pierce has pleaded guilty and received three years in State Prison. 
Two co-conspirators, Kevin Dufresne and John Hermanson, have also pleaded guilty and have 
received sentences to the House of Correction. 



42 



CRIMINAL lU'REAU 



CORRriTION, FRAHn, ANIMXWIPl'TKRCRIMi; DIVISION 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 200S, CFCC charged forty-one individuals and corporations with various crimes, 
including bribery, false written reports, larceny over $250, unauthorized access (computer hacking), 
identit)' fraud, making false entries in corporate books and dissemination of child pornograph)'. Ihirty- 
tour people or companies pleaded guilty or otherwise admitted to sufficient facts in Superior or 1 )istrict 
(Courts across the Commonwealth.' Sixteen of these defendants were ordered to serve time in a county 
House of Correction or State Prison. Additionally, these defendants have been ordered to pay in excess 
of $1.5 million in restitution. 



The following chart summarizes the case referrals that CFCC screened for possible investigation 
and prosecution tluring Fiscal Year 2005 and the nimiber of those referrals that matured into formal 
investigations. When a case fell into more than one category, we have tried to place it based on the 
prospective lead charge. 

CASE 

DESCRIPTION 

Auction/Internet Fraud (not from IFCC) 

Child Exploitation 

Computer 1 ntrusions/Hacking 

Threats/Harassment 

Miscellaneous 

Assist 



CASES 


INVESTICATIONS 


SCREENED 


INITIATED 


;) 20 


4 


65 


14 


16 


1 


16 


5 


5 


1 


7 


N/A 



TOTAL FISCAL YEAR 2005 
COMPUTER CRIME 



129 



25 



'Some ot the c.ises ch.irged rliis ye.ir reni.iin pending; jiisi ,is some ot tlie c.ises resolved tliis ve.ir were ch.irged previously. 



43 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 



CORRUPTION, FRAUD, AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION 



CASE 
DESCRIPTION 



CASES 


INVESTICATIONS 


SCREENED 


INITIATED 


34 


18 


9 





24 


9 


77 


16 



Fiduciary and Iii.sider Enibczzlcment 

Home Improvement Fraud 

Identity Fraud 

Otiier Consumer Fraud 

Theft ol Trade Secrets or 
Other Intellectual Property 

Other Larceny 

Miscellaneous 



4 
20 
14 



TOTAL FLSCAL YEAR 2005 
ECONOMIC CRIME 



182 



56 



CASE 
DESCRIPTION 



CASES 
SCREENED 



INVESTICATIONS 
INITIATED 



State Employee Corruption 

Municipal Employee Corruption 

I'heft hom the (^ommonweiilth, 
Critics and Ibwns 

T.ix Fraud 

Miscellaneous 

Legal Advice or Assistance 



29 
65 

12 
10 



17 

11 
7 
1 
1 



44 



CRIMINAI. BliRF.Al' (XlRIUPI KIN, PRAl'D. AND COM IT I IRCRIMK DIMSION 

CASE CASES INVESIKiAllONS 
DESCRIPTION SCREENED INITIAIED 

Crimes against tlic ( ^oninioiivvcalih 5 2 

Aiulitor's Reports and Ethics 

NotiHeations Reviewed N'' N/A 

TOTAL FISCAL YEAR 2005 

PUBLIC CORRLU' I ION 220 r 

TOTAL FISCAL YEAR 2005 

MISCELLANEOUS MATTER 10 

FISCALYEAR 2005 TOTAL 541 128 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The division has historically been very involved in encouraging and coordinating efforts between the 
public and private sectors to promote Internet and computer security. This year was little different. An 
AAG sits on the sub-committee of ITD's Enterprise Security Board that coordinates the Commonwealths 
participation in the multi-state Information Sharing and Analysis Center CISAC"). Ihis ISAC allows 
the Commonwealth to share information regarding cyber and physical security with other states and 
with the federal government and will then be a mechanism to disseminate appropriate information 
throughout state government and, we hope, to large municipalities as well. Ihe AGO has been hosting 
the periodic meetings of this group. Additionall)', division members continued to play a leadership role 
within Infragard Boston, the FBIs public/private cybersecurity outreach program. 

Without a doubt, however, the highlights of our outreach efforts come as a result of our participation 
in the Internet Crimes Against Children ("ICAC") Tisk Force. Our dedicated ICAC prosecutor 
— the first in the country — spends a significant amount of her time on outreach and training both 
inside the Commonwealth and throughout the country, as well as providing legal advice to the I ask 
Force, and, of course, prosecuting cases. Perhaps most notably, she has created the Computer Crime 
Working Group that meets quarterly and is comprised of prosecutors, police officers and computer 
forensic analysts from around the Commonwealth who work on computer crime matters. This group 
has shared technitjues and insights in this dynamic area and provided training that the attendees may 



45 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CORRUPTION. FRAUD, AND COMPUTER c;RIME DIVISION 

take back to their offices and pass on to their colleagues. Additionally, she has been coordinating an 
important effort to provide probation and parole officers and DYS case workers with the training and 
tools to supervise the computer usage of sex offenders and others who would be likely to use computers 
to commit or facilitate their crimes. 

In the area of public corruption, we continue to work hard to maintain and renew relationships 
with other agencies working in similar areas and now have regular contact with the FBI, the Office of 
the State Auditor, the Inspector General, the State Ethics ("ommission, the Department of Education, 
and the Public Employee Retirement Board. 

Finally, CFCC prosecutors have continued to work 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 a new identity theft bill.q 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

CFCC devoted a substantial amount of energy and resources to 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 crimes and (b) 
where we cannot prevent the crimes from happening, assure 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 ICAC Task Force, the American Prosecutors Research Institute, and the National Association of 
Attorneys General (NAAG). 

Working with another member of the Bureau, the ICAC prosecutor also devotes substantial amounts 
of time providing Internet safety training in the schools. 

What is more, we participated in varit)us programs community service programs including the 
Eighth Grade Academy and the mock trial program of Citizen Schools. Fin;illy, to assure that we, 
ourselves, remain current in the dynamic field of computer crime, AAG's attended a number of free 
training programs including NAAG and NAC classes, seminars sponsored by the Nation;il Center for 
Missing and Exploited (-hildren and computer forensics training. 



46 



CRIMINAL fUiREAU VKTIM/VCI I NESS ASSISTANC;!- DIVISION 

VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

The Victim/Witness Assistance Division (V'WAD) was devclopctl to meet the followint; goals: ( 1 ) 
to provide crisis assessment and intervention to crime victims and witnesses to tacilitate tlieir emoiion.il, 
psychological, physical and Hnancial recovery from victimization; (2) to reduce the level oi 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 (Ci.I,. c. iSiSH). 
Advocates provide victim advocacy, witness management and consultation to the following divisions 
in the Criminal Bureau: 1 ) Appeals; 2) Criminal Justice Policy; 3) Corruption, Fraud and C^omputcr 
Crime; 4) F.nvironmcntal Oimes Strike Force; 5) Financial Investigations; 6) Special Investigations 
and Narcotics; and 7) the State Police Detective Unit. 

Advocates are occasionally assigned to prosecutions in other bureaus ot the Olfice 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 assistance on conflict cases referred to 
the Office by the 1 1 District Attorneys' Offices across the Commonwealth. These referrals t)'pically 
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, safet}' in our schools, elders, fraud, 
health care, high tech and computer crime, domestic violence and sexual assault, diversir)', criminal 
justice policy and curative legislation. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, VWAD was staffed by Director Kathy Morrissey. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

Three cases of particular note illustrate work in priority areas set by Attorney General Tom Reilly. 

• Commonwealth V. Timothy White Special Investigations and Narcotics Division (SAAGs 
Bill Bloomer, Dean Mazzone; VWA Kathy Morrissey; MSP Lt. Dermot Quinn and Det. It. 
Bruce Gordon) Sergeant Timothy White was a state trooper assigned to the Narcotics Inspection 
Unit, rhe investigation of Sergeant White began in late January, 2003 when he was arrested in 
Stoughton for conunitting acts of domestic violence on his wife who revealed to the responding 
officers that Sergeant White was a user of cocaine. The investigation revealed that Sergeant 
White had stolen approximately 13 kilograms of cocaine from the State Police Biuikcr. White 

47 



CRIMINAL BDRLAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

was indicted tor tliese tliefts, trafficking cocaine and distribtiting other drugs. White was also 
cliarged with domestic violence oHenses related to three separate incidents perpetrated on his 
wife at their home. 

On May 31, 2005, a jtiry in Norfolk Superior Court found thedek'ndant,Timothy White, guilty 
of two counts of Assault and Battery. Ihere were twelve indictments before the deliberating 
jury. 1 he jury found the defendant not guilty of five of the indictments: Distribution of a 
Class B Substance; Armed Assault with Intent to Murder; two Counts of Assault and Battery 
with a Dangerous Weapon; and one Count of Assault and Battery. The jury was deadlocked 
on five remaining drug indictments: Trafficking Cocaine 200+; Larceny by Scheme $250+; 
Distribution of Class D Substance; Conspiracy to Distribute Class D Substance; and Conspiracy 
to Traffick Class B Substance. 

On June 1, 2005, the defendant was sentenced to two and one-half years in the House of 
Correction, committed, and three years of probation with conditions. Bail was set at $25,000 
cash. A retrial on the remaining indictments is scheduled for October 17, 2005. The defendant 
was released from jail on July 21, 2005, as he had incurred substantial time served since his 
arraignment in 2003. 

Kathy Morrissey was assigned to the White case to provide victim advocacy to the domestic 
violence victim, Maura White. Victm/witness services included: crisis counseling; safety 
planning; court accompaniment, including obtaining a permanent restraining order; and 
notification of case status to the victim with courtesy contact to her counsel. 

The White trial began on May 2, 2005; the verdict was returned on May 31 , 2005. At trial, 
Kathy Morrissey provided victim advocacy to the victim, including securing a safe waiting 
area. Kathy Morrissey also provided critical witness management services to a host of key, and 
sometimes challenging, witnesses including the co-defendant, a proffered co-conspirator, a 
bouncer, collateral law enforcement personnel, an eBay representative, and a U.S. Postal Agent. 
Kathy Morrissey also handled securing travel arrangements and hotel accommodations. Kathy 
Morrissey consulted daily with the prosecution team to address victim/witness issues and was 
on call 24/7 to provide assistance outside the courtroom. The victim/witness advocate role was 
a critical link in this prosecution. 

• James M. Kater v. Michael T. Maloney Appeals Division (AAC Susanne Reardon, VWA 
Kathy Morrissey) On April 4, 2005, the ("riminal Bureau received a copy of Judge Saris' Order 
dated March 31, 2005 that the habeas corpus petition be dismissed. 



48 



CRIMINAL lUiRF.Ali VICIIM/WI INr.S.S ASSISTANCI. DIVISION 

I he C'omnioinvc.ilths prosecution of jamcs Katcr icsultccl troni the 19"cS kidnap .iiul niuiJtr 
of 1 5 year-old Mary Lou Arriida. On December li, 1 996 — after the fonrtli trial in Middlesex 
Superior Court — Kater was convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping and sentenced 
to life in state prison without parole. 

Following this case to conviction and be\'ond was, and has been, a long ani.1 torturous process 
for Joatuie Arruda, the mother of the victim. Katliy Morrissey has been working with Ms. 
Arruda since 2002 to provide notification of the case status in the federal appellate court. Ms. 
Arruda remains vigilant and follows any court-ielated activity in this ca.se. Kathy Morri.ssey 
spoke with Ms. Arruda in April, 2005 and followed up with a letter enclosing a copy of Judge 
Saris' Order. 

• Commonwealth v. Alan S. Katz Corruption, Fraud and Computer Crime Division (AAC 
Deb Walsh, VWA Karhy Morrissey) On October 27, 1998, in Middlesex Superior Court, 
the defendant, Alan S. Katz, was ordered by Judge White to pay restitution in the amount 
of $27,921.70. The defendant pleaded guilt)' in 1994 to multiple larcenies from computer 
companies some of which ceased to do business as a result of the crimes. Initially, the defendant 
agreed to pay $20 a month towards restitution. As of March 2004, the defendant had paid 
only $480 towards restitution. On March 5, 2004, a hearing was held in Worcester Superior 
Court and the defendant was ordered to increase his restitution payments to $200 a month. 
The defendant then filed a motion to modify' the payments claiming he could not afford the 
monthly increase. 1 he Commonwealth objected. On September 13, 2004, ten years after the 
plea, and after multiple appearances by the Commonwealth in Worcester Superior Court, the 
defendant paid restitution in full. 



49 



CRIMINAL BURtAU VKTIM/NX'ITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Victim/Witness Assistance Division provided services to a high vokime 
of victims and witnesses. Victim advocacy and witness management services were provided by the 
division on dl cases across the Commonweidtii. The case breakdown is as follows: 

RHFHRIIAL SCUJRCF. NUMBER OH CASES 

Appeals Division 6 

Corruption, Fraud and Computer Crime Division 22 

Special hivestigations & Narcotics Division 1 

Conflict Case 1 
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit 

Business Labor and Protection Bureau 1 

Other - United States Attorney's Office 1 

TOTAL 52 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The division provided daily in-house 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 2005, the division maintained numerous outreach efforts in commiuiity activities 
and both taught and attended training classes inside and outside of the Office of the Attorney Cieneral, 
including: 



50 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPECIAl INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

• Attending bi-monilily meetings ot the Vieiini anti Witness Assistance BoattI eliairetl In' Attorney 
(leneral loin Reilly; 

• Attending statewide Victim/Witness Directors meeting sponsored ii\' the Massaeliiisetts District 
Attorneys Association; 

• Serving as the Attorney General Liaison at bi-monthly meetings of the Boston Area Sexual 
Assault Coalition at Massachusetts General Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 

and the Boston University School of PiihHc Health; 

• Attending the Annual Victim Rights Conference in April 2()0S sponsored by the Massachusetts 
Office for Victim Assistance, the Victim and Witness Assistance Board, Attorney Cieneral lorn 
Reilly, and the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association. The division director served on 
the Planning Committee tor this event and received Award for Dedicated Victim Advocacy (20 
years); 

• Attending 9 educational training seminars across the Commonwealth relating to victim/witness 
issues; 

• Consulting with the Victim Services Coordinator and Policy Analyst at the Massachusetts 
Office for Victim Assistance (MOVA) regarding the state-of-the-state of victim services for 
fraud victims; and 

• Consulting with the Massachusetts Office for Victitn Assistance as a member of the Victim 
Rights Law Project Working Group to propose amendments to enhance the Victim Bill of 
Rights (G.L. c. 258B). 

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

The Special Investigations and Narcotics (SI&N) Division coordinates and prosecutes a variety 
of complex, multi-jurisdictional criminal cases. I he 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 robbery 
rings. A priority of the division is to identif^' and prosecute individuals and groups involved in the 
illegal sale or possession of firearms. SI&N prosecutors are also responsible for providing assistance in 
the drafting of legislation pertaining to electronic surveillance, racketeering and corruption, narcotics, 
firearms, and child protection. Division members are encouraged to participate in the conception and 
implementation of community education and outreach programs. 



51 



CRIMINAL BL'REAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

Ihe 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 forfeitine laws. 

Among the general categories of crimes the SI&N Division investigated and/or prosecuted during 
Fiscal Year 2()()5 were the following: armed robbery, narcotics trafficking and related offenses, armed 
career criminal violations, armed assault with intent to murder, assault and battery with a dangerous 
weapon, breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, perjury, larceny of a motor vehicle, 
extortion and habitual criminal offenders. This division also was charged with investigating possible 
acts of violence related to the Democratic National Convention in the event that such acts occurred. 

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, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigations, 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 primarily 
targeted large-scale drug distribution and armed career criminals. 

Fisciil Year 2005 was marked by major transitions in the makeup of the unit, which functioned for 
more than half the year at half-staffing levels. Members of the division for all or part of Fiscal Year 2005 
included Assistant Attorney Ceneral F'ileen M. O'Brien, Division Chief; Assistant Attorneys Ceneral 
Jennifer Adreani; Jennifer Doherty; Robert Fisher; Patrick Lee; Cheryl O'Connell; Mary P. Phillips 
(Asset Forfeiture); and Tracie Fernandes, support staff Assistant Attorney Ceneral Matt Shea, who is 
assigned to the Springfield regional office, also handled SI&N cases. Approximately twenty-one (21) 
Massachusetts State Troopers are assigned to the SI&N Division within the Attorney General's Office. 
During Fiscal Year 2005, Captain Stephen Matthews oversaw the command of all State Police Detectives 
assigned to the Attorney General's Office including SI&N troopers. Lieutenant Francis Matthews, 
with Lieutenant Richard Prior (Boston) and Lieutenant John Gibbons (WMAS), formed the central 
core of the remaining command structure for SI&N troopers. 



52 



CRIMINAL. Bl'RKAli SPECIAL INVF.STK^ATiONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

• Three-Month Wiretap Investigation Commonwealth v. leremy Katz (Middlesex Sup<.ri()i 
(]()urt); Commonwealth v. Joshua Katz (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. 
Robert McCormick (Middlesex Superior C^ourt); Commonwealth v. Andrew McCormick 
(Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Kory Arqtiette (Middlesex Superior (^ourt); 
Commonwealth v. Thomas Cataloni (Middlesex and Norfolk Superior Courts) Beginning in 
the summer of 2004, M.issacluisetts State Police assigned to the Attorney General's office began 
an investigation of a group responsible for distributing large quantities of hydropoiiic marijuana 
in the greater Boston and Providence areas, f-ollowing a wiretap investigation in Canada, 
the State Police began working with Agents from Immigration and ("ustonis Enforcement 
(ICF.) to investigate the local distributors. The targets of the investigation were skilled at 
coiHitcr-surveillance techniques and were particularly sophisticated in their use of cutting-edge 
communications technology. Ultimately, the State Police and Attorney Gener;il's Office with 
the assistance of ICE, conducted a wiretap investigation between November 2004 and January 
2005 targeting the two at the head of this organization: Jeremy Katz and Robert McCormick. 
For three months, SI&N applied for and obtained fourteen (14) wiretap warrants covering 
four (4) communications devices. In addition, state police and federal agents installed and 
monitored a Global Positioning Satellite device on one targets car and installed and monitored 
a telephone pole mounted surveillance camera outside the home of another target. The 
investigation concluded on January 22, 2005 with the execution often (10) search warrants in 
Burlington, Sharon and Walpole in addition to locations in Rhode Island. The narcotics seized 
in this investigation totaled approximately 90 pounds of hydroponic marijuana, more than 80 
percocet pills weighing more than 28 grams and a loaded and functional .45 caliber handgun. 
Police arrested five (5) defendants in Massachusetts and Rhode Island authorities arrested two 
additional defendants in Rhode Island. Six (6) defendants stand charged with narcotics offenses 
in Middlesex and Norfolk Counties. 

• Simone/Gioacchini Wiretap (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts) Following an 
extensive wiretap investigation in the fall of 2000, Frederick Simone a made member of La 
Casa Nostra, and another LCN member, Vincent "Didi" Gioacchini were indicted in Middlesex 
and Suffolk Superior Courts, respectively for being Armed Career Criminals. After years of 
protracted litigation, defendant Gioacchini was convicted by a jury in Suffolk Superior C^ourt 
in January 2005 and was sentenced to four years in states prison followed by eighteen months 
suspended. Following that conviction, defendant Gioacchini pleaded to pending charges in 
the federal system and co-defendant Simone likewise pleaded to the state and federal charges 
and received a 5 to 6 years state prison sentence. 

53 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPECIAl INVF.STICiATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. John Paul LeBlanc (Middlesex Superior C^ourt); Commonwealth 
V. Milko Rosario (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Raul Rivera (Middlesex 
Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Alfred Bears (CJhelsea District (>ourt) From July through 
September 24, 2004 the Massachusetts State Police, DEA and Waitham Drug Task Force 
conducted an undercover investigation in Everett and Maiden. During the investigation, John 
Paul LeBlanc sold cocaine to the undercover officer in ounce and multiple ounce quantities on 
5 occasions. During two deliveries over 28 grams, police identified Milko Rosario as LeBlanc's 
supplier. Dining one delivery over 100 grams, police identified Raul Rivera as the supplier. 

On September 24, Rosario arrived at a meeting in Everett to deliver 9 ounces to LeBlanc. Police 
arrested both men and h)und 9 ounces oi cocaine in Rosario's pants. A search ot Rosarios 
residence revealed $28,000 in cash, cut, a scale, and records. Police searched Rosario's stash pad 
and found Bears, holding a small amount of cocaine. Bears pleaded guilty in Chelsea District 
Coint and the three remaining defendants were indicted tor trafficking in cocaine. Defendants 
Rivera and Rosario defaulted and defendant LeBlanc is currently awaiting trial. 

BOGLE WIRETAP 

• Commonwealth v. Clyde Bog le (Hampden Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Juana 
Edmonds (Hampden Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Myra Marable (Hampden Superior 
Court); Commonwealth v. James Voorhies (Hampden Superior Court); Commonwealth v. 
Brenda Featherstone-Holloman (Hampden Superior Coint); Commonwealth v. Cynthia 
Green (Springfield District ("oint); Commonwealth v. Myoshi Dickson (Springfield District 
Coiut); Commonwealth v. Yuri Rankin (Hampden Superior Court) In November 2003, the 
Massachusetts State Police assigned to the Attorney General s Office and prosecutors in SI&N 
conducted a wiretap investigation targeting a violent, crack-cocaine trafficking organization 
headed by an individual niimed Clyde Bogle. Bogle had successfully avoided prosecution for years 
in the Springfield area when witnesses repeatedly recanted their prior statements at trial. Bogle 
and his crack-cocaine business were shut clown after an intense two-week wiretap investigation 
led to the issuance of search warrants resulting in the seizure of trafficking quantities of crack 
and thousands of dollars in proceeds. Eleven individuals were charged in Springfield District 
and Hampden Superior C^oints. AAG Matthew Shea successfully concluded the prosecution 
of these co-defendants with the remaining eight (8) defendants all pleading guilty in Hampden 
Superior Court. Clyde Bogle pleaded guilty to Trafficking 28+ grams of Cocaine, Inducing 
Minor to Distribute Cocaine and Conspiracy. Bogle was sentenced on 5/13/05 to 10 yrs. in 
State Prison. Myoshi Dickson pleaded guilty on 5/20/05 to Trafficking 1 4+ grams Cocaine and 
C^onspiracy to Violate Drug Law and was sentenced to 2 yrs. House of ("orrection, 18 months 



54 



CRIMINAL Bl'RKAl' SI'l-CIAl INVi:sri(;ATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

From tk After and 2 \'rs. I'roh.ition. V'uri R.inkin pkatlccl giiili)' on 'S/2'S/()5 for Distribution of 
Cocaine, School Zone Violation and C^onspiracy to Violate the Drug Laws and was sentenced 
to 2 yrs. 6 months House of Correction. On 5/26/05 James Voorhies pleaded guilty to 
Conspiracy to Violate Drug Laws and placed on probation for 2 )rs. (A'nthia Cireen pleaded 
guilty to Trafficking 28+ grams (xicaine and (Conspiracy to IVaffick (Cocaine on 6/01/05 ,uul 
was sentenced to 2.5 yrs. in House of Correction. Juana Edmonds, Myra Marable and Brenda 
Featherstonc-Holloman were each sentenced to 3-5 yrs. in State Prison on 6/02/05 after pleading 
guiltv to IrafHcking 14+ grams of Cocaine. 

• Commonwealth v. Waldemar Diaz-Gonzalez : Commonwealth v. Carlos Rivera (Suffolk 
Superior (Jourt) In September 2004, an investigation into cocaine and heroin activities in 
Revere resulted in the delivery of close to Vi kilogram of cocaine and 200+ grams of heroin at a 
parking lot in Revere. Surveillance set up on a suspected apartment/stash on Beach Street and 
the anticipated meet location. Two targets left Beacii Street and arrived at location biu did not 
stop and a chase ensued. Both above-identified targets were arrested in the car and State Police 
seized 200+ grams heroin and 300+ grams of cocaine. After getting post-Miranda statements 
from a female potential target at Beach Street, State Police got consent to search and a search 
warrant for the apartment and seized approximately $1,600, as well as another 1 10 grams of 
heroin and 200 grams of cocaine. Both males were indicted for trafficking in cocaine and heroin 
and school zone violations. The case is scheduled for trial in September 2005. 

• Commonwealth v. George Dabrolet : Commonwealth v. Ryan Hennessy (Norfolk Superior 
(C!ourt) State Police identified a house in Holbrook and a target selling C)x\'contiii pills. Following 
a month long investigation. State Police executed a search warrant on Friday, (October 22, 2004 
and recovered in excess of 1,500 Oxycontin pills ((^C 80's), Percocet pills, other narcotics and 
$65,000 in cash. They arrested Hennessey and another male, George Dabrolet of Weymouth. 
Both defendants were indicted for trafficking in Opium Derivatives. Their motions to suppress 
were denied and the defendants are awaiting trial. 

• Commonwealth v. Domenic Baldassari : Commonwealth v. Patrick MaGee (Middlesex 
Superior Court) Following an investigation by the State Police and the Drug Hnforccment 
Agency, the two above identified defendants made several sales of 100 (Oxycontin pills to an 
undercover officer in Cambridge. Both defendants were arrested on May 5, 2005 and are 
currently awaiting trial for Trafficking in an Opium Derivative, Conspiracy and School Zone 
Violations. 



55 



CRIMINAL BUREAL) SPECIAL INVESTKIATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. Timothy White ; Commonwealth v. Robert Crisafulli (Norfolk Superior 
Court) On January 27, 2003, Sergeant Timothy White ot the Massachusetts State Police was 
arrested at his home at 65 Southworth Court, Stoughton, MA, after he allegedly assaulted his 
wife, Maura White, with his service weapon — a .40 caliber Sig Saiir handgun. At the time of 
his arrest, Sgt. White was assigned to the Narcotics Inspection Unit (NIU) of the State Police. 
Subsequent investigation revealed approximately 13 kilograms of cocaine and other narcotics 
as missing from the NIU storage facility in Framingham. After interviews of witnesses and 
search warrant executions, Sgt. White was indicted for, among other things, the theft and 
distribution of nearly all the missing cocaine as well as varying amounts of marijuana and ecstasy 
taken horn the bunker. An acquaintance of the Whites named Robert Crisafulli allegedly sold 
multiple ounce quantities of cocaine for White from October through December of 2002. 
On February 28, 2003, troopers searched a storage bin in Hyde Park rented by Crisafulli and 
discovered approximately 700 grams of cocaine. These cases came to the Attorney General's 
Office, specifically to the Sl&N Division, upon requests from the Massachusetts State Police 
and the Norfolk County District Attorney's Office. After a protracted trial in May 2005, the 
jury returned partial verdicts convicting the defendant of two counts of assault and battery. 
The jury deadlocked on the majority of the drug charges and the case is scheduled for trial in 
October of 2005. 

RIZZO WIRETAP 

• Commonwealth v. Anthony Rizzo (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts); Commonwealth 
v. Paulo Tizzano (Sufh)lk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Pasquale Regnetta (Sufhilk 
Superior ( A)urt); Commonwealth v. Richard Moretto (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts); 
Commonwealth v. William Meehan (Suffolk Superior C^ourt); Commonwealth v. Andrew 
Arinello (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts); Commonwealth v. Dean Rosati (Suffolk 
and Middlesex Superior Courts); Commonwealth v. Louis Carpinto (Suffolk Superior Court); 
Commonwealth v. Wilberto Pag an (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Norg e 
Olivero (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Frank Coscarelli (Middlesex Superior 
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 h)llowing the 
Sl&N Divisions investigation into the criminal activities of La Cosa Nostra. Police seized 13 
guns, explosive devices, hundreds of Percoccts, trafficking quantities of cocaine and marijuana, 
and approximately $ 132,000 in drug money. The 15 month 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 targets vehicle. Eighteen individuals were 
arrested or charged, including the primary target, Anthony Rizzo, an alleged made mafia solider. 



56 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

As a result of the coiKcrtcd cftorts of the St.itc i'olicc aiui AA(I Patrick 1 cc, five cletendants 
pleaded prior to Fiscal Year 2005, another defendant pleaded this fiscal year and the reniainint; 
defendants arc scheduled for motions to suppress or changes of pica in the fall. 

OPERAllON COLUMBIA CiOLI) AVIRH lAl' 

• Commonwealth v. Mario Reyes (Middlesex and Suffolk Superior C^otirts): Commonwealth 
V. Monica Reyes (Middlesex and Suffolk Superior Courts); Commonwealth v. lames Abreus 
(Suffolk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Faber Aldana (Midtllesex Superior (]ourt); 
Commonwealth v. Gilberto Cruz (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. lose Rivera 
(Suffolk Superior (]ourt); Commonwealth v. William Torres (Middlesex and Suffolk Superior 
Courts); Commonwealth v. Carlos Parra (Suffolk Superior Court) I his DEA lask Force 
investigation of an international drug distribution organization revealed that the principals of 
the organization regularly obtained and distributed kilograms of cocaine and heroin as well as 
thousands of MDMA (ecstasy) pills, and also imported the drugs into the United States. From 
September 2001 to November 2001, agents and officers monitored five telephones pursuant to 
court-ordered electronic surveillance warrants. Fhe initial target, Monica Reyes, sold over 100 
grams of heroin to an undercover trooper on several occasions, and approximately 1 kilogram of 
heroin was interdicted from Costa Rica based on the information from the wiretap. Additionallw 
New York office of DEA initiated a wiretap investigation based on the intelligence from this 
case, which led to the seizure of approximately 1 .5 additional kilograms of heroin and a handful 
of arrests. A shipment of 18 kilograms of cocaine, part of which was destined for Monica 
Reyes was also seized. On November 2, 2001, after another principal target, Mario Reyes Jr. 
was intercepted bringing approximately 700 grams of cocaine to the Boston area from New 
York, 9 search warrants were executed and approximately 500 grams of additional cocaine were 
seized. Currently, 8 defendants stand charged of narcotics offenses in Middlesex and Suffolk. 
Defendant Abreus pleaded and was sentenced in March 2005. The remaining defendants are 
scheduled for trials or pleas in the fall. 

• Commonwealth v. lames A. Nolan (Suffolk Superior Court) In February 2004, the 
defendant, James Nolan, was arrested after he shot a Boston Police Special Operations officer 
through the front door of his apartment with a .45 caliber handgun while that officer was 
attempting to execute a search warrant along with other MOP (Mobile Operations) team 
members. The bullet struck the officer in his side and lodged itself into his tactical vest. A 
Superior Court judge had previously issued the warrant — which authorized a search of the 
residence for marijuana, firearms, and ammunition — to troopers assigned to the Attorney 
Generals Office. A search of the defendant's apartment uncovered one loaded H & K .45 caliber 



57 



CRIMINAL BURFAU Sr>FX;iAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICiS DIVISION 

handgun, a spent .45 caliber shell casuig, several roimds oi loose ammiuiition, a bullet proof 
vest, a couple of ounces of marijuana packaged for distribution, a digital scale, approximately 
$ 1 565.00 in U.S. currency, and personal papers in the defendant's name as well as his belongings. 
On April 1, 2004, a Suffolk County Grand jury returned indictments charging Nolan with 
Armed Assault with Intent to Murder in violation of c. 265, § 18(b), Assault and Battery with 
a Dangerous Weapon in violation of c. 265, § 1 5A(b), Assault and Battery of a Police Officer in 
violation of c. 265, § 13D, Possession of a Firearm in violation of c. 269, § 10(h), Possession of 
Ammunition in violation of c. 269, § 10(h), Possession of Marijuana with Intent to Distribute 
in violation of c. 94C, § 32C(a), and Violation of a Drug Offense within a School Zone in 
violation of c. 94C, § 32J. Nolan is scheduled for trial in October 2005. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

At any given time, the division generally has close to one hundred (100) cases pending in various 
courts throughout the Commonwealth, over two dozen 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 2005 is set forth below. 

GENERAL CASE INFORMATION 

Felony Arrests 23 

Criminal Cases Initiated 25 (2 Default Removals) 

Cases Disposed 44 

From July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, State Police assigned to the SI&N Division made 
approximately twenty-three (23) felony arrests. Prosecutors in the division in turn successflilly disposed 
of forty-four (44) pending cases in the Massachusetts Superior and District Courts, while initiating 
.ipproximately twenty-Hve (25) new cases in those same courts. Six of the 44 convictions were attained 
by means of guilty verdicts following jury trials in Superior Courts in Hampden, Norfolk and Suffolk 
('ounties. Of the number of drug cases investigated by the division in Fiscal Year 2005, approximately 
five percent (5%) of these involved two controlled substances rapidly growing in popularity among 
young adults: Oxycodone, a highly addictive painkiller (the active ingredient in pharmaceutical 



58 



CRIMINAL Bl'RtAL' SFTiCIAL IN\ES 1 KlAI IONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

Ox)'(;()ntiii), and Metliylcncclioxy-N-Mctliyl.uiiphft.imino (MDMA), otlitr wise known as tlie designer 
drug "ecstasy". The remaining percentage of narcotics cases included the more common street drugs 
such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. Virtually all of these cases involved trafficking large c^uantities 
of these drugs. 

FIREARMS 



Guns Seized or Purchased 5 

Individuals Charged with Firearms Offenses 2 

From July 1 , 2004, through June 30, 2005, State Police assigned to the SI&N Division sei/cd five 
(5) firearms, including a ') mm handgun, a revolver, several rifles and a .45 handgun and ammunition. 
Based upon these seizures, prosecutors in the SI&N Division charged two (2) individuals with several 
firearms offenses including armed career criminal violations. 

ASSET FORFEITURE 

Civil Forfeiture Cases Initiated 6 

Civil Forfeiture Cases Disposed 16 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Asset Forfeiture Unit initiated six (6) new civil forfeiture actions 
(not including forfeitures pursued by means of criminal motions) and concluded sixteen (16) actions 
involving money, cars, and jewelry. By way of example, the unit commenced civil actions against cars 
and money that were used to fiicilitate the distribution of narcotics or were purchased with the proceeds 
of the distribution of narcotics following the Katz Wiretap. 

WIRETAPS 



Wiretap Warrants Applied for 14 

Wiretap Warrants Received 14 

Devices Tapped 4 

One-Parry Consent Wirrants Applied for 6 

One-Party Consent Warrants Received 6 



59 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPFCIAI, INVFSTI(;ATI0NS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

A sigiiificaiit tool that the division iitinzed to penetrate and dismantle complex illegd enterprises 
during Fiscal Year 2005 was electronic surveillance. Over the past year, troopers assigned to this division 
have on numerous occasions equipped themselves and informants with electronic body wires, pursuant 
to so-called /^/wW warrants, to intercept and record criminal conversations with unsuspecting targets. 
Additionally, from July of 2004 through June ot 2005, theSI&N Division executed fourteen (14) court- 
authorized wiretap warrants (excluding one-party consent /i^/oorf' warrants). Ihese warrants authorized 
law enforcement officers to intercept, monitor, and record criminal communications occurring over four 
cellular telephones. In addition, as part of that investigation the division also applied for and obtained 
a warrant authorizing the attachment of a GPS device on one of the vehicles used by the drug ring and 
that device assisted state and federal law enforcement in conducting surveillance, which at times had 
the targets as far away as RJiode Island, Vermont and New York. These electronic surveillance measures, 
coupled with traditional investigative techniques, have proven invaluable in securing the convictions 
of individuals with ties to a variety of sophisticated criminal enterprises. Because of their considerable 
expertise in this area, attorneys in the division are frequently asked to assist police officers and fellow 
prosecutors in the law of search and seizure and electronic surveillance. 

2703(D) WARRANTS 

2703(d) Emergency Warrants Applied for 2 

2703(d) Emergency Wiirrants Ordered 2 

The expertise of the prosecutors and troopers assigned to SI&N is often of the utmost assistance 
to law enforcement facing emergency situations. For example, on several occasions during Fiscal Year 
2005, prosecutors and troopers assigned to SI&N quickly and successfully obtained emergency warrants 
imder Section 2703(d) of the federal wiretap statute which enabled law enforcement to obtain cell-site 
tower information to track down wanted targets. On one occasion law enforcement was attempting to 
locate a man suspected of kidnapping two minor children and on another occasion law enforcement was 
tracking down an escaped convict who had been convicted of armed assault with intent to murder. Both 
suspects were ultimately apprehended, along with another parolee violator. All three were apprehended 
without serious physical injuries to others in the process. 

POST-TRIAL MO riONS 

Post-Trial Motions Filed by Defendants 9 

Post-Trial Motions Disposed 9 



60 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

In .Klditioii to prosccutiiit; pcndini; ciimiii.il cases. Assistant AttorncN's C iciicial in the Si&N 1 )i\isi()n 
respoiuled to seven (7) post-trial motions. 1 hcse motions, filed by convicted felons, sought guilty plea 
withdrawal, new trials and sentencing appeals. Of the number oi post-trial morions filed, other than 
two, wiiich were allowed to correct clerical errors, all others were denied. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Assistant Attorneys (leneral assigned to SI&N Division continue to provide service and assistance 
both in and out of the Office that exceeci the scope of traditional prosecutorial responsibilities. Some 
of these extracurricular contributions include service on the Youth Violence Task Force; the Citizens 
School C'ommmiity (Outreach Program, which allows students an opportunit)' to participate in a mock 
trial as prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys; Northeastern University's Moot Court Competition; 
the Springfield lask Force addressing inner-city drug and gun problems; MCLE; multi-agency panel on 
Loan Forgiveness and Assistance Program for Public Fmployees; and the Massachusetts Law Review. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, attorneys in the SI&N Division were also required to act as point persons 
for the office on a variety of topics that rec^uire 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 inatters. In addition, an Assistant Attorney General fields all public record 
inquiries directed to the division. Prosecutors also served as the division's intern coordinators, who in 
that capacitA' supervise and monitor 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 with important current issues and trends in the law. These trainings 
encompassed a varietv' of topics including ethics, anti-discrimination, computer forensics, internationd 
investigative issues and trial advocacy techniques. Some of the trainings attended by Assistant Attorneys 
General in the division included Grand Jury Practice; MCLE's program on Attacking and [defending 
Search Witrrants; and the MDAA's DNA Training. 



61 



CRIMINAL BUREAU ENVIRCWMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE 

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE 

The Massacliusctts Eiiviroiimciital Ciimes Strike Force (ECSF) is a unique interagency enforcement 
tool used in the investigation and prosecution oi the Commonwealth's environmental enforcement 
efforts. 1 hrough the cooperation of the Attorney General, the Secretary 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 necessary 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 
Division investigated and/or prosecuted dining Fiscal Year 2005 were the following: illegal treatment 
and disposal ot hazardous waste; discharging pollutants to the waters of the commonwealth; illegal 
dumping; open burning; illegal removal of asbestos; and filling or altering of wetlands. In addition 
the ECSF division investigated or prosecuted traditional white-collar crimes for example: larceny by 
false pretense, procurement fraud, and identity fraud. In addition, division attorneys often work with 
local police and tire departments, federal law enforcement officials. Attorney General's Offices from 
neighboring states, District Attorney's Offices from across the state and investigators assigned to other 
state agencies. 

Members of the division for all or part of Fiscal Year 2005 included Paul J. Molloy, Division 
( Jiief; Assistant Attorney General Douglas Rice; and Stacey Glynn, support staff. Three Massachusetts 
Environmental Police Officers were assigned to the ECSF within the Attorney General's Office: Lt. Gail 
Larson, Sgt. Pat Haley, and Officer Chris Baker. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

Highlights of cases handled by the Environmental Crimes Strike Force in Fiscal Year 2005 
include: 

• Commonwealth v. Richard Denham (Suffolk Superior Court) On January 19, 2005, 
a Suffolk County jury returned guilty verdicts against Richard Denham, a vice-president of 
an environmental consulting firm, on two counts of procurement fraud, for filing fraudulent 
environmental plans with the Central Artery/Timnel Project. On February 15, 2005, Judge Brady 
sentenced Denham to two years probation and two hundred hours of comminiit)' service. 



62 



CRIMINAL BUREAl' ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE 

• Commonwealth v. Glenn Seaver (Worcester Superior Cloun) On June 10, 2()()'), a 
Worcester County Grand Jury returned two indictinents against Glenn Seaver, a licensed asbestos 
abatement contractor, for violating tlie Clean Air Act. Seaver conducted uncontained removal 
of asbestos containing material, resulting in the release of carcinogenic fibers, contaminating a 
condominium comjilex in Worcester and a residence in Westborougli. 

• Commonwealth v. locelyn Toussaint (Worcester District Court) On April 28, 2()()S, 
an application for a criminal complaint was Hied in Worcester District (Jourt against jocehn 
Toussaint tor violations of the Clean Air Act. Ibussaint, a residential landlord, conducted an 
uncontained removal of asbestos containing material at his rental property resulting in the 
contamination of the basement, while the tenants were at home. 

• Commonwealth v. David Rothstein (Great Barrington District Court) On Jime 22, 2005, 
an application for a criminal complaint was filed in Great Barrington District Court against 
David Rothstein for violations of the Clean Air Act and Labor and Industries Act; resulting 
from the illegal removal of asbestos from the Stagecoach Inn and Tavern. The Inn and Ttvern 
were operational and open for business. Rothstein also failed to provide protective equipment 
to the employee, who was directed to dry rip the asbestos with no containment. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Investigations Opened 19 

Investigations Closed 29 

Indicted in Superior Court 1 

Disposed in Superior Court 1 

District Court Complaints Filed 2 

Pending in Appeals Court 1 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Environmental Crimes Strike Force opened 1 9 investigations and closed 
29 (some of which were opened in prior fiscal years). There was one individual indicted in Superior 
Court. District Court complaints were taken out against two individuals. There was one jury trial that 
resulted in a conviction in Superior Court. 

63 



CRIMINAL BURBAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Throiiglioiit Fiscal Year 2005 AAG Paul Molloy attended meetings with the Department of 
Environmental Protection, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Mass. Environmental Police, 
U.S. Coast Guard and Mass. Pilots A.ssociation, to plan implementation of the Buzzards Bay Oil Spill 
Legislation and responses to federal preemption challenges. 

ECSF personnel, including AAG s and Environmental Police Officers assigned to the Strike Force, 
made presentations at all DEP regional offices throughout the state, on how to identity environmental 
crimes, sample, photograph and report suspected criminal activity to the Strike Force. 



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 insurers in Massachusetts, and against the Commonwealths 
unemployment insurance system. lUFD prosecuted these crimes to protect Massachusetts businesses, 
consumers, and tiixpayers from the higher premiums and taxes that are the ultimate result of the 
fraud. 

lUFD's cases varied widely, including workers compensation premium fraud cases, conspiracies 
by medical and legal professionals, fraud in auto repair businesses, staged motor vehicle accidents, 
inflated claims against homeowner's policies, cases involving claimants working while collecting 
workers compensation and unemployment benefits, and fraud by businesses on the Commonwealths 
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 conficience in the insurance and unemployment compensation 
systems. In addition, we have focused on staged accidents workitig with the Insurance Fraud Bureau 
Community Insurance Fraud Initiative (CIFI) to combat fraud in select communities such as Lawrence 
and Boston. 

lUFD received referrals from a number of sources. One somce was the Massachusetts Insurance 
Fraud Bureau (IFB), a non-governmental entity created by the Massachusetts Legislature and funded 
pursuant to statute indirectly by the Massachu.setts insiuance industry. In addition, lUFD received 
referrals from the Commonwealth's Human Resources Division, the Division of Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA), the Governor's Auto Theft Strike Force, the Department of Industrial Accidents, the 
Workers Compensation Rating and Inspection Biueau, the National Insurance Oime Bureau, and the 



64 



CRIMINAL BUREAU INSIIRANCF. AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

Social Sccuiit)' Administration. ILJFl) also received coni|ilaints and rekrrals horn concerneii citizens, 
private attorneys, and comt personnel. 1 he wide range of rekrrals helped demonstrate the ILJFD's 
efforts in fighting insurance fraud throughout the ( 'ommonweahh. 

lUFD also is a part of the C^ooperative Disability Investigations (GDI) Unit. GDI is funded by 
the Social Security Administration (SSA), and is comprised of the SSA's Office of Investigations (OI), 
Office of the Inspector General (C^IG), the Massachu.serts Disability Determination Services (DDS), 
and lUFD. IIJFD provides GDI with two ACX^ Investigators who conduct surveillance ami provide the 
evidence used to pro.secute Social Security disability-related fraud. Because a portion of Social Security 
disability benefits are paid for with state funds, this crime robs the Gommonwealth's taxpayers twice: 
once as federal t;ixpayers, and again as state taxpayers. In Fiscal Year 2005, the (]DI Unit completed 
investigations in a total of 46 cases. SSA savings for this time period was $2,909,120 and Non-SSA 
savings for this time period was $1,104,007. Thus, lUFD contributed to helping recover more than 
$4,000,000 in taxpayers' monies. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, lUFD staff included Glenn Gunha, Division Ghief; Eliot Green, former 
Division Ghief; Georgia Gritsley, Deputy Division Ghief; Assistant Attorneys General Alexandra Alland; 
David Andrews; Julie Brady; Tracy Brown; Kajal Ghattopadhya)'; John Gompton; Melissa Gavegnano; 
Lea May; Ian McKenny; Ray Rowland; civilian investigators Kenneth Belson; Pepper Daigler; Brian 
Delaney; lami Kelley; Byron Knight; Jason Kravetz; Gindy Walsh; and support staff members Gloria 
I.iik-Brimo; Kathy Reyes; and Vicky Scolnick. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE FRAUD 

• Commonwealth v. Kenneth Knig ht (Salem Superior Goiut) After a jluv trial in Essex 
Superior (^oiirt, a Lawrence/F^averhill auto body shop owner, Kenneth Knight, was convicted 
of staging an accident, which he used to submit phony PIP claims ancJ property damage claims. 
Knight was sentenced by Judge Elizabeth Fahey to 2 1/2 years in a House of Gorrection, one 
year to serve. 

• Commonwealth v. Meivin Martinez (Salem Superior Gourt) Martinez was one of several 
co-defendants in the Kenneth Knight c;ise, which involved a motor vehicle insurance fraud 
ring. Martinez pleaded guilt)' and was sentenced to three years probation, a $1,000 fine, and 
ordered to obtain his GED. 



65 



CRIMINAL BUREAU INSURANCE. AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. Esmerlyn Diaz (Essex Superior Court) Diaz was one of several co- 
defendants in the Kenneth Knight case, which involved a motor vehicle insurance fraud ring. Diaz 
pleaded guilty to one count Attempted Larceny and was sentenced to one year probation. 

• Commonwealth v. Miriam Mojica & Rafael Hernandez (Pittsfield District Court) Mojica 
placed herself in an automobile accident that occurred outside her residence. Mojica's boyfriend, 
Hernandez, was driving the car at the time of the accident. Both Mojica and fiernandez filed 
fiilse insurance claims stating that Mojica was the driver of the vehicle. A jury trial resulted 
in guilty verdicts for both defendants, with sentences of six months in a House of Correction, 
suspended for one year with probation, and 100 hours of community service. 

• Commonwealth v. Keith DeBarg e (Worcester District Court) Following a motor vehicle 
accident, the defendant sought lost- wage benefits while continuing to work. He pleaded guilty, 
which resulted in nine months to serve in a House of Correction, beginning on and after 
he completes his current six month sentence for a separate offense; approximately two years 
probation (to begin after DeBarge's release from the House of Correction and to end no later 
than July 1 1, 2006); and full restitution of $5,487.94 to Amica Mutual. 

• Commonwealth v. Karl Clemmey, Ir. (Norfolk District Court) Defendant was an auto 
appraiser who allegedly inflated his estimates on several vehicles and wanted a kickback for 
each one. A change of plea resulted in the defendant pleading guilty to insurance fraud, with 
a sentence of two years probation, $2400 restitution, and a $1500 fine. 

• Commonwealth v. Andre Rouse (Norfolk Superior Court) Rouse, a claims adjuster for 
Norfolk and Dedham Insurance (Company, took legitimate motor vehicle accident claims and 
added fraudulent claimants, thus embezzling funds from the insurance company for which 
he worked. He pleaded guilry at his arraignment and was sentenced to 2 Vi years in a House 
of Correction, suspended for 4 years; a $20,000 fine; and as condition of probation. Rouse is 
prohibited from working in the insurance industry. 

• Commonwealth v. Richard Mojica. Kimberly Ballard, Bienvinda Mojica. Angela Lynch, 
Melvin Reyes, Robert Gamble, George Ivev (Norfolk Superior Court) The defendants abetted 
Andre Rouse, a claims adjustor, by adding their names as claimants to otherwise legitimate 
accident claims in order to embezzle insurance funds. Once the funds were received, the 
defendants and Rouse split the ill-gotten proceeds. The seven co-defendants pleaded guilty in 
October 2004. 



66 



CRIMINAL BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

The sentences were as follows: 

1 . Angela Lynch: one year probation, lUO hours community service, and an $800 fine. 

2. Kimbcrly Ballard: one year probation, SO hours communit\' service, and a $200 fine. 

3. Bienvenida Mojica: one ye.u- probation, SO hours i.ommunit\- service, and a 
$1200 Hnc. 

4. Robert Gamble: one year probation, SO hours community service, and a $300 fine. 

5. George Ivey: one year, probation, SO hours community service, and a $2000 fine. 

6. Melvin Reyes: one year, probation, SO hoius community service, and a $700 fine. 

7. Richard Mojica: one year probation, SO hoius community service, $700 fine. 

• Commonwealth v. Mario Espinosa (Lowell District Court) Espinosa, a licensed insurance 
agent, struck a parked car (causing property damage) and was observed fleeing the scene. Espinosa 
subsequently filed a false insurance claim in which he claimed that he was the victim of a hit- 
and-run accident. As the trial was about to begin. Judge McGinnis allowed the defendant to 
admit to sufficient ficts and continued the case without finding. Espinosa was given two years 
probation, and 200 hours of community service. 

• Commonwealth v. Hassan Khowais (Boston Municipal Court) Kiiowais claimed his car 
was stolen, when re;illy he had shipped it to his brother in Israel six months earlier. A change of 
plea resulted in the defendant pleading guilty to insurance fraud and filing a false police report. 
tChowais was sentenced to two years probation, a $1S()0 fine, and 100 hours of communit\' 
service. 

• Commonwealth v. Tracey Hurley (Essex Superior Court) The defendant assisted her 
husband, Jeffrey Hurley, in committing serid motor vehicle and workers" compensation insurance 
fraud. A change of plea resulted in the case being continued without finding, and Hurley was 
placed on probation for one year and ordered to pay $500 in court costs in lieu of a fine. 



67 



CRIMINAL BUREAU INSLIRANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FR.AL'D DIVISION 

FRAUD BY PROFESSIONALS 

• Commonwealth v. Harvey Schneider (Suffolk Superior Court) This optometrist 
engaged in multiple types ol fraudulent schemes including billing for services not rendered, 
miscoding, upcoding, and billing tor services after license suspension. The defendant defrauded 
approximately nine health insurers over $350,000. A change of plea resulted in 2 Vi years in 
the House of Correction, committed, but stayed to July 1, 2005; three years probation; and 
restitution of $373,000. 

• Commonwealth v. Joel Charles (Dorchester District Court) Charles, a chiropractor, was 
working while collecting total disability benefits, which he began receiving after an alleged auto 
accident. Charles treated the passengers in the accicient and others while allegedly disabled. 
Judge Horgan ordered the case continued without finding, with full restitution of $4,920 to 
CNA hisurance, rather than proceed to trial as scheduled. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION FRAUD 

• Commonwealth v. James H. Dormon (Brockton Superior Court) Dormon, a business 
owner, defrauded his workers' compensation carrier and the Division of Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA) by underreporting the number of employees and related payroll expenses. 
The workers compensation fraud was valued at $268,000 and the DUA tax at approximately 
$39,000. The defendant also failed to pay employee wages of approximately $80,000. Dormon 
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 364 days in the House of Correction, committed; $ 1 50,000 
restitution, of which $50,000 was paid on the date of plea. 

• Commonwealth v. Horman Carcamo (Suffolk Superior Coint) This is a case in which 
an employee was working while collecting workers compensation for alleged injuries sustained 
while working on the Big Dig/Central Artery Tunnel. Carcamo was captured working on 
videotape, but not before he had received over $40,000 in benefits. He pleaded guilt)' and was 
sentenced to six months in the House of Correction, suspended for three years, and $25,000 
restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. lohn Garceau (Suffolk Superior Court) This is another case in which 
an employee was working while collecting workers compensation for alleged injuries sustained 
while working on the Big Dig/Central Artery Tunnel. Garceau pleaded guilty and was sentenced 
to one year in a House of Correction, with nine months to serve, and the balance suspended 
for one year. 



68 



CRIMINAl Bl'REAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. Jeffrey Peacock (Suffolk SLiptrioiCourt) Peacock, who was allegt-clly 
injured while working on the Big Dig/Central Artery Tunnel project, continued to work other 
jobs while collecting workers compensation payments. A guilty plea resulted in a sentence of tAvo 
years probation, 135 hours community service, and restitution in the amount of SI (),()()(). 

• Commonwealth v. Scott Taylor (Suffolk Superior Court) This is another case in which 
an employee was working while collecting workers compensation for alleged injuries sustained 
while working on the Big Dig/Central Artery lunnel. Taylor pleaded guilrv .\nd was sentenced 
to two years probation, $20,000 restitution, and lOO hours of community service. 

• Commonwealth v. Kevin Mello (Bristol Superior (jiurt) Mello, a former corrections officer, 
was working while collecting workers' compensation. He pleaded guilty atid was sentenced to 
two years House of Correction, suspended for three years, restitution of $94,657.76 and 150 
hours of community service. 

• Commonwealth v. Paul Santora (Wcstborough District C^ourt) Sanrora concealed pa\roll 
from two workers' compensation carriers, hiding over $255, ()()() in labor costs, and evading over 
$ 17,987.69 in premiums. Santora pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year probation and 
100 hours of community service. Santora was also ordered to pay $1,000 in court costs and 
full restitution of $14,670.54, which was due upon sentencing. 

• Commonwealth v. Christopher Spanks. Mary Mello (Essex Superior Court) With the 
assistance of Mary Mello, Spanks filed a workers" compensation claim using fraudulent taxi 
receipts, which he claimed were for transportation to and from medical appointments related 
to his injury. A guilt)' plea resulted in 2 Vi years in a House (^f Correction, suspended for five 
years, with one year on the bracelet, and full restitution of $55,000, with a $5,000 payment 
required at sentencing. 

• Commonwealth v. Luis Algarin (Woburn District (^ourt) While receiving workers" 
compensation benefits, Algarin formed a company in which he performed administrative work. 
After dissolving this company, Algarin worked for a roofing company, while still collecting 
benefits. His guilty plea resulted in six months in a House of Correction, suspended for a three- 
year term of probation; 100 hours of community service; and an order to pay full restitution 
of $23,000, $10,000 of which was due at sentencing. Algarin was ordered to pay $150/month 
toward the remaining restitution. 



69 



CRIMINAL BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. David Bruce Perry (SuHolk Superior Court) Ferry worked as a self- 
employed painter and carpenter while collecting over $52,000 in total temporary workers' 
compensation. A change of plea resulted in a sentence of six months in the House of Correction, 
suspended lor two years with probation, $18,000 restitution payable in 14 days, with the balance 
to be paid at a rate of $200/month over the next two years. (Total $22,800 out of $52,800). 

• Commonwealth v. Paul Horton (Plymouth District Court) Paul Norton worked while 
collecting workers' compensation. Horton pleaded guilty at his arraignment, which resulted 
in a $500 fine and 30 day CWOF, per Commonwealth's recommendation. 

PROPERTY FRAUD 

• Commonwealth v. Robert Therrien (Barnstable Superior Court) This architect was 
convicted ot arson in May 2004. After post-conviction motions were ruled on, }udge Nickerson 
sentenced Therrien in the first quarter ol 2005 to two years committed in the House of 
Correction, with three years probation to follow, 600 hours of commimiry service, and restitution 
of $12,000. 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FRAUD 

• Commonwealth v. Peter Willwerth (Boston Municipal Court) Willwerth was working 
under the table as a fulltime driver while he was receiving unemployment benefits from DUA. 
1 he fraud totaled over $18,000. Willwerth pleaded guilty to unemployment insurance fraud 
and was sentenced to one year of probation, 50 hours of community service, fined $1 ,000, and 
ordered to pay $18,000 restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Pedro Lug o (Chelsea District Court) Lugo filed for unemployment 
benefits five months before he stopped working. He collected $6,697 in benefits while working. 
Lugo pleaded guilty to all 1 2 counts and was sentenced to two years supervised probation and 
restitution of $6,697, payable on a monthly basis. 

• Commonwealth v. Edie Salgado (New Bedford District Court) This former intermittent 
Division of Unemployment Assistance employee stole a paycheck, endorsed and cashed it. A 
change of plea resulted in six months committed on each count (one count of Larceny Over $250, 
one count of Forged and Cashed Stolen Checks and one count of Littering False Record). 

• Commonwealth v. Dennis Mullaly (Barnstable District Court) The defendant was working 
while collecting unemployment benefits. Ihe proceeds from his bilking the state totaled $8, 1 27. 
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year in the House of Correction, suspended for 



70 



CRIMINAL. BlREAl' INSl'RANCK AND I'NFMI'LCIVMl.M' I-RAl Ml DIMSION 

three years, 300 hours of coniiminit)' service, aiul hill restitution, p,t)'able .it a rate of JSO/moiuh 
for next three years. H the (ia\'meiits are met, the rem.iinder ot the restitution order will be 
vacated. 

• Commonwealth v. Adam Collins, jr. (Siifh)lk Superior Court) Father/.son duo cashed 

30 counterfeit DUA checks. (Collins Sr. pleaded guilty and was sentenced last year. Collins 
Jr. changed his plea to guilt)' anti was sentenced to one year probation, 100 hours cominiinity 
service and a hue of $1408. 

OTHER 

• Commonwealth v. Wayne Martowska (Plymouth District Court) Martowska created and 
used fraudulent certificates ot insurance to secure work as a contractor. He pleaded guilty and 
the Court imposed the agreed upon sentence recommendation of a $2,000 fine and one year 
of probation. 

• Commonwealth v. Joseph Varrichione (Framingham District C^oiirt) Ihis uninsured 
construction contractor presented forged/false insurance documents to secure construction 
contracts. He pleaded guilty to Larceny Over $250, Filing a Fraudulent Insurance (]laim. 
Forgery at Common Law, Uttering at Common Law, and Attempted Larceny (the latter three 
placed on file). In exchange, the Commonwealth agreecl to recommend the following sentence, 
which was accepted by the Court: One year probation, $12,000 restitution and a $10,000 
fine; additionally, $10,000 of the restitution was paid within 30 days of sentencing, with the 
remainder to be paid at a rate of $l,000/month. 

DUA POST CONVICTION CASES CLOSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2004 

The lUFD has a cooperative agreement with the Division of Unemployment Assistance (DUA, 
formerly known as the Division of Employment and Training, or DE 1), helping to ensure that 
outstanding restitution is paid to DUA. One of lUFD's roles in collecting these outstanding balances 
included court appearances at post-conviction restitution status hearings. AAGs were assigned to 
DUA post-conviction cases on a rotating basis throughout the year. Fhe lUFD AAGs represented the 
Commonwealth's interests in these settlement agreements, ensuring that the t,Lxpayers" interests were 
taken into account. 

The following cases were fully closed out in Fiscal Year 2005, after restitution settlements were 
agreed upon. 



71 



CRIMINAL, BUREAU INSURyXNCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. Ronald Spellman ((^iiincy District Court) Spcilman received a $2,349 
overpayment of unemployment benetits in the late 1 980's. Pursuant to an agreement, defendant 
began to pay back the Commonwealth at a monthly rate but defaulted in 1991. Spellman 
recently tried to renew his Illinois driver's license, but could not, due to the outstanding default 
warrant. On March 19, 2004, defendant paid DUA the remaining balance of $945. Defendant 
was in court this past quarter to remove the default warrant. The Attorney General's Office 
recommended 6 months CWOF with $500 fine; however, a change of plea resulted in a one 
month ("WOF with ail fees waived. 

• Commonwealth v. Robert and Ernest Richards (BMC) The Richards committed DUA- 
relatcd fraud. In 1996, defendants were granted a CWOF for three years, and ordered to pay 
$77,041.51 in restitution. As of January 25, 2002, $6810 had been paid in restitution, leaving 
$70,231.51 outstanding. At a prior court appearance, the Court indicated its willingness to 
dismiss the case upon receipt of a lump simi payment of $20,000. The Court received a $20,000 
check dated 1 1/24/04, and accordingly, the cases were dismissed. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2005, lUFD indicted or charged 15 cases. A total of 47 cases were disposed of, 
either by trial or plea. Of these 47 cases, seven defendants were ordered to serve committed time in a 
comity Fiouse of Correction. Restitution and fines in these cases totaled $920,513.00. 

STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN 

Referrals Received 311 

Insurance Fraud Bureau 35 

Other Insiuance Companies 13 

Div. of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) 2i 

DUA — Post Conviction 33 



72 



CRIMINAL lU'RFAU INSTRANCF AND I'NKMIM OVMIA T [RVin OIVISKIN 

STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN 

Fair Labor and Business Practices Division 116 

Governors Auro Theft Strike Force (GATSF) 

Health ("arc Task F-orce 2 

Letter 17 

Nat I hisLirance Oimc Bureau 1 

Suffolk Coiuity District Attorney 

Telephone 53 

Walk-In 2 

Other AG's Office 9 

Cither Federal Agency 

Other Police Agency 4 

Other State Agency 3 

Investigations Opened 114 

DUA 22 

DUA - Post Conviction 28 



73 



CRIMINAL BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 



STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN 



Fair Labor and Business Practices Division 

GATSF 

IFB 32 

Letter 

NICB 1 

Suffolk County DA 2 

Telephone 

Walk- 1 11 1 

Other AG's OfHce 2 

Otiier Federal Agency 

Other Insurance Company 16 

Other Police Agency 3 

Other State Agency 7 

Other: IFB Post-Conviction 

Investigations Closed w/o Prosecution 50 

Cases Charged 23 

Cases Disposed of 47 

Cases Disposed, w/Committed Prison Time 7 

Restitution and Fines Recovered $920,513 



74 



CRIMINAL BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNriMClOVMl Ml ERAUI) |)|\ISION 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND AC 1 IVITIRS 

During Fiscal Year 200S, lUHD continued efforts to develop and investigate health insurance fraud 
cases. As part of this effort, we fostered our relationship with the HRI's Health (^arc Fraud lask Force, 
focusing on proviiler fraud cases. iUFD has also established a |irivate health insuranee lask force with 
Blue Cross / Blue Shield, Tufts and Harvard Pilgrim in an effort identify appropriate cases to investigate 
and prosecute. Several cases are currently being prosecuted as a result of the task force. These range 
from individuals billing insurance companies for services never received to health care providers billing 
for services not rendered or services they are not licensed to proviile. I UFO also receives ca.se referrals 
directly from the health insurers in cases that are beyond the scope of the task force and they are also 
being evaluated and investigated by IUFD. 

Another area in which IUFD focused significant efforts was in fighting fraud related to the Central 
Artery Tunnel Project, akso known as the "Big Dig. " In Fiscal Year 2004, the IUFD began investigating 
a number of cases involving employees who were allegedly injured while working on die Big Dig. All of 
these workers went out on disability becau.se of their purported injuries, and began collecting workers 
compensation insurance. In each instance, evidence was developed establishing that the employee 
began working another job or jobs and misrepresented his employment status to the relevant insurer. 
In Fiscal Year 2005, we charged several of these cases to serve as a deterrent as well as punishing these 
wrongdoings. Three oftho.se cases have resulted in guilty pleas with full restitiuion; one case resulted in 
the defendant being committed to the house of correction. In Fiscal Year 2006, the IUFD will continue 
to work on Big Dig ca.ses to continue our commitment to fighting workers compensation fraud. 

The IUFD has worked closely with the Insurance Fraud Bureau CIFI to investigate and pro.secute 
individuals responsible for staging accidents in communities like Lawrence, Boston, Brockton and 
Springfield. Through a community-based effort that involved local law enforcement, the IFB, the local 
District Attorneys and the Attorney Cenerals Office, these local task forces have worked to significantly 
reduce fraudulent auto insurance claims. Investigation and prosecution of all suspected motor vehicle 
insurance fraud in these communities has led to a reduction in fraud through the presence of task force 
members in the neighborhoods doing intervention and searching for evidence. 



75 



CRIMINAL BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

During Fiscal Year 2005, lUFD sraft attended trainings on a regular basis, including the National 
1 )istrict Attorney Association Trainings in Columbia, South C^arolina; Trial Advocacy Training at New 
Kni^huu! School of Law; a lectme on "Obtaining Confessions" at the Social Law Library; and arson 
investigation training. In addition, lUFD staft also actively participated in the legal intern program, 
the Health Care Fraud Task Force, South Asian Bar Association, Womens' Bar Association, and the 
ACQ [diversity Committee. lUFD staff also participated in the Citizen Schools Legal Apprenticeship 
Program, helping grade school students with writing skills in preparation for advanced studies. 

lUFD Division Chief Glenn C.unha gave several speeches to outside groups. I he first was a lecture 
for Massachusetts Risk Managers regarding developing a criminal case at the first sign of fraud. AAG 
Cunha served on the faculty at New England School of Law's Trial Advocacy Training. AAG Cunha 
also presented information at the AG Institute program on the "New Massachusetts Criminal Rules 
of Procedure for Prosecutors." Additionally, AAG C]unha presented at the Insurance Fraud Bureaus 
Annual Conference, where he spoke to investigators from across the state about the new insurance laws 
as well as investigating and prosecuting criminal cases when fraud is first suspected by an insurer. Two 
other lUFD AAGs, Kajal Chattopadhyay and Dave Andrews, also gave presentations at the IFB Annual 
Conference on sentencing issues as well as obtaining statements from targets of investigations. 

Two of the ILJFD attorneys, AAGs McKenny and Rowland, organized and arranged an insurance 
fraud seminar, in conjimction with the Special Investigations Unit of Liberty Mutual Insurance. The 
[iresentation focused on accident reconstruction. It was structured to increase a lay person's working 
knowledge of general accident investigation to a level where the participant will begin to view vehicle 
damages to determining exactly what "really" occurred in a loss. The seminar was beneficial to fraud 
investigation as well as liability issues within the claims and legal profession. 



76 



(.:riminai. bureau criminal iwsi ici: i'olka dixision 

CRIMINAL. JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION 

T lie ("rirninal jiistict I'olic)' Division (C^JI'D) was crcatcti in |ul\' 2002, in conjuncnon with tlie 
consolidation of tlic Coniniiinity-Hascil justice Bureau into the (aiininal BLueaii. I he mission of 
(IJPI) is to support the Attorney Generals leadership role as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the 
C^ommonwealth. 1 htough collaborative relationships with members of the criminal justice community, 
("JPD is iMiiquely positioned to use its knowledge and experience to further decision-making that is in 
the piililic interest. Towards this end, (]jPD's responsibilities fall into five broad categories: I ) liaison to 
external criminal justice and law enforcement agencies and organizations; 2) criminal justice legislation; 
3) criminal justice education; 4) crime prevention initiatives; and "S) policy-based appellate briefs, amicus 
Itiiefs, investigations and prosecutions, and various other special assignments. 

The Criminal Justice Policy Division included Division C^hief James O'Brien; Assistant Attorneys 
General Pamela Hunt (Senior Counsel); Emily Paradise; Catherine Sullivan; Marsha C^ohen, staffwriter; 
and jean banning, support staff. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

• Commonwealth v. William Rodriguez, et. al. (Lawrence B&E Case) (Middlesex, Essex, 
Norfolk and Hainpden Superior Courts) This multi-county, multi-defendant B&E prosecution 
was completed in Fiscal Year 200'i. Defendants Steven Rios, George Velasc]uez, David Barker, 
William Rodriguez, Enrique Rivera and Robert Cabrera received committed prison sentences. 
Roberto Santiago's case was disposed of by way of pre-trial probation. 

• Commonwealth v. Jeffrey BIy (Massachusetts Supreme judicial Court and Suffolk Superior 
Court) This case is the appeal of Blys 1 995 conviction for the murder of AAG Paul McLaughlin. 
A CJPD attorney is representing the Commonwealth. In October 2003, the Superior Court 
held a hearing on the Commonwealths motion for a colloquy with the defendant on a potential 
conflict of interest by appellate counsel. Following the resolution of that issue, the AGO moved 
for expedited preparation of transcripts to be sent to the SJC. All transcripts have been received 
and the ctse awaits a briefing schedule. 

• DYS Cases: Andrew v. Department of Youth Services, Commonwealth v. Andrew, and 
Commonwealth v. Eliot E. (Massachusetts Supreme judicial Court and Lynn Juvenile Coiut) 
CJPD continued its involvement with several DYS cases involving constitutional and legal 
challenges to the DYS process for extending a juveniles commitment to l^YS beyond his/her 



11 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION 

18''' birtliday. In July 2004, the SJC issued its decision in A>idrew v. DKV concerning whether 
there is a right to bail or other process while awaiting trial on continued control beyond age 
18. The division worked to create a good record lor appeal, worked closely with DYS and the 
t]ualiHed examiners contracted by DYS to evaluate the juveniles, met with the Juvenile Court 
Department leadership on the practical impact of the proposals, and filed a post-argument 
supplement to the brief proposing specific procedures that address new matters raised at oral 
argument. While the AGO prevailed on the issues raised by the case, the Court expressed concern 
about some provisions of the statute and ordered that copies of the briels and supplemental 
filings be sent to the Legislature. By the end of the fiscal year, CJPD continued to work with 
DYS in planning a legislative strategy on the many issues raised by the case. 

• Coe V. Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) In 
August 2004, the SJC issued its decision upholding the constitutionality of legislation providing 
tor Internet posting ot identification information about the most serious (l-evel 3) sex offenders 
on the Sex Offender Registry Board website. Criminal Justice Policy Division attorneys were 
extensively involved in assisting on the case by soliciting amicus support for SORB's position. 
After the filing of two amicus briefs — from the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children and the Massachusetts District Attorneys' Association — CJPD assisted various 
municipalities in filing motions to join the brief filed by the National Center. After the favorable 
decision, CJPD provided analysis and advice to several police departments on linking to the 
SORB website and maintaining their own individual sites under the SORB regulations. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

• Liaison to External Agencies and Organizations During Fiscal Year 2005, CJPD attorneys 
interacted with the Appellate Bench Bar Committee, Boston Bar Association Criminal 
Law Section, Boston Bar Association Task Force on Improving Efficiency in the Courts, 
Massachusetts Statewide University and College Coalition on Underage and Problem Drinking, 
Commonwealth's Attorneys Appellate Action Project, Commonwealths Criminal Justice Research 
Group, Criminal History Systems Board, Department of Public Health Emerging L^rug Trends 
Advisory Group, Elder Abuse Project Steering Committee, Equal Justice Partnership, Firearm 
Licensing Review Board, Governor's Advisory Coimcil on Alcoholism and Drug Rehabilitation, 
Governor's Integrated Criminal Justice Planning Council, Massachusetts Association of Campus 
Law Enforcement Administrators, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Massachusetts 
Sentencing (Commission, Massachusetts Bar Association Corrections and Sentencing Practice 



78 



CRIMINAL Bl'REAU CRIMINAL jL'SIICE POLICY [)I\'ISIC)N 

Croup, Massacluisetts District Attorneys Association (Ml)AA)/AC"iC) ( Jiiiiinal Kiilcs I'raining 
Working Croup, MOAA DNA Working Ciroiip, MIMA Juvenile Justice Subcommittee, 
MDAA Sexually Dangerous Person Working Ciroiip, Mimicipal Police Training (Committee, 
NAAG Working Crou[i on Sexual!)' Violent Preilators, SJ(] Standing Advisory (Committee on 
Criminal Rules, Statewide Child Fatality Review Team, and tlu Trial (^ourt Oiminal Standing 
Committee of the MassCourts Project. 

• Criminal Justice Legislation The division works closely with, and serves as the Criminal 
Bureau's primary liaison to, the Attorney Ceneral's Intergovernmental Affairs Division. In Fiscal 
Year 2005, CJPD played a coordinating role in soliciting ideas and making recommendations 
on the ACX)'s slate of criminal bills. It drafted and testified on behalf of various proposals. 
In addition to the Attorney Cjeneral's own bills, CJPD also helped draft, edit, and review 
other legislation affecting the criminal justice system, and made recommendations to the 
Attorney Ceneral on supporting or opposing specific pieces of legislation. During Fiscal Year 
2005, significant bills that were either sponsored by the Attorney Generals Office or were the 
subject of noteworthy CJPD involvement included: Enforcement of Child Abuse Reporting 
Requirements; Protecting the Computer Infrastructure of the Commonwealth; Protecting 
Victims of Computer Crimes; Protecting Victims of Identity' Theft; Updating the Massachusetts 
Wiretap Statute; Statewide Grand Jury; Protecting Students and Promoting School Safety; 
Compensating the Wrongfully Convicted; Preventing Insurance Fraud; Sentencing Guidelines; 
Various Outside Sections to the Budget; Victim Rights; the Ciovernor's criminal justice slate 
— Witness Protection, Witness Intimidation, Post-Release Supervision and Manufacture of 
Methamphetamines; Alternate Funding for the Massachusetts Police Training Council; Gang 
Violence; Loan Forgiveness for Public Lawyers; Expanding Restraining Orders to Cover Sexual 
Assault and Stalking Victims; Eliminating Statute of Limitations for Certain C]hild Abuse and 
Sexual Abuse Crimes; and the Victims of Crime Act. 

• Poker Advisory The rising popularity of Texas Hold 'Em and other forms of poker has led 
to a huge increase in poker tournaments, many of them organized by charities for fundraising 
purposes. In light of this rising popularit)' and numerous calls from law enforcement and public 
charities seeking guidance, CJPD, along with the Bureau Chief and the Charities Division, 
worked on an AGO advisory to distinguish between legal and illegal (subject to prosecution 
in Massachusetts) poker tournaments. This resulted in an analysis of two separate statutory 
provisions, G.L. c. 271, § 7, which generally prohibits lotteries, and G.L. c. 27], § 17, which 
prohibits anyone from registering bets or buying or selling pools, upon the result of poker hands, 
games or tournaments. By the end of the fiscal year, the advisory was complete, a[i[irovetl and 



79 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CRIMINAL. JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION 

distributed both electronically and via hard copy to police chiefs, municipal clerks, and managers 
of charities across Massachusetts. 1 he advisory is also posted on the websites of the AGO and 
the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police. 

• Twelve Cases Seeking Compensation for Erroneous Convictions CJPD actively participated 
in the discussions and drafting that led to the creation of the law providing compensation for 
persons erroneously convicted and imprisoned. Since the new law was approved in December 
2004, there have been, by the close of the fiscal year, \2 cases filed under this new cause of 
action. The Office is charged with representing the Commonwealth in these actions. The 
Criminal Justice Policy Division is intimately involved in the cases, which are being handled 
by the Trial Division. The divisions are working to establish practices and protocols for 
handling the cases, and to develop fair and consistent approaches and strategies. A division 
attorney spent considerable time acting as liaison to the District Attorneys' offices, DOC and 
the sheriffs. Parole Board and other agencies that have information and records relevant to the 
cases. The attorney also assisted in getting Trial Division attorneys authorization for access to 
CORI materials; drafting and editing motions; reviewing pleadings, case filings and letters; 
and providing considerable strategic assistance, backgroimd information and help to the Trial 
Division. 

• DiGiambattista Afniciis A CJPD attorney reviewed the issues surrounding the question 
of whether the SJC should rec]uire the videotaping of all interrogations in places of detention, 
and gave advice and assistance to the Appeals [division on the amicus brief. During the fiscal 
year, the SJC decided the cases. 

• Sportsmanship Alliance of Massachusetts (SAM) CJPD's primary function is policy, not 
programs. Notwithstanding, from time 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. An example of this is SAM, formerly the 
Massachusetts Alliance for the Promotion of Sportsmanship. SAM, which is comprised of 
representatives from the Commonwealths professional sports teams (Bruins/hockey; Celtics/ 
basketball; Patriots/football; Red Sox, baseball; Revolution, soccer; and Cannons/lacrosse), the 
Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA), Northeastern's Center for the Study 
of Sport in Society, and law enforcement, meets regularly to strategize on reducing sports-related 
violence and promoting sportsmanship. A CJPD attorney remained active with the group 
throughout Fiscal Year 2005. 



80 



CRIMINAL BIREAU CRIMINAL U STICK l>^)UC^ DIVISION 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND IIUININC; 

Anorher core function of CJPn is to educate and inform on issues of importance to the criminal 
justice community. Iliis is accomplished in three distinct ways: 1 ) through pubhcation of tlie C.riniiiial 
Juitice News ((-JN)\ 2) through formal educational training; and 3) through intonnal edueatioiial 
training. 

In Fiscal Year 2()()S, the division produced a special four-page (JN issue informing the 
Commonwealth's police chiefs and sheriffs of new criminal justice laws enacted in Massachii.setts 
from January 1, 2003 to January 15, 200S. The special issue fulfilled the A(iC) mandate under 
G.I.. c. 12, §6A, to provicie this information to the state's police chiefs and sheriffs. In addition, this issue 
of (JN WAS also distributed to the Criminal History Systems Board, legislative committees, the states 
harbormasters, Superior Court administrators, the District Court administrative office, and Regional 
Administrative judges. All CJPD members played a role in producing the special issue, which is posted 
on the Office of the Attorney (ieneral and the (Criminal History Systems Board Web sites. 

The four attorneys in (]JPD are experienced prosecutors, with both trial and appellate backgrounds. 
They are frequently invited to serve as faculty/staff for hirmal training programs. These trainings 
afford CJPD lawyers the opportunity to share their expertise with other criminal justice professionals. 
Significant Fiscd Year 2005 trainings in which CJPD staff participated as faculty/staff included: 

• AGO/MDAA Criminal Rules Training Croup; 

• NAAG Trial Advocacy Training; 

• Ohio Attorney General's Office Trial Advocacy Training; 

• Suffolk District Attorney's Office; 

• Plymouth District Attorney's Office; 

• Massachusetts (Continuing Legal Kducation, Inc.; 

• Flaschner Judicial Institute; 

• Suffolk University Law School Center for Advanced Legal Studies; 

• Boston Bar Association; 

• AG Institute; 

• Citizen Schools Program to help 8'"' grade students improve writing skills and get into the high 
school of their choice 

81 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION 

• C^onimonwealths C^riminal Justice Researchers; 

• Annual Prosecutors' Conference. 

In addition to the more formal educational assistance and training, CJPD attorneys routinely receive 
an array of other ret]uests for information and guidance from professionals throughout the criminal justice 
community. Without giving formal legal opinions, division memliers provided objective guidance and 
assistance. A significant part of every work week in Fiscal Year 2005 was spent providing this service 
to law enforcement officials and others within the criminal justice network. Particular assistance was 
provideti to the Criminal History Systems Board, the Department of Youth Services, the Massachusetts 
District Attorneys Association, Massachusetts District Attorneys" Offices, the Massachusetts Chiefs of 
Police Association, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the Municipal Police Iraining 
(Committee, and Attorney Ceneral Offices in other states. 

Informal guidance covered a broad variety of subjects. Examples included: 

SDP/SEX OFFENDERS 

• sexually dangerous person cases; 

• whether SDP proceedings can be brought against one who has not been convicted of a sex crime 
but who engaged in deviant sexual behavior in prison; 

• procedures when a person is held on bail during pending SDP proceedings; and 

• rights of Level 1 sex offenders. 

iuvenii.es 

• juvenile continued custody matters; 

• whether juveniles can plead guilty before the District Attorney can obtain a youthful offender 
indictment; and 

• issues concerning juveniles charged with murder. 
CORI 

• implications of CORI in civil litigation; and 

• work with CHSB subcommittees and focus groups on drafting CORI regulations. 
RULES CHANGES 

• new Criminal Rules amendments and standing orders. 



CRIMINAl^ BL'REAU CRIMINAL II'SIKL I'OUCV HU'ISION 

DNA 

• obtaining a DNA sample in a criminal case from a third part}'; and 

• I")NA database statute ch.illenge. 
OTHER 

• evidentiary post-conviction hearings; 

• drafting AGO comments to proposed criminal case time standards; 

• whether CWOHs can be ordered over the Commonwealths objection; 

• torfeitmes and motions tor return of property; 

• law enh)rcement privileges; 

• First Amendment implications of faith-based DOC] re-entry programs; 

• McGoniglc v. Middlesex Retirement Board amicus brief; 

• draft guidelines for the conduct of electronically recorded interrogations; 

• a defendant's ability to access police Internal Affairs Division files; 

• whether the SJC should retain the Hallet rule on revival of waived claims; 

• court orders for prosecutors to produce things not within their custody and control; 

• whether local police employees are under the direction and control of the I^A; 

• procedures when a state agency attorney is subpoenaed to grand jury; 

• school drug testing with parental permission; 

• impaired driving crash reduction in Massachusetts; 

• issues relating to the legal and practical impact of the Supreme Court decision in Crawford \. 
Washington; and 

• whether retirement boards can obtain sealed records to determine whether to disc]ualify a 
pension. 



83 



c:RIMINAL BURtAU VICTIM C:OMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

The Victim CompL-nsation and Assistance Division provides financial compensation, referrals and 
other assistance to victims oi violent crimes. Most significantly, it assists eligible 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 making determinations on all compensation claims in 
accordance with the rec]uirements of G.L. c. 258C. Previously, compensation claims were determined 
through a litigation-based process in the district courts. In addition, since 2002, the Office of the 
Attorney General assumed responsibility for payment of claims, taking over that responsibility from 
the State Treasiners Office. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the clivision continued to have staff turnover but by the end of the fiscal year, 
the division was fully staffed. New fiscal year 2005 hires included Investigator/Advocates Christopher 
Shen, Robert Black and Megan Foster and Advocate/Outreach Coordinator Cadyflor Nicolas-St. Clair. 
Investigator/Advocate Lama Michalski left the office in October, 2004. Other division staff included 
Director Deborah Fogarty, Deputy Director Sandra Clark and Division secretary Erica Johnson. The 
division operated with only two investigators for the first quarter of 2005, had three investigators for 
three months, and was finally fully staffed by March 2005 and continued to be fully staffed through the 
end of the fiscal year. One significant activity that occurred during this fiscal year was the temporary 
relocation of the division into the Saltonstall Building in March while renovations were completed 
on the 19''' floor in Ashburton. Preparations for the move included archiving several years of Victim 
Compensation files due to limited space in the Saltonstall quarters. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

CLAIM INFORMATION TOTAL # CLAIMS 

New Claims Received 1 ,247 

New Claims Opened 2,263 

Supplemental Claims Opened 824 

Administrative Review 74 



84 



CRIMINAL Bl'RFAl' \ ICI IM COMPIA'SATION AND ASSISTANCI. |)I\'ISI(>N 

Decisii)!! AfHrnicd 62 

Modified or Reversed 11 

Pending Decision 1 

Judicial Review 4 

Homicide C^laims 210 

Domestic Violence 187 

DUl/MVH-DUI 34 

In fiscal year 2005, the Victim Compensation and Assistance Division received 1,247 new claims. 
This represents a slight decrease from the 1 ,277 new claims received in Fiscal Year 2004. During Fiscal 
Year 2005, the division received 210 homicide claims representing an increase from the 195 claims 
received in Fiscal Year 2004. This figure includes 6 homicides related to domestic violence. 7 he division 
received 1 87 claims for other domestic violence related crimes that include assault, stalking, sexual assault 
and kidnapping. The division continued to work on claims submitted by family members of victims 
of the September 1 1, 2001 attacks and awarded $8,826.00 on 6 claims in Fiscal Year 2005. One new 
claim from a September 1 1 family member was received. 

EXPENDITURES 

During this fisciil year, the totiil compensation awarded to victims w;is $3, 1 64,57 1 .50. Approximately 
$2. 1 million came from state funds, and the remainder from federal funds. This represents an increase 
in awards of approximately 14% over Fiscal Year 2004 awards. This is the tenth consecutive year in 
which the division had adequate funding to support expenditures. 

PROGRAM EVALUATION 

An applicant survey is sent to each claimant with award letters. Ihe division received 433 completed 
surveys from claimants. Ihe surveys were overwhelmingly positive, with approximate!)' 86% of 
claimants agreeing or strongly agreeing that the application was easy to complete, the letters were ea.sy 



85 



CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

to uiidc-istand, they were treated respectkilly by division staff, their plione calls were returned promptly, 
and they were satisfied with the amount of time it took to process their claim. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The division received a continuation grant from the Executive Office of Public Safety through the 
Department t)f Justice, Violence Against Women Act fimds for Federal Fiscal Year 2004 in the amount 
of $41,483.54. The amoimt reflected an 1 1% decrease in funding as the overall VAWA funding for 
Massachusetts was cut. The VAWA funding allowed the division to continue the Specialized Investigator/ 
Advocate position currently staffed by Elizabeth Desmond who provides specialized services to domestic 
violence, sexual assault and stalking victims who seek compensation and services from the division. 
Federal Fiscal Year 200S is a competitive grant year for VAWA funding. The division submitted an 
application for Federal Fiscal Year 2005 funding on June 30, 2005 for $41,483.54. The division 
applied for and was awarded an annual grant for Federal Fiscal Year 2005 from the Department of 
Justice through Victims of Crime Act Funds (VOCA) in the amount of $1,312,000. This represents 
60% of the total state appropriation paid out in the prior fiscal year and is a decrease over the prior 
VOCA grant amount of $1,520,000. 

FEDERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

The division submitted its annual Certification Report, Annual Performance Report, and aJl quarterly 
financial reports to the Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime for the Victims of Crime 
Act. In addition, quarterly reports were submitted to the Executive Office of Public Safety 

AUTOMATION 

The division continued to work with the Genoa Group in Colorado to trouble shoot problems with 
the victim compensation software (CCVC). A new update for the database was installed in February 
that included enhanced reporting capabilities and a compacting feature to minimize problems as the 
database grows in size. Overall the staff is pleased with the ease and efficiency of the program. 



86 



CRIMINAL Bl'RFAl' ViCTTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

DIVISION MATERIALS 

For the fourth consecutive year, in recognition of Victim Riglits Week, division staff developed a 
new calendar using arr\vork created hy the art students at the Paul Mclaughlin Youth ("enter. The 
calendar is included in the materials distributed by division staff at all training events, and is distributed 
at the\'ictim Rights conference held in April. 

Usifig hmding available in the VOC^A grant, the division reprinted small "palm" cards that contain 
information about the Victim Compensation program. The cards include division contact information 
as well as the Domestic Violence Safelink 24 Hour Hotline number. There have been several requests 
from police departments tor the cards so that they can be made available to police officers to give to 
victims at first response. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Outreach and training about the program and its benefits continued to be a major focus for Fiscal 
Year 2005. Gadyflor Nicolas-St.Clair provided outreach to hospitals, dentists, funeral directors, and 
many victim service providers to inform them of the program. Victim Compensation training was 
provided to: 

• Probation Officers from across the state at a statewide probation training; 

• Children's Hospital Child Protection Team, Taunton State Hospital, Whittier Rehabilitation 
Hospital, Brockton Hospital; 

• Administrators ofVOCA Funded Program and Drunk Driving Trust Fund programs sponsored 
by the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance; 

• SAFEPLAN domestic violence advocates in Northampton, Gardner and Worcester; 

• Northeastern Universit}' Domestic Violence Law Clinic and the International Institute; 

• Norfolk District Attorney's Office, Hampden District Attorney's Office, Brockton Family and 
ComiTiunity Resources, Lowell Mental Health Association, YWCA of Cireater Lawrence, Casa 
Myrna, Independence House, North Shore Rape Crisis Center, Lynn Senior Services, REACH 
Battered Women's Services, Criminal History Systems Board, Boston Area Sexual Assault 
Coalition. 

• Office of the Attorney CJeneral's Intern Orientation Program 



87 



c:riminal bureau financial investigations division 

Division statt also represented the Attorney General at a number ot committee meetings throughout 
FiscalYear 2()()5. These included: 

• Executive Otfice of Public Safety VAWA Advisory Committee; 

• Norfolk DA's Children's Advocacy Advisory Board; 

• MOVA Victim Witness Assistance Board; 

• MOVA Victim Rights Legislation Working Croup; 

• MOVA Victim Rights Planning Committee. 

Division staff participated on the Offices Employee Benefits Committee, the Diversity Committee, 
and in the tiuoring program at the Paul McLaughlin Center. 

Division staff attended the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards annual 
conference in Charleston, SC and the regional conference in Atlantic City, NJ, the Massachusetts 
District Attorneys' Association Training for Experienced/Advanced Advocacy, AG Institute presentations, 
Suffolk County Child Advocacy Center presentations, and the National Conference on Child Abuse 
and Neglect. 

FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

The Financial Investigation 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 larcetiy, identity theft, public corruption, securities fraud, tax fraud and 
all other white-collar frauds, which 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 Investigation Division work as part of the 
Bureau's team approach to criminal investigative work. Division members become involved in matters 
at the start of investigation and work closely throughout with Criminal Bureau prosecutors and also 
Massachusetts State Police assigned to the bureau's Criminal Investigation Division. 

Investigators may also 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 of Revenue (GIB), Department of Education (DOE), Office of the State Auditor 
(OSA), and Securities Division of the Secretary of State's Office (SOS). 



«8 



CRIMINAL BUREAL' FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

As part of tlie investigation and [iroscciition team, division investigators assist in the design and 
implementation of an investigative plan for each investigation. I he planning requires that eaeli member 
of the division understand the nature of the allegation, elements ot the crime .uul evidence recjuired to 
prove the matter at trial. 

Criminal Bureau investigations involve prolific documentary evidence and require division 
investigators to perform extensive examination and analysis of business, personal and financial records 
to tlocimient the illegal activities of the white-collar criminal. Additionalh', division investigators 
conduct interviews of victims, witnesses and targets, and provide summary 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 aiul profile potential 
subjects of criminal investigations. 

The majority of the division's investigative assignments come from the bureau's Corruption Fraud 
& Computer Crimes Division. The division works closely with the Chief of the Corruption Fraud & 
Computer Crimes 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 2005 the division also committed investigative resources to the Public Protection 
Bureau in connection with an investigation into retail profiling. Since the divisions formation in 1995, 
it has ;ilso performed investigative assignments for the bureau's Environmental Crimes Strike Force, 
Appellate Division and Special Investigations and Narcotics Division. 

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



89 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

Division members served as Commonwealth simimary witnesses in the grand jury for a number of 
matters indicted during tiie year. Additionally, division members were scheduled to serve as summary 
witnesses at trial h)r matters that reached a final disposition as a result oi guilty pleas. The division 
requesting Financial Investigation Division involvement in each matter was the Corruption Fraud & 
(_^omputer Crimes Division and more specific information about each of these matters can be found by 
referring to the Corruption, Fraud, and (]ompiuer C^rimes Division's section in the bureau's report. A 
statistical summary ol matters investigated by the Financial Investigation Division immediately follows 
the highlighted case listings. 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 HIGHLIGHTED CASES 
Matter indicted with multiple victims: 

• Commonwealth v. Michael Abbot 

This group ot indicted matters involved employee embezzlement: 

• Commonwealth v. Jodie Walsh 

• Commonwealth v. Patrick Bauer 

• Commonwealth v. Janin Otero 

• Commonwealth v. Kinh-Luan Dao 

• Commonwealth v. loan Pierce 

This group of indicted matters involved procurement fraud: 

• Commonwealth v. Dalvia Pena 

• Commonwealth v. Phyllis Tripp e 



90 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

riiis group of indictfd in.ittcrs iinolvcil cliciiis' tuiuls or fiducial}' emhczzlcnicnt: 

• Commonwealth v. Brian Chance 

• Commonweahh v. Edward O'Connell 

• Commonwealth v. Daniel Hurley 
riiis indicted matter involved identity theft: 

• Commonwealth V. Jennifer Wood 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
REFERRING SOURCE NUMBER OF CASES 

Matters screened and evaluated tor investigation 306 

Matters referred by Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crimes 

Division to Financial Investigation Division for formal investigation 64 

TOTAL 370 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

I he division also performs many administrative duties tor the bureau with respect to cars, seized 
evidence and the spending ot forfeited funds. The division is responsible tor all bureau cars - the 
assignment, reporting, and maintenance. Ihe division maintains a log of all monies seized by the 
State Police in association with any arrest. The seized monies are kept in safety deposit boxes and the 
contents are inventoried on a quarterly basis by division staff Addition;illy, the division prepares an 
accounting of all funds forfeited through the Special Investigations and Narcotics Division, which 
are subsequently disbursed in accordance with the Commonwealth's forfeiture laws. Ihe accounting 
system is designed as a management tool for the bureau, not only to retrospectively track spending but 
also to project future needs. 



91 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

The division also works with State Pohce command to assist with background and warrant cliecks 
and N(]K^ intjuiries. 

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

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

The staff is also an integral part of the bureau's outreach to referral agencies, maintaining contact 
with the BBO's Senior Financial Investigator and CIB's Chief Investigator to update 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 Crimes Division. Our outreach efforts are designed to 
complement those of the Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crimes Division Chief Outreach efforts 
include internal c]uarterly meetings with Public Protection Bureau representatives to monitor progress 
on cases referred between the two bureaus. 

Division members maintain memberships in many external organizations including the Boston 
Clearing House Association-Check fraud Subcommittee (Boston Clearing House), High Tech Crime 
Investigators Association (HTCIA), International Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (CFE), 
International Association of Financial Crimes Investigators (lAFCI), New England Electronic Crimes Task 
Force (NET), North East Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (NEMLEC), and the Interjiational 
Association of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analysts (lALEIA). 

Internally, division members are members of the Attorney General's Benefits Committee, Elder Task 
Force, Office- Wide Health Care Committee, Public Records Office, and have volunteered as tutors at 
the Paul Mclaughlin Center. Division members have also participated in the Citizens' School Project 
and allowed students to observe them as they work as part of the Safe Neighborhood Initiative's yr;/? 

Shadow Program. 

One member of the division is the Attorney General's liaison with the National White Collar 
Crime Committee {NW3C) and as a direct result of her efforts the Attorney Generals Office hosted an 
N W3C-taught course entitled, Financial Records and Evidence Analysis in January 2004 and will again 
host (October 2005) the NW3Crs White Collar Crime and Terrorism course. 



92 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTICATIONS DIVISKIN 

As part of the Attorney Cicneral Insritutc (AC, Iiistituit.), di\isi()n mcmbcis h.nc [iri.p.ir(.xl ami 
taiiglu training sessions to tlicir colleagues, as well as personnel from outside referral agencies and 
groups such AS Anon liiintiginnrs AssociiUioii, Boston ('hiiptcr of the Intern(itio>itil Association of Certified 
Fraud Examiners, Boston Clearing House, Norfolk (.ount)' Sheriff s Community Outreach Program and the 
Southeastern Massachusetts Fraud Investigators Associatio)i. 

Presentations includeil: 

Asset Search Training 
f^inancial lnvestigati\e lechniqiies 

Bank Information: I low to Ciet it and What it Tells you 
Interview and Report Writing I'echniques 

Investigating and Preparing an Elder Financial Exploitation Case 
Investigative Resource Sites on the Internet 
Financial Investigation Division Structure & Operation 
During Fiscal Year 2005 division members attended the following AC Institute trainings: 

LEAPS Re-certijication Training, July 2004 

Hany Farid: Computer (Generated Images, August 2004 

Rules of Criminal Procedure, August & September 2004 

Stop Handgun Violence, October 2004 

Staged Motor Vehicle Accidents, November 2004 

On Apology Lecture, June 2005 

Extended Managers' Retreat, June 2005 



93 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFF NEICHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

Division members attL'iidcd a number oi external training sessions throughout the year 
including: 

• C^hoicePoint Autotrack XP I'miiii)ig, August 2004 

• H rCIA: Periodic Training, September & November 2004, May 2005 

• lAFCl: Periodic Trainings, October 2004, February, April & May 2005 

• Kroll Risk Associates: Suspicious Activit)' Reports, November 2004 

• NE'l': Identity Management, January 2005 

• NET: Information Security/, March 2005 

• N W3C: ID Theft and Money laundering. May 2005 

The division's intern program seeks to provide a valuable one semester training experience for 
interested students who have a background in accounting, finance, business law or criminal justice. 
Through the efforts of our intern coordinator, the division has been provided with a steady stream of 
talented interns from graduate and luulergraduate programs throughout New England. 

As a ciirecf result of their volimteer experience with the division's program, Financial Investigation 
Division interns have accepted jobs with Hewlett Packard C'orporation, John Hancock Life Insurance 
Company, Suffolk County District Attorney's Office and the Office of the Attorney Ceneral. 

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 fliced by a communit)', the SNI provided a framework for community 
residents and service providers to work collaboratively 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 Commonwealth — each using a 
somewhat different approach. Some are law enforcement-driven while others are comnumir\-ciriven, 
but all are organized aroimd the three core principles of coordinated law enhircement; neighborhood 
revitali/.ation; and prevention, intervention, and treatment. During Fiscal Year 2005, the Office of 
the Attorney Ceneral participated in active SNI partnerships in launton, Brockton, Orange, and 
in the Cirove Hall and Dorchester neighborhoods of Boston. Additionally, the AGO supported and 



94 



C:R1M I NAL BUREAU SAIH NlilC^l IIU )KI U H)l) INMTIATIXi: OniSlON 

participated in fetlcrally recognized "Weed & Seed" partnerships in lawrence and Methuen. In adtliiion 
to maintaining these various on-going partnersliips, the SNI Division engages in a number ot innovative 
comnumity-based activities to prevent crime and promote piibMc safety, some of whidi are described 
in the sections behnv. 

At tile beginning of Fiscal Year 2005, division staff inckided Disision Director Hlleii Frank; AACis 
Jennifer Adreani; Linda DelCastilho; Katherine Hatch; ('heryl ()'( A)nnelh and Neil I'asseh and programs 
staffJenniferCrigoraitisand Lenell Silva. There was transition in tlicchvision thiswar as AAC is Adreani 
and OConnell left SNI and joined tlie Special Investigations and Narcotics Division of the Oiminal 
Bureau in January and February, respectively, and AAG Tassel and Lenell Silva, left the Office in the 
spring. New additions to SNI staff this year included AAGs Denise Duran (Lawrence District (Jourt) 
and Joseph Janezic (Roxbury District C'ourt) as well as programs coordinator Amanda Halpern. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

Commiuiity prosecution is critical to the coorcJinated law enforcement component of the SNI 
model. As a result of the close and ongoing work with community partners, the Assistant Attorneys 
General assigned to the 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 communit)- involvement, the SNI 
prosecutors have greater insight into issues of importance to the community and help determine how 
resources from the Attorney General's Office, local District Attorney's Offices and other agencies are best 
utilized to address those concerns. The Superior Gourt Assistant Attorneys General for the Dorchester 
and Grove Hall SNIs prosecute major felonies consisting primarily of serious drug offenses, large-scale 
drug seizures, armed robberies and assaults, 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 c]uality-of-life offenses that are priorities for 
the respective communities. I he District Court prosecutor for Orange prosecutes all [district C^oiut 
cases arising from the Town of Orange as well as other cases in the Orange District C-ourt jurisdiction 
involving defendants from Orange. Summaries included below are examples of typical cases handled 
by SNI prosecutors. 



95 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEICiMBORHDOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. Flavio Dejesus Gabriel (Lawrence District Court) On March 14, 
2005, Lawrence police officers observed a vehicle with a driver and a passenger circle the block 
five or six times and observed the car pull over at several times at public telephones with one of 
the individuals having short conversations on these telephones. Aher 70 minutes, the vehicle 
parked on Greenwood Street. The defendant walked directly to the car, made a hand-to-hand 
transaction with one of the individuals and the car drove off Officers stopped the car and 
confirmed that a drug transaction had taken place. Officers subsequently approached the 
defendant and observed him trying to swallow the drugs. The defendant Bed with officers 
pinsuing him on foot. During the chase, the defendant discarded his jacket, which was found 
to contain $40. On June 20, 2005, the defendant pleaded guilty in Lawrence District Court 
to Distribution of Class B. He was also violated on probation as this event occurred just two 
weeks after he'd been placed on probation for non-drug-related offenses. The defendant was 
sentenced to nine months in the House of Correction. 

• Commonwealth v. Scott Hamburg er (BMC, Roxbury Division) The defendant owns 
a communications store where in addition to beepers and cell phones, he sold pirated CDs, 
DVDs, pellet and BB guns, throwing stars, brass knuckles, and double-edged knives. Police 
were alerted to the store after a school police officer noticed several youth with realistic-looking 
pellet guns in their possession and students indicated where they had purchased them. An 
imdercover investigation ensued. The defendant pleaded guilty and his coimsel recommended 
that he receive a continuance without a finding for six months based primarily on his limited 
record. The Commonwealth's reconmiendation — based in part on the significant impact the 
defendant's crimes (those related to weapons sales) had on a community already plagued with 
violence — was: ( 1 ) on the two counts of carrying a dangerous weapon and one count of selling a 
double-edged knife: 6 months in the House of Correction suspended for one year; and (2) on one 
count of possession of chemical mace and two counts of unauthorized recording of copyrighted 
material, one count of distribution of a counterfeit mark: 18 mos. probation. The court 
adopted the Commonwealth's recommendation. Terms of the defendant's probation included 
his attendance at the Mother's Day Walk for Peace. He was also prohibited from possession or 
sale of any weapon prohibited under c. 269, § 10 (b), any pellet or BB gun, or any counterfeit 
C]D/DVD and/or any CD/DVD not purchased from an authorized distributor. Furthermore, 
he was ordered to pay restitution of $3,105 to the Recording Industry of America. 

• Commonwealth v. Aloysius Walker (Orange District Court) In June 2005, the defendant 
attacked his girlfriend with a blunt metal object and strangled her while her two children heard 
what was occurring. The defendant then Hed in his girlfriend's car. Two days later, he called 



96 



CRIMINAL BlRIAl' SAFE NEIGHBORHOOI:) INIIIAI I\Tl DIMSION 

her leaving a voiceniail thieatenint; to (iut her in a creinatoriuni or (imeial home the next time 
she saw her because he'll have a gun with him. He was arrested and cliarged with attempted 
murder and vicilarion of a 209a. The defendant was indicted on these charges and is being lield 
pending trial. 

• Commonwealth v. Juan Torres (SiiHolk Superior Cxiurt) In May 2003, the police first 
noticed the defendant driving a car erratically and failing to obey traffic laws. When the police 
tried to stop him, the defendant caused a car accidental injuring several individuals ami causing 
significant property damage. The defendant jumped out of the vehicle and ran into a residence. 
The police eventually found him hiding in a closet sitting on top of a large amount of gold 
jewelry. Upon being interviewed by the detective, the defendant admitted he had broken into 
two homes in order to steal valuables to support his drug habit. The defendant had a long record 
of Breaking and Entering charges and was indicted on two counts of Breaking and Entering 
as a habitual offender. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 7-9 years in state 
prison with 3 years probation from and after. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

BROCKTON SNI 

Throughout most of Fiscal Year 2005, the Attorney General's (Office supported the position of the 
SNI Community Liaison who was based in the Plymouth County District Attorney's Office and worked 
closely with that office, with the other principal partners from the Ciry of Brockton and the Brockton 
Police Department as well as with community residents and service providers. With the departure of 
the SNI Conimunit)' Liaison, the Attorney Generals' Office and the Plymouth County District Attorney 
are reassessing the best use of the Office of the Attorney General's resources to the SNI partnership. 
This reassessment notwithstanding, the Brockton SNI Advisory Coimcii continued to meet monthly 
to discuss community concerns primarily related to crime and public safety. During Fiscal Year 2005, 
the Brockton SNI collaborated with community service providers and public agencies on a number of 
initiatives rvvo of which are listed below. 

• Vacant Lot/Neighborhood Clean-Ups: This initiative is a partnership among the Plymouth 
County District Attorney's Office, the Mayor's Office, the Office of Community Corrections, 
and the Department of Public Works. The purpose of the project is to provide commimity 
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. 



97 



CRIMINAL. BUREAU SAFE NEIc;HB()RH( )OD INITIATIVE [)IVISK)N 

• 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 oLiligations to maintain the safety of their properties. The SNI Community 
Liaison works with the District Attorneys Office on this initiative and is responsible for 
implementing the system for notifications. 

DORCHESTER SNI 

The Dorchester SNI Advisory Council continued to meet the fourth Tuesday evening of each month 
to identify and address the most pressing public safety and quality-of-life issues including many that 
have consistently plagued the community (e.g., 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 service providers focused on providing after-school 
programming offering recreational, educational, and job training programs. In February, the Office 
of the Attorney Cjeneral and the SNI partner agencies hosted a community forum with Boston Police 
Commissioner OToole, with over 75 Dorchester SNI area residents and service providers in attendance. 
Additionally, SNI programs staff formalized a relationship with Community Links, an initiative focused 
on addressing resident concerns in sections of the SNI target area, in order to share resources and avoid 
duplication of efforts. 

In order to bolster the capacity of community agencies to address these issues, the Office of the 
Attorney Ceneral allocated $198,571 of its Fiscal Year 2005 budget to eight community-based agencies, 
the Bowdoin/Ceneva Re-Entry Project, and the Boston Police Department for crime prevention 
initiatives in the SNI target area. An additiouiil $20,000 from the Offices budget was allocated to provide 
funding to new Dorchester SNI partner agencies serving the target area through a competitive RFP 
process. The SNI Division and Dorchester SNI partners implemented the third year of the Dorchester 
Youth and Family Project with $166,667 in Byrne Memorial Crant funds from the Executive Office 
of Public Safety and with partners contributing an equal amount for the required hard-cash match. 
The Dorcl.it'ster Youth ivid Family Project is described in greater detail in the "Byrne Memorial Crants" 
section later in this report. Additionally, to bolster prosecution capacity, a full-time very experienced 
Assistant Attorney Ceneral was assigned to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office to work with 
that office and [larticularly with the Drug Control Unit of Boston Police Department, Area C-1 1, to 
provide guidance on investigations and prosecute significant drug cases from the target area. 

The SNI Division, with assistance from the Diversity Committee, planned and hosted a job-shadow 
day for teens from the leen Center at St. Peter's, a SNI partner agency. Fourteen teens from the SNI 
target area spent a school vacation day at the Office of the Attorney Ceneral shadowing and interacting 
with staff from all five bureaus and the State Police Unit representing diverse functions in the Office. 



98 



CRIMINAL BLlRUAli SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATI\'i: DIVISION 

All Attoinc)' ( it-iifial was assigned to the Siittolk ( "ounty 1 )istiici AttoriK-)'s Otlief until li is cl(.[iaitn re- 
in April after thirteen years" service at the Attorney Generals Office. The AACI handleil nunurous cases 
(e.g., armed rohbery, drug cases) arising out of the target area bound for Superior (lourt. He handled 
the prosecution of these cases and also worked closely with the officers of Boston Police Department, 
Area C--I1 (particularly the Diug (Control Unit) on numerous cases, advising them on kg.il issues 
through the investigation and charging phases. 

GROVE HALL SNI 

In October 2004, the Grove Hall Safe Neighborhood Initiative began its eighth 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 Attorne\' Cieneral's C^ffice, 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 Ireatment. The Attorney General provides in-kincf 
grants administration and management for the Weed & Seed funds but sub-contracts all funding to the 
Boston Police Department and other community-based agencies serving the target area. Also this year, 
on behalf of the Grove Hall SNI/Boston Weed and Seed Sire, the Attorney Cieneral's Office applied for 
and was awarded an additional $50, 000. Ihese funds originate from HUD, are administered through 
the Department of Justice and are designated to addre.ss violent crime and drugs in federally-assisted 
housing. The Cirove Hall SNI/Boston Weed and Seed Site earmarked these funds to pay for increased 
law enforcement and coordination activities and community organizing and outreach to engage 
residents in improving public safety at several multi-unit housing units that are locations for some 
the most challenging criminal activity in the target area. I he effort is called the Multi-LJnit Housing 
Initiative. 

This year, as in every year, the Grove Hall SNI/Boston Weed and Seed Site held seven Coordinating 
Council meetings and five commimity meetings that were attended by dozens of community residents in 
addition to representatives from law enforcement and pro.sccution, city and local government agencies, 
district court, service providers, and faith based organization. In addition to these regular meetings, one or 
the other of the Grove Hall SNI AAGs regularly participated in the bi-weekly Boston Police Department's 
Street Violence Suppression meetings, the monthly North Shore Gang Intelligence meetings; and the 
monthly meetings in Roxbury C'ourt to address issues related to prostitution/johns. 

ORANGE SNI 

The Orange SNI is a collaboration of the Attorney Generals Office and the Northwestern District 
Attorneys Office, with the Town of Orange, the Orange Police Department, community residents, 
educators, government agencies, and service providers. TheOrangeSNI Advisory Coimcil met the third 



99 



CRIMINAL BL'REAll SAFK NEICHIUIRI U)Ot) INH lATIVE DIVISION 

Tuesday ot eacli month and continued working toward identifying priority public safety and quality- 
of-life issues. In the hill oi this year, a representative of the Northwestern Coimties District Attorney's 
Office and a community representative began serving as co-chairs of the Orange SNI. Among this 
year's activities, several SNI partners joined forces to sponsor an educational workshop on child abuse 
prevention. Efforts were also begun to provide and hang numbering for all houses in the town. 

The Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Orange District C.ourt prosecuted 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 involved offenses including domestic violence and other 
assaults, breaking and entering, and substance abuse involving both dcohol and narcotics. 

TAUNTON SNI 

The launton SNI continued to focus on law enforcement, prevention, and neighborhood restoration 
through the activities of its sub-committees and collateral activities (i.e.. Criminal Justice, Treatment 
and Prevention, Education, Neighborhood, Crisis Intervention Team, and a Communif)' Crisis Spiritual 
Care Response Team). The City of Taunton plays the primary leadership role for the Taimton SNI. 
SNI Division staff participated in monthly advisory council meetings and provided techniciil assistance 
to partner agencies as needed. 

DuringFiscal Year 2005, the launton SNI continued its focus on public safety concerns at the Fairf.ux 
Gardens housing development (i.e., violence, drugs, lack of youth programming). In connection with 
the Taunton SNI focus, steps were taken to address these concerns including the hiring of a full-time 
on-site manager and a social services coordinator to implement youth activities and the creation of a 
partnership between the Taunton Boys & Girls Club and the regional transit authority to provide free 
transportation and programming for youth residents of Fairfax Gardens. Additionally, SNI Jobs for 
Youth funds were used to employ three Taunton youth at the Boys & Girls Club and rwo at the Fairfiix 
Gardens Community Center. 

LAWRENCE AND METHUEN WEED AND SEED SITES 

SNI programs staff represented the Attorney General on the steering committees of both the Lawrence 
and Methuen Weed and Seed sites, each in its fourth year as an officially recognized Weed and Seed 
site as designated by the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Weed and Seed. Moreover, 
the Office of the Attorney General supports the Lawrence and Methuen Weed & Seed efforts through 
the provision of the Lniorence/Methuen Arlington Safe Neighborhood I)iitintii't' Cowniiiiiit)' Prosecutor as 
described in the "Byrne Memorial Grants" section later in this report. 



1 00 



CRIMINAL BURtAU SAFE NEICI IBORIIOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

SNI lOBS FOR YOUTH 

One of the major SNI Division efforts aimed at prevention and intervention is the SNI Jobs for 
Youth Program. The program, which started in 1996, has grown from employing 23 youth in five 
communities in that year to employing more than 90 young people in iwlKc communities throughout 
the state in Fiscal Year 2005. l^his year, the SNI Division held a competitive RFP process in the three 
Jobs h)r Youth communities of Brockton, New Bedford, and Worcester. Tlie RFP was announced in 
the local papers and the existing sites were invited to apply. A new site was .selected for Worcester; the 
Brockton atul New Bedford sires remain the same as in previous w.irs. All SNI |obs for Youth sites 
offer job opportunities throughout the school year, as well as a variety of workshops and enrichment 
activities such as mock interviews, resume writing, and community service projects. Each site is briefly 
described below. 

• Boston: Nineteen youth from Grove Hall and Dorchester SNI target areas were employed 
through the City of Boston's Centers tor Youth and Families. Ihe goal is to provide employment 
opportunities, hands-on training, safe-havens and adult support. Partnering with local businesses 
and agencies, Boston Centers for Youth and Families placed young people in a variety of 
positions, enabling them to learn skills related to entrepreneurship, leadership, and civic duty. 
Placements included local community centers, private businesses, and neighborhood social 
services agencies. 

• Brockton: The Old Colony YMCA in Brockton just completed its ninth year as a JOBS 
FOR YOUTH site. The program serves teens in the Brockton area who reside in the SNI 
target area and are enrolled in school or another educational program. The program's goal is 
to provide job opportunities, educational trainings, and recreational activities. This year the 
five teens, ages 15-16, worked as program and child-care assistants at YMCA facilities. 

• Chelsea: This year marked the City of Chelsea's ninth year as a JOBS FOR YOUTH site. 
This Fiscal Year, the program provided positions for six teens at the Chelsea Public library 
and for one teen at Chelsea Community Cable Television. The teens also received training on 
resume writing and interviewing skills and planned a year-end group activity with their htmilies 
and supervisors. 



101 



i:RIMINAL B11RF.au safe neighborhood INITIATIX'E F)I\ISI0N 

• Holyoke: Holyokc's JOBS FOR YOU FH program was administered by the Teen Resource 
Project, which serves youth hom low-income neighborhoods, particularly in downtown Fiolyoke. 
The program reinforces literacy skills, education, and responsible work behavior. Over the course 
of the year six Holyoke youth, ages 13-15, worked as youth readers and child care assistants at a 
local family shelter. In addition to reading to the children, the teens provided on-site homework 
help and recreational activities and organized a holiday celebration for the shelter's residents. 

• Methuen: Five youth, ages 15-17, participated in the Methuen Jobs for Youth program. All 
the teens were residents of the Methuen Weed & Seed target area and worked at the Methuen 
Arlington Neighborhood, Inc., which is the safe-haven lor the Methuen Weed & Seed Site. 

1 he teens provided after-school homework assistance and activities and also received more than 
40 hours ol computer and job skills training. 

• Lawrence: Fhe Lawrence lobs h)r Youth program was administered by Lawrence Community 
Works, Inc. Eight youth, ages 16-20, served as assistant instructors in dance, computer, music, 
and drama at the Movement City after-school program. Youth stall attended weekly staff 
meetings and are involved in event planning and curriculum development. The teens also 
organized and hosted monthly Friday night Open Mic nights, which provided area youth with 
a safe and positive activity. 

• Lynn: Lynn's program was administered by the City of Lynn's Office of Economic and 
Community Development and served disadvantaged and at-risk youth. During this fiscal year, 
the program employed eight teens who worked in various positions at after-school programs 
and community arts programs. All teens took part in a week-long job training program held 
during February school vacation. 

• New Bedford: Seventeen at-risk and out-of-school New Bedford youth, ages 16-21, 
received CEl) classes, job skills training, and job placement assistance through the University 
of Massachusetts/Dartmouth Division ol Continuing Fxlucation. The goal of the program is to 
provide training and support lor youth to gain employment and to continue their educations. 
Job placements included a variety of local businesses. In November, the Attorney General visited 
the New Bedford program to meet with program participants, coordinators, and city officials 
and to present them with their Fiscal Year 2005 funding award. 

• Orange: Ihe Orange Jobs for Youth program was developed through a collaboration 
among the Town of Orange, the Franklin/F4ampshire Career Center, the Department of Social 
Services, and several community organizations. The Career Center managed the program and 



102 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

placed DSS-iiivolvecl youtli residing in the lown of Orange at worksites in town agencies and 
local noii-[irofits. Program participants also participateil in weekl)- job training and academic 
support sessions. In this fiscal \ear, eight youth partici(iateil in the program. 

• Springfield: The Springfield SNI Jobs for Youth program is administered through the ( faring 
Health Center and serves youth from low-income families. The program provides yoiiiii with 
opportunities to increase their employabiliry, self-esteetn, and knowledge and skills in the area 
of healtii promotion. Four \<)urh, ages 1 S-19, were employed as Youth Health liaisons iluring 
this fiscal year. Ihey participated in delivering health education information, including violence 
prevention, to other yoiuh at local commimity centers, and staffing the Health (xMiter's Teen 
Health Clinic. 

• Taunton: Six youth, ages 16-17, were placed through the launton Department of Human 
Services during this fiscal year. The youth were assigned to various agencies, including the Boys 
and Girls Club of Taunton, the Ciry of Taunton's Law Department, the Taunton Department 
of Human Services, and the Community Center at the Fairfax Gardens housing development. 
The program's goal is to provide employment and educational opportunities to youth to build 
skills and futiue employment capability. 

• Worcester: As of Fiscal Year 2005, the Worcester SNI Jobs for Youth program is run by 
Pride Productions, Inc., which seeks to empower at-risk youth in the Worcester area through 
the development of skills use of media and technology. A total of 24 youth, ages 14-18, from 
all six Worcester high schools, developed and produced all aspects of a cable access televisions 
how highlighting local businesses and colleges. 

On May 1 1 , 2005, approximately 100 youth, program coordinators, and emphners from all twelve 
SNI Jobs for Youth sites attended a recognition event at the Attorney General's Office. In addition to 
their achievements being recognized by the Attorney General, the purpose of the event was to provide 
program participants the opportunity to meet and speak with teens from other sites about issues related 
to work and their experiences as youth. Youth and coordinators participated in facilitated group 
discussions on these subjects. The Attorney General was able to greet the group and the First Assistant 
made formal remarks. Certificates of completion were awarded to each participant. 



103 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEKjHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

BYRNE MEMORIAL GRANTS 

• Dorchester SNI Youth and Family Project: Fiscal Year 2005 marked the third year of the 
Dvrchester Youth a)id Fdinily Project which complemented the ongoing efforts of the Dorchester 
SNI by focusing services on the diverse youth in the SNI target area. Funding supported a variety 
of programming to coordinate enrichment and recreational activities for youth. Additionally, 
Byrne funding also supported training for police officers on issues related to child witnesses 
and violence and expanding therapeutic resources for adolescent witnesses to violence. The 
sub-grantees contributed the required 50% hard-cash matching fimds for this project. In June, 
the Attorney General's Of Bee was invited to apply for a fourth and Hnal year of funding for the 
Dorchester Youth and Family Project. 

• Lawrence/Methuen Arlington Safe Neighborhood Initiative Community Prosecutor: Since 
December 2003, an Assistant Attorney General has been 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 narcotics and priority quality-of-life offenses arising from the targeted 
Arlington neighborhood that spans the cities of Lawrence and Methuen. The new AAG assigned 
as of March made strides in improving case identification and management and implementing 
a modified vertical prosecution model to enhance effective prosecution. The prosecutor also 
continued to improve coordination and communication between law enforcement and the 
community by regularly attending relevant public safety and commimit}' meetings in both 
cities (e.g., the Methuen Arlington Neighborhood, Inc. monthly meetings). The Office of the 
Attorney General contributed the required 50% hard-cash matching funds for this project. 

• SNI Community Re-Entry Project: Fiscal Year 2005 marked the fourth and final year 
of Byrne funding for the SNI Co»niiii)ilty Re-Entry Project. The project grew out of and was 
completely integrated with the efforts of the Dorchester and Grove Hall SNIs. The two project 
components were: (1) the Grove Hall component focused on juvenile offenders, l4-years-old 
to 21 -years-old, retmning to the Grove Hall neighborhood upon release from custody in a 
Department of Youth Services secure treatment facility; and (2) the Bowdoin-Geneva component 
focused on offenders, primarily 17-years-old to 24-years-old, retiuning to the Bowdoin-Geneva 
neighborhood following a period of incarceration at the Suffolk County House of Correction. 
The participants for both the components consisted of those assessed to be most at-risk for re- 
offending. Both ct)mponents utilized an enhanced case-management model to help participants 
successfully return to their communities. Re-entr)' coordinators for each component managed 
a caseload of approximately 20-30 offenders over the year. Although the project formally 



104 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

ended on June 30. 2005, aspects of both coinponenrs will continue to he iniplenientetl thi()iit;h 
the ongoing activities of the Boston Pohce Depaitment s Boston l^e-F.ntrv initiative ami the 
Department of Youth Services' Serious and Violent l^e-entry Initiative tiinded by the U.S. 
Department of Justice. The principal partners coordinating with the Office of the Attorney 
(ieneral on the Cirove Hall component were: The Department of Youth Services, Roxbiir\- 
Youthworks, Inc., the Boston Police Department, and the Sufh)lk (]omit\' District Attorney's 
Office. The principal partners coordinating with the Office of the Attorney C^icneral on the 
Bowtioin-Gcneva component were: the Suffolk Coimtv Sheriff s De[i.utment, ('ommimity 
Resources for Justice, Inc., the Boston Police Department, anil the Dorchester District (lourt 
Probation Department. The Roxbury YouthWorks, Inc. was the sub-grantee and primary 
implementing agency for the Grove Hall component; C'ommunity Resources for Justice was the 
sub-grantee and primary implementing agency for the Bowdoin-Geneva component. These two 
agencies and the Boston Police Department contributed the rec]uired 50% hard-cash matching 
funds for this project. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

The philosophy of the SNI is predicated on partnering with commimit)' 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 resources and provide technical assistance and training both formally and 
informally to community partners. Many of the SNI Division's outreach, education, and training 
activities are described in the previous sections of this report; two that are not, arc described below. 

• Abandoned Properties Initiative: The Abandoned Housing Initiative is a cross-bureau 
initiative coordinated by programs staff from the SNI Division, legal staff from the Government 
Bureau's Trial Division, and investigators from the Public Protection Bureau's Investigations 
Division. The Initiative was one strategy and resource of the Attorney General's Office 
responding to concerns expressed by SNI community residents many years ago regarding the 
public safety and health risks posed by dilapidated abandoned residenti;il properties in their 
otherwise viable neighborhoods. The purpose of the initiative is to assist cities and towns in 
ridding their neighborhoods of these blighted properties by utilizing the receivership provisions 
of the state sanitary codes to effect the rehabilitation of these properties. The initiative continued 
its successful efforts in Fiscal Year 2005. As reported in the Government Bureau Trial Division's 
section elsewhere in this report, because of the strong real estate market in many Massachusetts 



105 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INH lAIIVE DIVISION 

communities, tlie initiative lias been most efficient in helping to locate remote owners and 
resolve issues with properties left by deceased owners without known heirs. In most instances, 
communications ftom this olfice with owners or next-ol-kin have resulted in these individuals 
taking voluntary action to rehabilitate the properties and bring them up to state sanitary codes. 
Dining this year, five new properties were refi;rred to the ACiO. Ihe process progressed to 
petitions for receiverships ior just two properties - one with a deceased owner and the other for 
an owner out-of-state. During this year, AGO staff conducted outreach to introduce the model 
to new comnnmities (e.g., Springfield, Holyoke, Haverhill, New Bedford) and researched the 
potential expansion ot the model to include Common Nuisance Statute claims to combat drug 
activity and other violations in occupied properties. 

• McLaughlin Center Partnership: With Byrne funding from Fall 2000 through December 
2003, The YES Project established a formal 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 Attorney General's staff tutored and taught classes to the children and provided 
training and education on a variety of topics for staff and children. While the funding for The 
YES Project concluded in December 2003, the SNI Division continued to coordinate this 
project. During Fiscal Year 2005, the Office's ongoing commitment to the McLaughlin Center 
was reflected in the eight volimteers from the Office who participated in the weekly tutoring 
program and the more than 400 toys donated by staff to the Center's holiday toy drive. 



106 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 

Administrative Law Division 
Trial Division 



GOVERNMENT BUREAl' 



Government Bureau 

The Covernmcnt Biirc.ui provides representation tor tlie ( A)nimonwealtli and its agencies and officials 
in all ty[ies of civil litigation, and for employees of the Commonwealtli with respect to certain civil claims 
made against them resulting from the performance oi tiieir duties. The Bureau also provides general 
advice and consultation to officials with respect to legal issues arising in coimection with their othcial 
tunctions, particularly in instances where such advance consultation may serve to prevent unnecessary 
litigation. As in previous years, the Bureau in Fiscal Year 2005 continued its efforts to develop and 
maintain close working relationships with agency counsel and to provide them with information and 
advice on matters ot broad conunon interest. 

The Government Bureau consists of an Administrative law Division and a IVial Division. During 
Fiscal Year 2005, several attorneys were assigned permanently to work in both the Administrative 
Law and Trial Divisions, and a sampling of cases from each division was assigned to attorneys in the 
other, so as to broaden the exposure of the attorneys to the full range of cases the divisions handle. 
In addition, a number of particularly complex and significant cases were handled by teams assigned 
to multiple divisions. Both divisions initiated affirmative litigation on behalf of state agencies and 
the Commonwealth and submitted briefs cimicus curiae in cases presenting issues of law affecting the 
Commonwealth's interests. 

1 he Administrative Law Division defends suits concerning the legality of govenuuental operations, 
particularh' those seeking injunctive or declaratory relief. The division is also 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 issues arising from the performance 
of their official duties; and the review of proposed statewide initiative and referendum questions under 
Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution to determine whether such questions are of 
the type that may lawfully appear on the ballot. 

Lhe Frial Division defends suits seeking damages or other 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 clocuments submitted by state 
agencies for approval as to form. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Government Bureau included the following staff members: David 
Kerrigan, Chief; Sherrie ("osta; and Peter Sacks. Staff members assigned to particular divisions within 
the Government Bureau are listed below. 



109 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 



AFFIRMATIVE LITIGATION 



Both the Adniiiiistrativc Law Division and the Trial Division initiate attirmative htigation on behalf 
ol 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 2005 to protect the public interest and the interests of its state agency clients. 
Numerous matters were tavorably resolved without formal litigation. Highlights of actual litigation 
were as follows: 

• Attorney General v. Second Chance, Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) The Attorney General 
sued the manufacturer of defective bullet-proof vests sold to Massachusetts law enforcement 
personnel. It is estimated that more than 4,000 such vests were sold in Massachusetts. The suit 
seeks to recover the replacement cost of the vests and other civil damages. Second Chance has 
filed for bankruptcy, which stayed the pending state coint action. The Attorney General also 
sued Toyobo, the manufacturer of the fabric used in the vests, which entered into a class action 
settlement for the benefit of consimiers of the vest in Okhihoma. That settlement is expected 
to benefit Massachusetts law enforcement users of the vest. 

• Attorney General v. Pakachoag Acres Day Care Center, Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) The 
Attorney General continues to press a claim on behalf of the Office of Child Care Services to 
recover monies the defendants allegedly wrongfully obtained through prohibited related-party 
transactions, prohibited accounting practices, asset transfers and other financial dealings. The 
claim seeks in excess of $1 .5 million. 

• Re gan v. United States (U.S. District Court) The Commonwealth intervened in this action 
to seek a refund of Medicare t;ixes paid to the federal government with respect to about 500 
employees of Sheriffs' offices who became state employees by operation of law when various 
county governments were abolished. The Commonwealth asserts that such employees qualify 
for the statutory "continuing employment " exception to the Medicare tax. About $3 million is 
at issue for tax years 1 999-2002. If the suit succeeds, half would be refunded to the employees, 
half to the Commonwealth, and additional refunds for years after 2002 could be obtained. 

• Griffin v. Heck (Suffolk Superior Court) In this ongoing matter, a former state employee 
filed a lawsuit against the owner of the office building where she allegedly became ill. On behalf 
of the State Board of Retirement, the Attorney General intervened and continues to press a claim 
for recoupment of some of the disability retirement benefits previously paid to the [plaintiff. 



10 



GOVERNMENT BUREAl,' 



• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dolphin Forwarding. Inc. and Mary M. NXHiite 
(Suffolk Superior C.ourt) i'he Attorney Ciciierai coiuiiuics to press a suit on behalf of the 
(]oninion\vcalth's Department of Education against a storage company and its owner for 
allowing 51.6 million of food owned by the Department and local school districts to become 
contaminatetl. Ihe United States Department of Agriculture had ilonated the tooti to the 
Department for school lunch programs. 

ABANDONED HOUSING PROIECT 

Ciovernment Bureau attorneys also litigated ca.ses through the Attorney Generals Abandoned 
Housing Project. The project is designed to assist community 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 conimunity 
groups by petitioning the appropriate court for an order permitting 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 community group work together on the actual repair and 
rehabilitation of the property. 

The project continues to be successful in rehabilitating dilapidated properties. Because of the strong 
real estate market, the project has been most efficient in helping communities locate distant owners and 
resolve issues with properties left by deceased owners without known heirs. In most ca.ses, contact by the 
project with those owners or next-of-kin has led to vokmtary action by those responsible to rehabilitate 
the properties. In Fiscal Year 2005 the project needed to seek receiverships for only two properties 
— one in Dorchester without a living owner, and a second in Greenfield with an out-of-state owner. 
The project also introduced the model to new communities (Springfield, Holyoke, Haverhill, New 
Bedford) and expanded the model to potential inclusion of claims under the common nuisance statute 
to combat drug activity and other violations in occupied property. The project also offers technical 
assistance on other issues involving distressed properties. 



(.X~)\'ERNMtNl BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DI\'ISION 



ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 



The Administrative Law Division has four principal fiuictions: (1) to defeiul lawsuits against state 
officials and agencies concerning the validity of statutes and regulations and the legality of governmental 
operations, particularly those seeking injunctive or declaratory relief; (2) to defend suits for judicial 
review of adjudicatory decisions of state administrative agencies, (3) to undertake a legal 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 2()()S, significant events occurred in each of these areas, as set forth below. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Administrative Law Division included the following staff members: 
William Porter, Division Chief; James Arguin; Luna Bacon; Christine Baily; Annapurna Balakrishna; 
Dena Barisano; Thomas Barnico; Romeo Camba; Jennifer Cartee; Judith Cassino; Victoria Cole; Julie 
Collins; Pierce Cray; Julie Coldman; David Hadas; Daniel HamnK)nd; John Hitt; Ronald Kehoe; Diana 
Leeman; Quinnette Littleton; Bernadette Lovell; Pauline O'Brien; Susan Paulson; Ann Preston; Robert 
Quinan; Susan Riedel; Juliana Rice; Deirdre Roney; Sookyoung Shin; Adam Simms; Cinny Sinkel; 
Amy Spector; Steven Lhomas; 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: 

lUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 

• Lavallee v. Justices of the Hampden Superior Court (Supreme Judicial Court) The court 
granted relief to indigent criminal defendants who were held in lieu of bail or under preventive 
detention and who alleged that attorneys were unavailable to represent them in Hampden 
County at the rate of compensation for bar advocates authorized in the annual state budget. 
The court held that petitioners were being deprived of their right to counsel under Art. 12 of 
the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and ordered that, upon a showing that no coimsel is 
available to represent a particular indigent defendant despite good fltith efforts, such a defendant 
may not be held more than seven days and the criminal case against that defendant shall, after 
forty-five days, be dismissed without prejudice until such time as counsel is available. 



12 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

• Building Inspector and Zoning Officer oFAquinnah v. Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellfish 
Hatchery Corporation (Supreme Judicial Court) 1 lie court held that the Wampanoag IVibc 
in 1983 waived its sovereign immunity from suit to enforce the A(]iiinnah /.oiling bylaw against 
construction on tribal land. 1 he Attorney Ceneral had iniervcned in the appeal seeking this 
result. 

• Horizon Bank and Trust v. Commonwealth (L'.S. Court of Appeals, First ("ircuii) lliis 
appeal raised the cjuestioii wlierher the United States, asserting a tax claim, may remove an 
interpleader action to federal court when an uncon.seniing state, which is also a party with its 
own tax claim, asserts its Rleventh Amendment immimity and argues that it is an indispensable 
party. Ihe court did not reach the merits and dismissed the appeal as moot because two 
other creditors (including the United States) had claims superior to the Commonwealth's and 
satisfaction of those claims would leave no remaining assets to satisfy the state's tax claims. 

• Snaxin v. Underground Storage Petroleum Cleanup Fund (Appe;ils Court) The court 
held that plaintiff gasoline retailers, wtio were approved after a lengthy delay for reimbursement 
of costs incurred in replacement of underground storage tanks at their gas stations, could nor 
recover interest on the amoimt reimbursed. The court concluded that sovereign immunity 
precluded the payment of interest absent specific statutory authorization. 

• Naranjo v. Department of Revenue/Child Support Enforcement (Appeals Court) The 
court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff "s action, which challenged child-support enforcement 
actions taken by the Commonwealth without an administrative hearing, including taking steps 
to revoke the plaintiff's driver's and professional licenses. 

• Hunt V. Appeals Court (Supreme Judicial Court) 1 he court held that an individual 
seeking review of the denial of his request for waiver of appellate docketing fees should appeal 
to a panel of the Appeals Court rather than seeking review by a single justice of the Supreme 
Judicial Court. 

• Cepulonis v. Commonwealth (Supreme Judicial Court) The court held that the length of 
time the Appeals Court took to decide plaintiff s appeal in a civil case (less than 1 8 months after 
docketing) did not violate plaintiff's right under Article 1 1 of the Massachusetts Declaration 
of Rights to obtain justice "without delay. " 



113 



GOVtRNMENT BUREAL) ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

• Cruthird v. Superior Court (Supreme Judicial (^oiirt) Tiie court affirmed the dismissal of 
an inmate's challenge to the former civil action "anniversary fee" statute, because the Superior 
Court had already waived the plaintiff s fee on indigence grounds and the Legislature had already 
repealed the underlying statute. 

ELECTORAI. AND LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 

• Wirzburgerv. Secretary of the Commonwealth (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) The 
First Circuit rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to provisions in Article 48 of the Massachusetts 
Constitution that precluded certification of their proposed initiative petition to amend the 
Anti-Aid Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to permit public funding for students 
attending private schools, including religious schools. The court held that the two challenged 
provisions, which prohibit initiatives that seek to amend the Anti-Aid Amendment and 
initiatives that relate "to religion, religious practices or religious institution, ' do not violate the 
Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

• McClure v. Secretary of the Commonwealth (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) A 
prospective state senate candidate who was unenroUed in any political party sued to challenge 
the state law rccjuiring such candidates, in order to appear on the ballot, to maintain unenrolled 
voter status for 90 days prior to the applicable nomination paper filing deadline. The Secretary 
had denied ballot access to the plaintiff because, by voting in the Democratic Party's presidential 
primary election, plaintiff had become enrolled in a political party within 90 days prior to the 
filing deadline. The First C^ircuit affirmed the dismissal of the case, holding that the disaffiliation 
statute placed no great burden on the candidate's constitutional rights and promoted important 
state interests by providing some assurance that persons seeking to run as unenrolled candidates 
have not recently been affiliated, even briefly, with political parties. 

• DelGallo v. Secretary of the Commonwealth (Supreme Judicial Court) The court declined 
to order the Secretary to list the plaintiff s name on the ballot as either an imenroUed or a party 
candidate for the Office of the Governor's C^ouncil, where the Commonwealth s party affiliation 
and disaffiliation laws combined with plaintiff's recent changes in party enrollment status to 
render him ineligible for ballot access. The court reaffirmed diat such laws are constitutional and 
held that the Secretary was not estopped from enforcing them based on the allegedly negligent 
advice of local election officials. 



14 



GOVERNMENT BlREAl' ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

• Owens V. Secretary of the Commonwealth (U.S. District Court) Rclyinj; on the Hirst 
Circuit's recent decision in McClure v. Calvin , the court allowed theSecretarys motion to dismiss 
the plaintiffs action seeking to compel the Secretary to list plaintiff's name on the ballot as an 
unenrolled candidate for state representative. 

• Andrew v. Commissioner of Correction (Appeals Court) The court rejected the claim 
made by a juxenile convicted of munler that the emergency enactment of legislation revoking 
statutory and earned good time tor juveniles convicted ol murder was invalid based on the 
Covernor's alleged failure to adequately set forth the facts constituting the emergency as requireil 
by Amendment Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution. 

EDUCATION 

• Hancock v. Commissioner of Education (Supreme Judicial Court) In view of the "long- 
term, measurable, orderly, and comprehensive process of [education] reform" embarked on by 
the state legislative and executive branches, a majority of the court rejected the conclusion of a 
Superior Court judge that the Commonwealth presently is not meeting its obligations under 
the "education clause" of the Massachusetts C^onstitution, and rejected her recommendation 
for further judicial action. The court therefore denied the plaintiff students' motion for further 
relief and terminated the Single Justices ongoing jurisdiction of this long-running case. 

• City of Salem v. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (Supreme Judicial C'ourt) The court 
affirmed the BSEAs determination that the two municipalities in which the divorced parents 
of a child separately live should share financial responsibility for providing special educational 
services to the child, where the child is in the custody of the Department of Social Services 
(DSS), and is living and receiving services at a private residential school in another community. 
The court also upheld the validity of regulations of the Department of Education that, in these 
circumstances, assign the cost of special education services equally to the two school districts in 
which the child's divorced parents separately live. 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

• Lopes v. Commonwealth (Supreme Judicial Court) The court affirmed the dismissal of 
claims by the estates of deceased smokers who argued that funds received by the Commonwealth 
in its settlement with tobacco manufacturers must be set off against amounts the estates owe 
the Medicaid program for treatment of their decedents" tobacco-related illnesses. The court 
held that certain claims were barred by sovereign immunity and that others were foreclosed by 
a 1999 amendment to the federal Medicaid Act governing disposition of tobacco settlement 
payments. 



lis 



(".OVLRNMtNT BLIREAU AnMINLSTRATIXE l^AW DIVISION 

• McGuire v. Reilly. as Attorney General (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) i he court 
atfirmeci the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Commonwealth in this as-applied 
challenge under the First Amendment to the state law that creates a six loot "buffer zone" 
around persons entering reproductive health care hicilities. The court held that, as implemented, 
the law did not impermissibly discriminate against the plaintiffs' anti-abortion views, because 
the Attorney General and local law enforcement had tollowed an evenhanded approach to its 
enforcement. 

• Long Term Care Pharmacy Alliance v. Director. Division of Health Care Finance and 
Policy (Suttolk Superior C^omt) The court held that DHCTP could reasonably construe a 
statute reducing the dispensing tee paid to "retail" pharmacies participating in the state Medicaid 
program to apply to the plaintilts, who described themselves as "long term care" pharmacies. 

• Ricci V. Okin (U.S. District Court) Ihe court denied plaintiffs" motion to reopen con.sent 
decrees governing state facilities tor mentally retarded persons, without prejudice to plaintitts" 
ability to bring more specific claims later. The court also accepted and ordered certain 
modifications to the Department ot Mental Retardation Individual Service Plan (ISP) process 
that were earlier agreed to by the parties. 

• Anderson Insulation Co. v. Department of Public Health (Appeals Court) The court held 
that the plaintiff must reimburse DPH for the reasonable costs ot removal of urea formaldehyde 
foam insulation (UFFI) from three homes, where DPH's UFFI Trust Fund had earlier paid for 
removing the UFFI. This concluded a series of cases, first filed by Anderson in 1983, challenging 
DPF^'s UFFI "repurchase" regulations. 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 

• Care and Protection of Erin (Supreme Judici<il Court) In a case of first impression, the 
court held that a parent (or child) who petitions for review and redetermination of a care and 
protection decree (under which custody of a child was transferred to the Department of Social 
Services) bears the initial "burden of production" of demonstrating that circumstances have 
changed sufficiently to merit modifying or dismissing the petition, at which point the biuden 
ot proof shifts to DSS to prove parentiil unfitness. 

• Department of Revenue/Child Support Enforcement v. Ryan R. (Appeals Court) The 
court held that Ryan R.'s biological child — born dining the mother's marriage to another man 
— was born "out of wedlock" within the meaning ot G.L. c. 2U9C; accordingly, the mother 
could properly initiate a child-support action against Ryan R. on the child's behalf. 



16 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

• Adoption oFAbby (AppoalsC^ourt) I liccouit n.k.uciI ,i |ii\ciiilc ( iourt decision terminating 
a mothers parental rights as to her 4-year-okl cliild. Subjecting the trial courts findings to 
stricter scrutiny because they were taken ahiiost verbatim from tlie proposed findings of [)SS and 
the child, the court found clearly erroneous most of the trial court's central findings, including 
that the mother had battered the chiltl as an infant and that the mother's personalitN' disorder 
made her imabie to provide minimall)' adequate care. The court concluded that the remaining, 
supported findings primarily raised c^uestions about Mother's "parenting style," and did not 
reflect the grievous shortcomings necessary to an ultimate finding of parental unfitness. 

• Naranjo v. Department of Revenue/Child Support Enforcement o/b/o Venus Rodriguez 

(Appciils Court) The court held that the trial court should have granted the appellant's motion 
for relief from a judgment of paternity, holding that DOR/CSE had failed properl)' to serve 
process on him when it commenced a paternity action in 1990. 

• Town Clerk of Provincetown v. Attorney General; Cote-^X^itacre v. Department of 
Public Health (Suffolk Superior Court) 1 he court denied motions by town and city clerks and 
out-of-state same-sex couples to enjoin DPH's enforcement of state laws barring clerks from 
licensing the marriage of an out-of-state couple if the marriage would be void or prohibited 
in the couples home state. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct 
appellate review. 

• Doyle V. Good ridg e (Supreme Judicial Court) The court dismissed as moot an appeal of 
a ruling refusing to stay the entry of judgment in the Goodridge case, which legalized same-sex 
marriage in the Commonwealth. 

EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT 

• Local Union No. 12004 v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (U.S. 
Court of Appeals, First Circuit) In this case involving a gay mid-level manager who was allegedly 
targeted for sexual orientation-based harasstnent by union members during a bitter labor dispute, 
the First Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal of the union's federal complaint, which 
asserted that the manager's MCAD complaint was preempted by the National Labor Relations 
Act (NLRA). The First Circuit held that the union's action, seeking to enjoin MCAD officials 
from interfering with their federal rights under the NLRA, properly invoked federal-question 
jurisdiction. The court remanded for a determination of whether the District C^oint should 
nonetheless abstain from hearing the unions suit under the Young er doctrine while the MCAD 
adjudicates the manager's discrimination complaint. 



117 



CCWERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

• DeLeo v. City of Boston &C Massachusetts Human Resources Division (U.S. District 
Court) In an action by eight white males seelcing appointments as Boston pohce officers, the 
court held that the essential provision oi the long-running affirmative action consent decree 
in Castro v. Beecher — that the police department attain a complement of minority officers 
commensurate with the minority population of the City — was satisfied as of October 2003. 
As a result, the court held that continued use of a race-conscious hiring protocol under the 
electee no longer satisfied constitutional standards. The court did not, however, order that the 
plaintiffs be hired, where it had not been shown that they would have been selected absent the 
consent decree. 

• Sheriff of Middlesex County v. International Brotherhood of Correctional Officers. 
Local Rl-193 (Appeals Court) The court affirmed an order staying arbitration of a correction 
officers claim that the Sheriff discriminated against the officer in declining to appoint him as 
deputy sheriff. The court held that the Sheriff's non-delegable statutory authority to appoint 
deputies was not a proper subject for arbitration and that the officer's claim was not within the 
non-delegability doctrines exception for certain claims of unconstitutional discrimination. 

• Thomas v. Department of State Police (Appeals Court) The court held that, although 
G.L. c. 52, § 8(2), entitled the plaintiffs (troopers returning to the State Police after accidental 
disability retirement) to the same position in rank and title they previously held, it did not entitle 
them to a higher pay grade and seniority credits, issues that were governed by the collective 
bargaining agreement between the parties. 

• Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union v. Commissioner of Correction 

(Appeals Court) The court reversed the dismissal of this suit seeking confirmation of an 
arbitration award imposing a disciplinary "twenty workday impaid suspension" on the employee. 
The court held that DOC had not complied with the award when it recorded a twenty-day 
suspension in the employee's file and withheld twenty days' pay, but did not permit the employee 
to serve a twenty-ciay suspension away from work. 

• Gupta v. Division of Employment and Training (Appeals Court) The court upheld DET's 
decision denying unemployment benefits to a claimant who lost his job after reacting rudely 
to a customer's ethnic slur. Because the claimant had been previously warned against reacting 
rudely to abusive customers, the comt affirmed l^H 1 "s conclusion that the employee's rudeness 
was "deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard " of his employers interest, which disc]ualified 
him from receiving benefits. 



118 



(U^VERNMENT BUREAl' ADMINISTRATIVE LAVX' DIVISION 

• New England Wooden Ware v. Division of Employment and Training (Appeals (loiiit) 
The court .ifHimcil 1)1' Is awaiii ol uiicnipl()\nic'iu hfiitfits, coricliulint; rli.ii i Ik- employer li.ul 
Failetl to show tliat the claiiiiaiit knowingly violated a iinitornily entoiceci rule or pt)lic\-. F\en 
though the claimant had violated the employer's absenteeism policy, the policy was neither 
uniform on its face nor unitormh' enforced. 

• Buchanan v. Contributory Retirement Appeals Board (Appeals(;ouit) Ihe court affirmeil 
CIMlVs decision denying plaintiff s claim for accidental tlisabilit)' retirement benefits, concluding 
that substantial evidence supported C^RAB's conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish 
a causal nexus between her emotional disability and her employment. 

• Robinson v. Contributory Retirement Appeals Board (Appeals Court) The court held that 
the conviction of the plaintiff, a former Boston police officer, of embezzlement and conspiracy 
to violate civil rights had triggered automatic forfeiture of his right to accidental disability 
retirement benefits, rendering moot a dispute over his medical eligibility for such benefits. 

• Knox V. Civil Service Commission & Department of Social Services (Appeals C^ourt) 
The coint affirmed judgments denying relief to a former DSS employee who challenged her 
termination. The court held that the Civil Service Commission properly decided that it lacked 
jurisdiction, that DSS's performance management system guide did not create an enforceable 
employment contract with the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had no property interest in her 
position upon which to base a due process claim. 

PROFESSIONAL LICENSING 

• Weinberg v. Board of Registration in Medicine (Supreme Judicial Court) The court 
affirmed a tlecision by the Board revoking plaintiff's license to practice medicine based on 
findings that he had engaged in sexual relations with a current patient in violation of prevailing 
professional standards. The court rejected the physician's arguments that imposing discipline 
based on what he described as private, consensual sex infringed on any due process, privacy 
or other constitutional rights. The court also held that the Board properly considered, as an 
exacerbating factor in determining the appropriate sanction, the physician's attempts to obstruct 
its investigation. 

• Cobb V. Supreme ludicial Court (U.S. District Court) The court dismissed on Younger 
abstention grounds an attorneys suit to enjoin his state-court disbarment proceeding due to 
alleged judicial bias. 



119 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIMSION 

INSURANCE AND BANKING 

• Postal Community Credit Union v. Commissioner of Banks (Appeals Court) On the 
Commissioiier.s appeal, tlie Appeals Court agreed that a state-chartered credit union lacks 
state statutory authority to convert to a k'derally-chartered bank without the approval of the 
Commissioner. The court also rejected a claim by the credit union that the Federal Credit 
Union Act preempted the Commissioner's order barring the conversion. 

• Hanover Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Insurance (Supreme Judicial Court) The 
court alHrmed the C^ommissioner's dismissal of an administrative "unfair practices" complaint 
brought by one insurer against another insurer. The coiut held that the C^ommissioner did 
not abuse her statutory discretion in declining to address the issue raised in the administrative 
complaint, especially where the Commissioner took responsive action through the rule-making 
process of the Commonwealth Automobile Reinsurers. 

• Commerce Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of Insurance (Superior Court) The court 
held that the (Commissioner lacks statutoiy authority to adopt an "assigned risk plan" for the 
"residual" market for auto insurance in the Commonwealth. 

• Massachusetts Bankers Ass'n v. Commissioners of Insurance and Banks (U.S. District 
Court) r he court held that certain state laws regulating, in the interest of consimier protection, 
the sale of insurance by banks are preempted by the feder.iJ Cramm-Leach-Bliley Act because 
they "significantly interfere with the ability" of national banks to sell insurance. 

• Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys v. Commissioner of Insurance (Supreme 
Judicial C^ourt, Single Justice) MA lA challenged the Conmiissioners decision to approve an 
optional managed medical care endorsement that was expected to reduce claimants" medical 
costs and thereby reduce the number of claims that meet the minimum $2000 medical-expenses 
threshold required to bring a tort claim for pain and suffering. The single justice dismissed the 
action, holding that the expected reduction in lawyers' ability to bring motor vehicle lawsuits 
did not confer direct standing upon MATA or its members to challenge the endorsement and 
that MATA lacked standing to challenge the endorsement on behalf of consumers who might 
purchase it. 



120 



COVTRNMENT BL'RHAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

TAXATION 

• Peterson v. Commissioner of Revenue (Supreme Judicial Court) In this case the court 
addressed the construction and constitutionaHty of two statutes enacted by the Legislature in 
2004 in response to Peterson v. (^onunissioner of Revenue (Peterson I). In Peterson I, a ilividcd 
court licid that the Ma\' 1, 2002, cfk-ctivc date for a new rate of tax on capital gain income in 
the Revenue Enhancement Act of 2002 violated the "uniformitv provision of Amendment 
Article 44 of the Massachusetts Constitution. After Peterson I, the Legislature enacted an 
effective date of januar\' 1 , 2002, but in a separate section exempted from the new rate those 
who had paid their taxes on gains realized between January 1, 2002, and April 30, 2002. In 
Peterson II, the court struck down the exemption under Art. 44 bur deemed it severable from 
the provision providing an effective date of January 1, 2002. 

• RCN-BecoCom. LLC v. Commissioner of Revenue (Supreme Judicial (^oiut) The court 
affirmed an Appellate Tax Board decision holding (1) that the taxpayer, a provider of bundled 
telecommunications services (telephone, cable and Internet services), was entitled to the favorable 
tax treatment statutorily reserved for "telephone companies," even though a majorit)' of its 
property was used in service of non-telephone technologies; and (2) that the taxpayer was not 
entitled to claim a propert)' t;L\ exemption available to utility corporations, insofar as its status as 
a limited liability company disqualified it from such treatment. In so ruling, the court rejected 
appeals brought by both the taxpayer and the Commissioner. 

• Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n v. Commissioner of Revenue (Supreme Judicial Court) 
Ihe court upheld the bulk of the Conunissioner's corporate excise tax assessment against the 
Boston Bruins, rejecting a wide array of statutory, regulatory, and constitutional claims by the 
hockey team. 

• Sylvester v. Town of Danvers & Commissioner of Revenue (Superior Court) Ihe court 
upheld the constitutionality of the five-year residency requirement imposed by state statute 
on those eligible for a modest property tax abatement for disabled veterans. Plaintiff has 
appealed. 



121 



(U3VERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTR.ATIVE LAW [)l\'ISION 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

• Global NAPs. Inc. v. Verizon New England &: Department of Telecommunications and 
Energ y (U.S. (^ourt of Appeals, First Circuit) The court affirmed D 1 H's order under the 
Federal 'Felecouinuuiication.s Act of 1996 denying Global NAPs' rec]uest for approval to adopt, 
as its own, an "interconnection agreement " between Verizon and Sprint. DTE had ruled that 
Global lacked authority under the Act to adopt the Sprint Agreement because Global had earlier 
invoked and obtained arbitration by the Department of ongoing disputes between Global and 
Verizon regarding the negotiation of an interconnection agreement between them. 

• Global NAPs v. Department of Telecommunications and Energ y (U.S. District Court) 
The court ruled that Global's federal action (challenging the Department's interpretation of an 
"interconnection agreement " between Global NAPs and Verizon) was an impermissible attack 
on a prior judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court. 

AI.COHOL REGULATION 

• Heineken v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (Appeals C^ourt) The court 
affirmed the ABCC's decision that a supplier could not unilaterally determine that its licensed 
wholesaler "had ceased to operate " and therefore was no longer entitled to certain statutory notice 
protections. The court remanded the case to the ABCC to determine whether the supplier had 
good cause to terminate sales to the wholesaler. 

• Gilman v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (Appeals Court) Ihe court affirmed 
the ABCC's decision that a supplier that purchased certain brands of liquor was not statutorily 
obligated to continue sales to the wholesalers with whom the predecessor supplier had done 
business. The court rejected the argument that a buyer's general contractual assumption of the 
seller's liabilities under an arms-length purchase agreement was sufficient to transfer the seller's 
statutory sales obligations to the buyer. 

PRIVACY AND PUBLIC RECORDS 

• Coe V. Sex Offender Registry Board (Supreme Judicial Coint) The court held that 
Internet dissemination of level three sex offender registration information by the Sex Offender 
Registry Board does not violate the due process requirements of the Massachusetts Declaration 
of Rights. 



122 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

• Globe Newspaper Co. v. Secretary of Public Safety (.Sii[icri()i (^oiirt) I lucourt u(iln.l(.l the 
denial of a request under the public records law tor records concerning the identities ot criminal 
defendants who are at large and against whom outstanding arrest warrants have been issued 
for the commission ot violent crimes. The court held that the request sought information in 
the state Warrant Management System relating to the itientities ot persons wanted for violent 
crimes, and so was exempt trom disclosure as criminal otteiuler record information ((X)RI). 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Administrative Law Division opened 834 cases and closed 1042 
cases. At the close of the fiscal year, 149S cases were pending in the division. Cases h<uulled hv the 
division resulted in 18 reported decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, 17 reported decisions of the 
Massachusetts Appeals Court, 6 reported decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the First 
Circuit, and 6 reported decisions of the United States District Court tor the District of Massachu.setts. 
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 Division's Municipal Law Unit discharges the Attorney Generals 
responsibility of reviewing and approving municipal by-laws and by-law amendments from the 
more than 300 towns throughout the Commonwealth. By statute, the Attorney General is charged 
with the review of town general by-laws (G.L. c. 40, § 32), town zoning by-laws (G.L. c. 40A, § 5), 
town historical district by-laws (G.L. c. 40C), and city and town Home Rule Charter amendments 
(G.L. c. 43B). 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Municipal Law LJnit included the following staff members: Assistant 
Attorney General Robert Ritchie, Director; Sandra Giordano; Kelli Gunagan; and Eva Sz.czech. 

With respect to town by-laws, the Attorney General exercises a limited power to disapprove local 
legislative action it the proposed amendment is foimd to be facially inconsistent with the laws or the 
Constitution of the Commonwealth. The Attorney General has 40 days trom 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. 



123 



CiCA'tRN.VUiNT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

With respect to Home Rule C^harter amendnicnts, Cj.L. c. 43B prescribes that municipal charters and 
charter amendments hom any of the 35 1 cities and towns in the Commonweahh must be reviewed by 
the Attorney General, who must render his opinion on consistency with state law within 28 days after 
receipt of a proposed charter amendment. The Attorney General is not required to review municipal 
charters or charter amendments enacted by the Legislature in Special Acts. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Municipal Law LInit reviewed 712 general by-laws, ol which 627 
(88.0%) were approved, 38 (5.3%) were approved with partial deletion, 9 (1.3%) were disapproved, 
20 (2.8%) were returned with a finding that no action by the Attorney General was required by state 
law, and 18 (2.5%) received cautions; 1,056 zoning by-laws, of which 1,008 (95.5%) were approved 
(including 169 zoning map amendments), 14 (1.3%) were approved with partial deletion, 2 (0.2%) 
were disapproved, 2 (0.2%) were returned with a finding that no action by the Attorney General was 
retjuired by state law, and 30 (2.8%) received cautions; 6 historic district by-laws, all of which were 
approved, and 13 charter amendments, all of which were found to be consistent with state law. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the aiuhority conferred by Ghapter 299 of the Acts of 2000, under which 
the Attorney General may waive minor procedural deficiencies in zoning by-law enactments submitted to 
him for approval, was exercised in over 51 instances, an increase of nine instances from the previous year. 
In all instances, no objections were filed to the Attorney General's decision to waive the deficiencies. 

Above and beyond what is required by statute, the Attorney General has chosen to extend the 
services and resources of his Municipal Law Unit by providing, when possible, voluntary informal 
review of proposed town by-law amendments, and — even though not subject to review by the Attorney 
General — proposed city ordinances. During Fiscal Year 2005, the imit experienced an increase in the 
number of calls from local public officials and members of the general public, many of which relate to 
anticipated changes in local laws and charters. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the unit monitored a number of cases in litigation in which municipal law 
issues are involved. Even where the Attorney General has initially elected not to intervene or otherwise 
participate in such cases, the unit monitors developments so that the Attorney General may become 
involved if warranted by developments in the case. At the close of Fiscal Year 2005, imit attorneys were 
monitoring approximately 65 such matters. 

The most prevalent subjects of local regulation during Fiscal Year 2005 were by-laws regulating 
affordable housing/inclusionary housing, telecommunications facilities, wetlands, open space, agricultunil 
uses and structures, sexually-oriented businesses and motor scooters. Community preservation by-laws 
were more prevalent this year th<m previously. 



124 



GOVERNMENT BUREAl' ADMINISTRATIVE I AW DIVISION 

Over time, iinit lursonnel have j;r,ulu,ill\' iiKrcMscd tluir outie.icli cttoits li\- writiiit; ,iiul .s[X-akiiig 
to groups all around the Commonwealth. Particular emphasis has been placed on working with town 
clerks and local planning boards, as both are intimately involved in the substance and procedure of 
local legislation. Unit personnel participated in dozens of outreach and educational events during Fiscal 
Year 2005. Unit [lersoiiiiel atteiuled the Massachusetts Town (llerk's Conferences to hokl (.lasses and 
to present and explain the books used tor submitting the by-law packets. Unit personnel also actively 
participated in events held by the (^ity Solicitors and Town (Counsel Association in order to exchange 
perspectives on issues ol mutual interest and concern. 

OPINIONS 

The Attorney General is authorized by CL. 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 ol the Legislature. Formal, published opinions are given primarily to the heads ol 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. 
7 he questions considered in legal opinions must have an immediate concrete relation to the official 
duties of the state agency or officer requesting the opinion. H\pothetical or abstract questions, or 
questions which ask generally about the meaning of a particular statute, lacking a factual luiilerpinning, 
are not answered. 

Formal opinions are not offered on questions raising legal issues that are the subject of pending or 
likely litigation or that concern ongoing collective bargaining. Questions relating to the wisdom of 
legislation or administrative or executive policies are not addressed. Generally, formal opinions will not 
be issued 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 secretary then makes or approves the opinion 
request. During Fiscal Year 2005, no formal opinions were issued. During the same time period, the 
Attorney General issued 13 letters providing informal advice, providing a certification or designation 
to a federal agency in connection with the Commonwealth's participation in a federal program, or 
declining to give advice. 



125 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION 



TRIAL DIVISION 



TheTiial Division is responsible for detcndiiig die 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 analyze each case at the outset to see if the case should be resolved through settlement or 
in frvor of the Commonwealth by dispositive motion. If not, the case proceeds through the discovery 
phase, and the division continues to try to resolve the case through settlement or by filing a summary 
judgment motion. Alternative dispute resolution approaches are always considered and are utilized at 
any appropriate stage of the case. The experience of the division in representing the Commonwealth 
in civil lawsuits is consistent with private practitioners in this area of law in that the majority of cases 
resolve prior to a trial. If the case goes to trial, the division aggressively defends the Commonwealth 
and its employees. The division also handles any appeals arising from its cases, whether brought in state 
or federal court. Several appeal decisions are highlighted below. The division has enjoyed impressive 
results by defending the Commonwealth and its employees in its trials, resulting in a large number of 
defense verdicts. 

The following personnel served in the Trial Division during fiscal year 2005: Rosemary Connolly, 
Chief; Alison Andelman; Asha Awad; Jason Barshak; Matthew Berge; Crispin Birnbaum; John Bowen; 
Ranjana Binke; [oseph Callanan; Lynnette Cheseborough; Renee Coleman; Cathleen Collins; Jeffrey 
Collins; Stephen Dick; Thomas DiCangi; John Dorsey; Janet Elwell; Lisa Fauth; Susan Gaeta; Salvatore 
Giorlandino; Mary Hall; Judy Jakobsche; Sarah Joss; Jean Kelley; Ronald Kehoe; Jennifer Laverty; 
Jennifer Lespinasse; Lucinda MacDonald; Howard Meshnick; Sally Mengual; Janet Nolan; Ann Marie 
Noonan; Alicia Oladayiye; Mar)' O'Neil; Maite Parsi; Fran Riggio; Noelle Renaud; Peter Russell; Ernest 
Sarason; David Stanhill; Mark Sudiff; Teresa Wa\s\v, Jessica Wielgus; Meredith Wilson; Doris White; 
and Charles Wyzanski. 

TORTS 

Most of the trials conducted by members of the Trial Division involve claims that the Commonwealth 
or one of its employees breached a duty of care owed to a member of the public, resulting in injury 
or property damage. The following cases are typical of the tort cases tried by members of the division 
dining the coiuse of the year. 

• DiBenedetto v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) Plaintiff was a passenger in a van 
operated by a Department of Correction employee which was involved in an accident. Plaintiff 
claimed that the state employee negligently operated the van which caused the accident and the 
resulting personal injiuies to the plaintiff. At trial, the jury found no negligence on the part of 

the (commonwealth. 

126 



COVFRNMf NT Bl'REAU TRIAL DIVISION 

• Henderson v. Executive Office of Health and Human Services (Supcrioi (iomt) I'l.uniiU, 
a pedestrian, was struck by a van driven by a Department of Mental Retardation employee and 
sustained permanent physical injuries and experienced a long convalescence. The jurv awarded 
plaintiff $160, ()()(), wiiicli was rctluccil b\' the pLiintiff's 3()'!'(i tlcgrec ol lault as found In' the 
jur)'. The award was hurhcr reduced to $100, 000, the statutory cap (per plaintiff), for tort 
claims against the (Commonwealth. 

• Arruda v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) Plaintiff fell and injuretl her wrist while playing 
tennis on courts at the Bristol Comnumity College. At trial, the jlu\- toimd no negligence on 
the part of the college in the maintenance of its courts. 

• Herdt v. State Police (Superior Court) Plaintiff claimed that the State Police negligently 
operated a boat in Boston Harbor, causing it to collide with plaintiffs boat, thus injuring the 
plaintiff and damaging his boat. At trial, the jury foimd no negligence on the part of the State 
Police. 

• Paine v. Department of Mental Health (Superior Court) Plaintiff, a DMH client, was 
placed in a residential group home where she was itssaulted by another resident. Plaintiff claimed 
that DMH was negligent in referring the perpetrator to this group home given his past history 
of violent behavior. At trial, the jury foimd that DMH and the plaintiff were each 50% at fault, 
and the plaintiff's $75,000 jur\' award was reduced accordingly to $37,500. 

• Gibau & Ogara v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) Plaintiffs claitned that they suffered 
injuries as a result of a three-car collision allegedly caused by a troopers negligent operation of 
a State Police cruiser. After the first day of trial, one plaintiff settled for $12,000. After trial, 
the jury returned a $33,700 verdict for the other plaintiff, which was less than the plaintiff's 
lowest demand before trial. 

Many tort cases are also resolved through other means, such as dispositive motions which may 
dismiss all of or some of the claims brought in a suit. I he following are examples of resolutions achieved 
through those means: 

• Cronin v. Shea (Superior Court) Plaintiffs' nephew was the subject of a Department of 
Social Services investigation to determine if he had been abused by his biological father, the 
plaintiffs' brother. In the investigation the plaintiffs provided certain statements and information 
to social workers. Plaintiffs subsequently learned that the social workers report attributed 
statements to them about their father that they allege they did not make and were false. As a 



127 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION 

lesulr, plaintiffs contend that their hunily, including their brother, will not speak with them, 
catising them emotional distress. The court allowed a motion to dismiss claims against the 
social workers, leaving only a negligence claim against the DSS itself. 

• Hodge V. Massachusetts Highway Department (Superior Court) Plaintiff claimed that 
his automobile accident was caused by the state's failure to properly plow snow, permitting it to 
accumulate on the median strip and thereby impairing his view of the road. The Commonwealth 
mewed to dismiss because the case was improperly brought under the Massachusetts Tort Claims 
Act rather than as a road defect case under a separate statute, the notice requirements of which 
plaintiff had not satisfied. The court agreed and dismissed the suit. 

• Barnes v. Department of Transitional Assistance (Superior Court) PlaintiH claimed that 
DTA had negligently administered his payments and recouped too much of the money he had 
received from Soci.il Security. The Commonwealth successfully moved to dismiss the suit because 
of the plaintiffs failure to exliaust his administrative remedies and because the Commonwealth 
had not expressly waived its sovereign immunity to be sued in this type of case. 

• Wojcik V. Executive Office of Public Safety (Superior Court) Plaintiff, while an inmate 
of the Middlesex House of Correction, claimed that he had been subjected to a chemical 
restraint and was not provided with proper medical treatment as a result of his exposure. The 
Commonwealths motion ior summary judgment was allowed. 

Other tort cases raised legal issues requiring resolution by the appellate coiuts. Examples of these 
are as follows: 

• Twomeyv. Commonwealth (Supreme Judicial Court) Plaintiffs' son died in an automobile 
accident at an intersection. Plaintiffs claimed that the state Highway Department's failure to 
trim town-owned trees surrounding a state stop sign at the intersection substantially contributed 
to causing the accident. The Commonwealth claimed immunity from this type of suit, because 
the state did not own or control the trees which obscured the sign. The Superior Court rejected 
the immunity claim, and on appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court agreed and remanded the case 
for a trial on the factual question whether the obscured stop sign was a proximate cause ot the 
accident. 



128 



GOVERNMENT BUREAL! TRIAL DI\'IS10N 

• Vining v. Commonwealth (Appeals (lourt) Pl.iiiititt w.is ,irn.sr(.(,l, ,iiul his pcrsoii.il 
property, iiicliKling a valuable gold ring, was taken troni liini and transferred to court oHicers. 
Upon his release, his ring was not returned to him. He sued for the negligent handling of his 
ring. The Commonwealth successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing that the stare 
Tort Claims Act preserves immunir\- from suits arising from the lawful detention of propert)' 
by a law enforcement officer. C^n the plaintiff's ap(ieal, the Appeals ('omt agreed that the 
Commonwealth was immune from the suit. 

This year the Legislature passed a new law, G.L. c. 258D, to provide financial compensation and 
services for eligible persons who had been erroneously convicted of a felony and who had served time 
in a state prison or house of correction as a result. As of the end of Fiscal Year 2()()S, the division was 
handling nine of these cases. 

CONTRACTS 

The division defends the Commonwealth and its agencies in a variety of contract actions, including 
construction disputes, breach of lease cases and bid protests. These cases are complex because they 
often involve interpretation of bidding regulations and a complicated statutory framework. These cases 
also frequently rec]uire the division to defend rec]uests for preliminary injimctions which may resolve 
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. Ihc following are examples 
of the types of contract cases handled by the division. 

• Treviicos Corp. v. Massachusetts Highway Department (Superior Court) Plaintiff was 
a subcontractor on a state contract to rebuild a bricfge. Plaintiff claimed that it was owed an 
equitable adjustment to increase the amount payable imder the contract because it encoiuitered 
a substantial change in construction conditions. Plaintiff sought an order in the nature of 
mandamus requiring MHD to pay it additional money. The court dismissed the complaint 
on the ground that plaintiff, as a subcontractor, lacked standing to bring the claim against 
MHD. 

• Superior Abatement Inc. v. Division of Capital Asset Management (Superior Court) This 
dispute arose from the additional costs incurred for the removal of asbestos floor tiles before 
the demolition of the old Boston State Hospital. Plaintiff sued DCAM and a project designer 
to recover the approximately $800,000 in additional costs. The case settled favorably for the 
Commonwealth with a payment from DCAM of $135,000 and a payment of $165,000 from 
the project designer. 

129 



GOVtRNMHNT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION 

• IDM Environmental of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Manafort Brothers, Inc. v. The 
Commonwealth (Superior Court) In this second case arising out oi the demolition of Boston 
State Hospital, the general contractor, Manalort, brought several claims totaling $3 million. A 
settlement was achieved wiiereby Manafort received an additional payment ot $800,000, and 
the Commonwealth retained liquidated damages against Manafort in the amount of $265,000 
due to Manafort's failing to complete work on time as required under the contract. 

REAL ESTATE 

The real estate cases handled by the Irial Division consist primarily ol eminent domain cases, along 
with miscellaneous other types of real property cases. Like contract cases, there is no statutory cap 
which 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 types of cases 
handled in this area and the manner in which they were resolved. 

• Village Homes v. Massachusetts Highway Department (Superior Court) Plaintiff "s land 
in Plymouth was taken for the construction of Route 44 project. Plaintiff sought $528,000 in 
damages, but the jury returned a verdict of only $87,500 — less than the $128,000 pro tanto 
paid by MHL^ to the plaintiff at the time it took the land. 

• Di gital Equipment Corp. v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) Plaintiff sought damages 
of $2,516,800 for the taking of 102 acres in West Boylston. The pro tanto paid at the time of 
the taking was $241,000. After the start of trial, the parties settled the case, favorably to the 
Commonwealth, for $675,000. 

• Cargill v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) Plaintiff's 2.9 acre parcel was taken for the 
improvement of Route 146. The pro tanto paid at the time of the taking was $175,000. At 
trial the plaintiff claimed the land was worth $1.1 million. The jury returned a verdict of 
$304,000. 

• Memorial Association Whitman Post #22. American Legion v. Town of ^XTlitma^ &c 
Commonwealth (Superior Court) In 1956, plaintiffs gave the Commonwealth land to build 
an armory; recently the Commonwealth declared the armory surplus, and the plaintiffs sued the 
Commonwealth to have the land revert to them if it was no longer to be used for an armory. 
The Commonwealth's motion to dismiss the complaint on lack of standing and other grounds 
was allowed. 



30 



(^.OVF.RNMENT Bl'REAU TRIAL DIVISION 

• 51 Ballard Street Realty Trust V. Commonwealth (Superior Court) I Ik- (loinnioinvc.ilth 
took a parcel of land, formerly used as a gas station, in connection with the project to improve 
Route 146. Plaintiff claimed approximately $210,000 in damages, exclusive of interest. The 
case settled for $65,000. 

• Locator Sei^ices. Ltd. v. Treasurer (Supreme jutlici.iU^ourt) I'laiiititfLLuiiKd to represent 
numerous landowners whose land had been taken by the Commonwealth and who were not 
paid compound interest on their eminent domain awards. The Treastuer moved for summary 
judgment, asserting that the relevant statutes did not require the payment of compoimd interest 
and that most of the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Superior Ca)urt 
denied the motion, but on appeal, the Supreme ludicial C'ourt held that compoimd interest 
was not required; rather, the money should be invested at the Ireasurer's discretion in aiiv of 
the investment vehicles permitted by statute (some of which pay compound interest), so that 
at the time of the payment the principal along with any accrued interest may be paid to the 
land owner. Damages flowing from any breach of the Treasurers obligation in this regard are 
measured according to the interest available on the lowest-paying permitted investment vehicle. 
The court found that there was a three-year statute of limitations on these claims and remanded 
for further proceedings on the question whether plaintiffs' claims were brought within the 
three-year period or whether the statute of limitations was tolled b\' agreement, as claimed b)- 
the plaintiff 

• Boston Water & Sewer Comm'n v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) The Legislature 
took a large parcel of land, claimed by BWSC, for use by the Universiu' of Massachusetts at its 
Harbor campus. BWSC sued, claiming that the Legislature's act was invalid and did not provide 
the constitutionally required just compensation for the taking. The Superior Court agreed with 
the Commonwealth that BWSC, as a public entity, cannot contest the constitutionality of an act 
of Legislature and therefore entered judgment for the Commonwealth. BWSC] has appealed. 

• Laham v. Massachusetts Highway Department (Appeals Court) At trial in this eminent 
domain matter, the Commonwealth obtained a jury verdict less than the pro tanto, resulting in 
plaintiff owing the Commonwealth $7000. Plaintiff appealed, claiming the trial court erred in 
certain evidentiary and other rulings. The Appeals Court, in an unpublished decision, reversed 
the verdict and remanded the case to the Superior Court for a new trial. 



131 



GOVERNMENT BUREALi TRIAE DIVISION 

EMPLOYMENT. CIVIL RIGHTS. AND OTHER CASES 

Increasingly the Trial Division is called upon to delend the Commonwealth and its agents in 
employment and civil rights cases. These cases are factually and legally complex and present challenging 
issues to the division. Also, because there is no statutor)' cap on the monetary damages that can 
he awarded in these cases, and because these types of claims frequently are brought against officials 
or employees in their individual capacity, the potential financial exposure can be significant. The 
division handled a number ol employment and civil rights cases during Fiscal Year 2005, including 
the following: 

• Mihos V. Swift (U.S. District Court) This case involved a claim lor damages arising out of 
the Acting Covernor's attempt to remove the member from the board of the Turnpike Authority. 
After the First Circuit Court of Appeiils remanded the case for further proceedings on the 
member's First Amendment claim, and after discovery and further proceedings in the District 
Court, the parties negotiated a resolution of the claims which denied any wrongdoing by the 
plaintiff or any Commonwealth employee and included a payment on behalf of the defendant 
to the plaintiff. 

• Babayan v. Secretary of the Commonwealth (Superior Court) Plaintiff, a former state 
archives employee, claimed that the C'ommonwealth, as his employer, discriminated against 
him on accoimt of his national origin. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for the 
Commonwealth, finding that there had been no discrimination. 

• Gibney v. Department of Public Safety (Superior Court) Plaintiff, a Vietnam veteran, 
claimed he was disabled and that the Department, in failing to hire him as a special investigator, 
discriminated against him on the basis of his disability. The court granted the Department's 
motion for summary judgment. 

• Lahousse V. Department of Correction (Superior Court) Plaintiff, claiming that she was 
involuntarily transferred within DOC in retaliation for her whistleblowing activities, sued 
DOC as well as several individuals. On the Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment, 
all of the claims against the individuals were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial only on 
the single whistleblower claim against DOC. 

• Moccio v. Suffolk County District Attorney (Superior Court) The court granted the 
Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's claims that she was 
terminated due to her age and in breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 



132 



r.OVKRNMENTBl'RFAl' TRIM OIMSION 

• Carboni v. Quinsigamond Community Colleg e (Superior (louit) i'laintitt cl.iinicil tli.u Ik- 
was denied a faculty position because of his gender. He claimed that the college instead offered 
the positions to two females. Alternatively he argued that he was not hired in retaliation for 
previously filing an MCAL^ complaiiii against the College. Aher a voluntary mediation the 
parties settled this matter tor $32,500. 

• Dasey v. State Police (Superior (^ourt) I'laintilt was a probationar\' trooper dismissed 
because it was learned that he lied on his application about prior drug use. After his several 
fedend suits failed, plaintiff hied this state suit claiming that the State Police violated the collective 
bargaining agreement by the manner in which they terminated him. The court granted the 
Commonwealths motion for simimary judgment, ruling that these claims were barred by res 
judicata and that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

• Washington v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (U.S. District ( "ourt) 
Plaintiff sued officials at MCAD because they had dismissed a discrimination complaint that he 
had filed with the agency. The district court dismissed the suit, agreeing with the Commonwealth 
that the MCAD enjoyed absolute immunity for its dismissal decision. 

• Hatch V. Department of Mental Retardation (Superior Court) Plaintiff claimed that DMR 
had failed to tell him that, when he was an adolescent at Fernald State Hospital, he had been 
subjected to experiments using radioactive isotopes. Previously, the C^ommonwealth, Mil and 
others settled dozens of such claims asserted in a feder;il lawsuit, but this plaintiff claimed he 
was not given notice that he could participate in that settlement. Plaintiff asserted intentional 
tort claims and negligence claims against DMR. The court dismissed the intentional tort claims 
and the parties settled the negligence claim for the statutory cap of $100, ()()(). 

Some employment and civil rights cases raised legal issues requiring resolution by the appellate 
courts. Examples of such cases include: 

• McKeag Leach v. Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (Appeals C^ourr) Plaintiff, 
an MRC employee who is deaf contended that MRC should have accommodated her for her 
repetitive stress syndrome, which she claimed is common among deaf people. The Appeals 
Court affirmed the lower court's award of summary judgment, finding that an cmphner has 
no obligation to accommodate a disability before the employee affirmatively asks for the 
accommodation and that the factual record revealed that MRC took all necessary steps to 
accommodate the plaintiff at work. 



133 



GO\'ERNMtNT BDREAU TRIAL DIVISION 

• Donaldson v. Town ofWakefield and Superior Court (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) 
Plaintiff, a former town police officer, contested his dismissal from work after he tailed a drug test. 
Plaintiff lost his suit over this issue in state court and then filed a federal court suit contending 
that the state court, and the superior court judge who dismissed his state court suit, denied his 
constitutional right to a jiuy trial. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his case, holding 
that it was an improper attempt to appeal the state court decision to a lower federal court. 

• >X^alen v. Massachusetts Trial Court (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) Plaintiff, an 
assistant court clerk, claimed that his layoff without a hearing violated a state statute and his 
federal due process rights. The Commonwealths motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity 
and mootness was allowed. On plaintiff's appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal. 

• Breneman v. Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) 
The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims that the Commission took their property 
without just compensation. The court agreed that the claim was barred by the Commonwealth's 
Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

At the beginning of Fiscal Year 2005, the Trial Division had 1,858 open and pending cases, 
rhroughout the year the division opened 359 new cases and closed 432 cases. At the close of Fiscal 
Year 2005 the division reported 1,785 open and pending cases. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

During Fiscal Year 2005, 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 
F.ducation programs, participating in the Citizen Schools Project, and assisting in trial training and 
moot comt programs at various law schools and donating time and talent to tutor students at the 
McLaughlin Center in Boston. 



134 



PUBLIC PROTECTION 
BUREAU 

Children, Youth and Communities Division 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division 

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division 

Environmental Protection Division 

Insurance Division 

Investigations Division 

Division of Public Charities 

Utilities Division 



l>rBl ICPRCTIRCTION BUREAU Cllll DRFA, ">(1l TH AND aiMMl'NlTIKS DIN'ISION 

Public Protection Bureau 

The Public Protection Bureau manages and oversees civil athrniative litigation on behalf of the 
Coninionvvealth ancl its citizens; the development of policy, legislative, and regulatory proposals; and 
personnel for eight divisions: (;hililren. Youth ami (^omnumities; (j\il Rights and (Jvil I ibeities; 
Consimier Protection and Antitrust; Hnvironmental Protection; Insinance; Investigations; Public 
C^haritics; and Utilities. The Bureau also includes the Consumer (Complaint and Information Section 
and oversees the Local Consumer Aid Fund, which provides grants to local community groups to 
nieiliate and resolve consumer com[ilaints at the local level. 

Ihe bureau develops and coordinates healthcare polic)' initiatives to improve the coordination, 
enhancement, and ex[iansion of ciurent healthcare policy enforcement efforts. I he Bureau targets 
its efforts to preserve access to affordable, high-c)ualit\' healthcare services that meet the needs of 
communities. 

The bureau oversees Attorney General Reillys Community Benefits Guidelines 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. 

Ihe bureau also seeks to enhance protections for Massachusetts elders by improving both the 
coordination of the Attorney General's outreach efforts as well as the response to matters involving 
elder fraud and abuse. 

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



CHILDREN, YOUTH AND COMMUNITIES DIVISION 

The Children, Youth and (Communities Division identifies and addresses existing and emerging 
trends affecting the safer)' of children, youth and vulnerable communities, including elder and immigrant 
populations. I he division serves as an internal and external information and referral source; develops 
prevention programs and materials; develops resources to support new and existing programs through 
grant writing and grants management; delivers education and outreach programs as a division and in 
collaboration with other divisions and bureaus; and fiicilitates and leads internal or external collaborative 
efforts on behalf of the Attorney General. The division also co-directs the Attorney General's Safe 



137 



public; i'rotm:! ion bureau (;hiu[)Ren. youth and commuinities division 

Schools Initiative and collaborates with other divisions to support the Attorney General's Klder Abuse 
Project. 

Division staH included Michelle Booth; Dawn Fontaine; Johny Laine; and David Rudewick. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Student Conflict Resolution Experts Program Founded in 1989, SCORE is a school-based program 
that uses trained student mediators to rest)lve conflict among peers. In Fiscal Year 2005, the Attorney 
General awarded $396,000 to twenty-eight schools in communities across Massachusetts, including 
Boston, Dartmouth, Greenfield, Holyoke, Lowell, Lynn, Maiden, Medford, Quincy, Pittsfield, Shirley, 
Somerville, Springfield, Stoughton, Taunton, Wakefield (serving twelve communities), and Worcester. 
Student mediators in SCORE programs mediated 2,627 conflicts involving 6,411 youth; 93% of 
these were resolved through the use ol peer mediation. SCORE programs this year experienced a 14% 
increase in conflicts mediated, with a modest increase in the number of youth involved in conflicts, 
compared to Fiscal Year 2004. The conflicts included situations involving physical fights, harassment, 
name-calling, stealing, threats, property damage, and rumors. 

The division maintained close contact with participating schools, monitored grants and provided 
technical assistance. Staff served as faculty fiar student mediator training events in which over 65 new 
youth mediators received training. In addition, the division also provided advanced training and support 
to 48 adult mediation program coordinators and supervisors. 

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 
commimity mediators, CI I" provides mediation services on a short-term basis to schools experiencing 
large-scale conflicts. In addition to the in-kind contributions of the Attorney Generals staff assigned 
to the project, a grant from the Hewlett Foundation has funded CIT since 2001. The division, 
although not conducting any full-scale C"IT responses this year, conducted assessments of incidents 
at two school districts experiencing racidly-motivated conflict and provided services and reterr.ils to 
other resources. The division also engaged in targeted outreach to schools experiencing or having the 
potential to experience large-scale conflict to make them aware of services and to provide referrals to 
a p p ro p r i a t c reso u rces . 



138 



PUBLIC PROILCllON BUREAU CIVIL RIGMIS AND CINIL I IBFRl IKS DIVISION 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Ihe division participated in a wide range of outreach, technical assistance and training events 
applying mediation and violence prevention strategies, including mediation training for Boston youth 
workers; training for adults interested in establishing effective peer mediation programs in schools; 
the Federal Reserve Bank's 2005 Life Smarts Youth Consumer Education competition; workshops for 
middle school and high school students, including diversity appreciation training for over 500 youth; 
tile 13th Annual Peacemakers Summit h)r middle and high school mediators; and the North Shore Peer 
Mediators' Summit. In addition to outreach events centered specifically on mediation, division staff 
served as members of an office training team that provided workshops for over 1 ,300 educatt)rs about 
bullying, harassment, and hate crimes. Division staff also served on the Attorney General's Diversity 
Committee, Elder Issues Committee, and the Massachusetts lask Force on Hate (Crimes. 



CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DIVISION 

The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division enforces the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (M(]RA). 
The MCRA authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief when threats, intimidation, 
or coercion based on an individual's race, color, nation;il origin, ethnic background, gender, .sexual 
orientation, disability, age, or religious affiliation interfere with the exercfse of that person's civil rights. 
A violation of a civil rights injunctive order constitutes a criminal offcn.se, punishable by a maximiuii 
of ten years in state prison if the victim suffers bodily injury, or up to two and one half years in a 
correctional facility if no bodily injury results. 

The division also enforces the fiiir 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. The division also focu.ses on employment discrimination, 
discrimination in places of public accommodation and educational equity. 

The Disability Rights Project works to increase enforcement of state and federal laws assmingec)ual 
access to places of public accommodation like restaurants and stores and access to imuiicipal buildings 
and services. The project protects the rights of individuals with disabilities not only through litigation, 
but also through .tssistance tor individuals, training, publications, intervention with municipal entities 
and spe.iking engagements. 

The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division included C^athy Ziehl, Division Chief; Patricia Correa, 
Director, Disability Rights Project; Bethany Brown; Michael Fleischer; Rosalind Kabrhel; Judy Levenson; 
Maria MacKenzie; Tina Matsuoka; and volunteer attorneys Melissa Brooks and Andrew Goldberg. 

13^) 



I'UBLK: I'ROTECTION BUREAU CIVIl, RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

BIAS AGAINST SEXUAL ORIENTATION 

• Commonwealth v. Isaiah Bass. Brian Belew, Jeffrey Guity. and Teagan Isabelle Simms 

(Suffolk Superior Court) The division obtained final judgment against Simms after lie physically 
assaulted a gay couple in Boston in 1999 using a baseball bat and a vodka bottle. 

BIAS AGAINST NATIONAL ORIGIN 

• Commonwealth v. McPherson et al. (Suffolk Superior Court) The division obtained final 
judgment by consent against three defendants who threatened, intimidated, and assaulted a 
15-year-old Somalian boy in Charlestown. 

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION 

• UNICCO Services Co. The division, with the EEOC and MCAD, continued to monitor 
Unicco's compliance with a June 2002 consent decree arising from allegations of repeated sexual 
harassment of immigrant female office cleaners. 

• Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority The division continued to monitor the 
MB lA under an Equal Employment Opportunity Agreement and EEO Compliance Program 
the Attorney General and MBTA executed on February 6, 1997, in response to longstanding 
complaints of discrimination, harassment and retaliation at the MBIA. 

EDUCATIONAL EOUITY 

• Comfort et al. v. Lynn School Committee, et al. (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) 
On October 20, 2004, the First Circuit Coiut of Appeals reversed the District Courts judgment 
uphokling Lynn's volimtary school desegregation plan. The division appealed the decision, 
and on June 16, 2005, the en banc First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its panel decision 
and affirmed the District Court judgment, holding that Lynn had a compelling interest in 
implementing its desegregation plan, and that the plan is narrowly tailored. 



HOUSING DISCRIMINATION 

The division setded eight cases, which resulted in $142,500 in monetary relief and affirmative 
injunctive relief changing the business practices, including equal housing opportiuiit)' policies, complaint 
and investigation procedures, anti-discrimination training, and reporting mechanisms of landlords, 
management companies and rental agents. Through training programs and prosecuting housing 



140 



PUBLIC I'ROTECnON BUREAU CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DIVISION 

ilisciimination cases, tlic clivisidii also worked to niodih' laiullord and realtor practices, to educate 
tenants about the right to fair treatment in the housing market, and to increase the availability of safe, 
affordable housing tor ftmilics with voimg children. 

• Commonwealth v. Clarendon Towers/McNeil Management Company (Suffolk .Superior 
Court) The last individual damage claim in these two cases against a federally subsidized, 
SOU unit housing complex based on allegations of intimidation, harassment, discrimination 
and retaliation because of race, national origin and disability was sertletl on |ul\- V. 2004 tor 
substantial monetary damages. Ihe division continues to monitor the compliance with the 
settlement provisions. 

• Commonwealth v. Cooperative Living of Newton. Inc. (Middlesex Superior Court) 
Allegations of sexual harassment and hostile living environment, settled for $18,000 and 
injunctive relief. 

• Commonwealth v. Dove (Norfolk Superior Court) Allegations of disability, race and public 
acconunodation discrimination, settled tor injunctive relief, including a policy rec]uiring shelters 
to provide services to persons with disabilities and grant reasonable accommodation rec]uests. 

• Commonwealth v. Scolaro (Suffolk Superior C]ourt) Allegations of refusal to provide a 
reasonable accommodation to a tenant's twin babies with disabilities, settled for SI'S, ()()() in 
damages and injunctive relief. 

• Commonwealth v. PINC (Middlesex Superior Court) Refusal to rent to a Section 8 
recipient, settled for $3,500 and injunctive relief. 

• Commonwealth v. Chelsea Housing Authority (Suffolk Superior Court) Allegations of 
disability and religious discrimination, settled for injunctive relief. 

• Commonwealth v. Springfield Housing Authority (Hamden County Superior Court) 
Allegations of disabilit)' discrimination, settled tor $1,000 and injunctive relief. 

• Commonwealth and Hishmehs v. O'Briens (Middlesex Superior Court) Allegations of 
neighbor harassment because of national origin (Palestinian descent), settled for $5,000 and 
permanent injunctive relief 



141 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CIVIl, RKiHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DIVISION 

The division also filed seven new cases referred from the Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination (MCAD), aher the Commission determined that discrimination claims were supported 
by probable cause and an election for judicial determination was made, as required by the Fair Housing 
laws. 

• Commonwealth/Alvarez v. Farag Mohammed (Worcester Superior Court) Allegations of 
lead paint violations and refusal to rent to a Section 8 recipient. 

• Commonwealth v. Eric Stevens et ai. (Suffolk Superior C^ourt) Allegations of a condominium 
trustee taking advantage of an Asian condominium owner's perceived vulnerabilities to threaten, 
harass, and coerce her into selling her condominiimi tt) him for his own economic gain. 

• Commonwealth v. Shimon Orian (Middlesex Superior Court) Allegationsof refusal to rent 
to an organization because the organization intended to use it as a residence for developmentally 
disabled adults. 

• Commonwealth v. Giambro (Suffolk Superior Coiut) Allegationsof disability discrimination 
because the tenant had AIDS. 

• Commonwealth v. Brookside Condo. Assoc, and Tony Colarusso (Middlesex Superior 
Court) Allegations of disability discrimination, primarily asthma and arthritis, by refusing to 
grant a reasonable accommodation. 

• Commonwealth v. Michael Klun (Barnstable Superior Court) Allegations of harassment 
and eviction of a tenant after she gained custody of her two-year-old grandson and her Section 
8 voucher rec]uired lead-free premises. 

• Commonwealth v. Cambridge Housing Authority (Middlesex Superior Court) 
Allegations of refusal to extend a Section 8 housing voucher as part of a request for a reasonable 
accommodation for disability. 

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION 

• Commonwealth V. FungWah Bus Transportation Inc. (Massachusetts Commission Against 
Discrimination) The division filed a complaint against Fung Wah after it refused to iillow a 
blind couple to buy bus tickets for transportation to New York City because they are blind and 
because they use a service dog. 



142 



PUBLIC PROTECTION Bl'REAl' Cl\ll RICI ITS AND Cl\ll I.IBKRI IIS l)|\'|SION 

DISABILITY RICH IS 

• Commonwealth and National Federation of the Blind v. E'TRADE 1 he division conriniied 
to prosecute this lawsuit alleging that K' 1 IMDH, operator of one of the largest A I'M networks in 
the coinitry, has failed to make the ATMs it operates, but does not own, accessible to the blind. 
Four individual plaintiffs, all Massachusetts residents, represent the approxiniatelv .^'i.OdO blind 
people in Massachusetts, who, in accordance with the Massachusetts Public Acconiniodations 
Act, are seeking the same access to bank and investment services available to sighted ATM 
users. 

• CVS Ihe division continued to monitor the Assiuance of Discontinuance with ( '.VS Stores 
rec]uiring them to remedy violations of turning radius and aisle width requirements. Initial 
audits revealed multiple violations of the Assurance, and C^VS ultimately paid approximately 
$7,500 in additional fines during the summer of 2004. Additional audits in the spring of 2005 
h)und additicmal violations of aisle access. 

• Starwood Hotels/Cape Codder Hotel i he division continued to monitor the consent 
decree arising from architectural deficiencies under the ADA. 

• Fenway Ihe division continued to review Fenway Park accessibilir\' improvements, including 
plans to add approximately 2,000 seats and access plans for Rolling Stones concerts. New 
wheel chair seating provides patrons clear sightlines over the shoulders and between the heads 
of standing spectators in front of them. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Nursing Home Initiative The division created and sent an "Advisory on the C^ivil Rights of 
Immigrant Workers — Prohibitions on National Origin" to over 400 nursing homes, hospitals and 
community health centers and to approximately 1 30 organizations providing senices and advocacy for 
immigrant workers. The division, with the Massachusetts Extended Care Federation, also organized 
"Preventing Discrimination in the Workplace: Are You in (Compliance?" an educational program on 
December 2, 2004 for owners and directors of nursing homes. 

The Massachusetts Hate Crimes Task Force The Attorney General s Hate Crimes Task 
Force, comprised of about 100 law enforcement officers and prosecutors, community leaders, civil 
rights advocates, victim assistance professionals, educators, and other leaders from throughout the 



143 



['DBl.lc: I'RCVCECI ION BURKAU CIVIL RKIHTS AND CIVII. IJBF.RTIES DIVISION 

("omnionwcaltli, shares information and highlights efforts in Massachusetts related to hate crimes 
enforcement, response, training and prevention. 

Project Schoolyard USA In January, 2005, Attorney General Reilly sent all school superintendents 
in Massachusetts a warning about Project Schoolyard USA, a national campaign by a white supremacist 
music label, Panzerfaust Records, to distribute CD's containing lyrics of hate to children at schools, 
malls and other places where they congregate. 

Civil Rights In Schools The division continued its focus on ensuring the civil rights of students 
attending schools in the C^ommonwealth. Ihe division launched Attorney General Reilly's School Safety 
Initiative at a June 24, 2005 conference at UMASS-Boston attended by over 350 school committee 
members, superintendents, principals, and police chiefs. The division released a model Civil Rights 
and Anti-Harassment Policy and "Hate Crimes in the Commonwealth, A Guide for Victims and 
Commimities" at the conference; the School Safety Initiative will also include demonstration projects, 
intensive technical assistance and training to promote civil rights and change school climate and 
cultiue. 

The division has also provided or participated in educational programs to train students, teachers, 
and administrators on hate crimes, bullying and hazing, and harassment and discrimination regarding 
a person's gender, sexual orientation, racial, national origin or religion. The programs for school 
administrators, teachers and staff included information on identifying and responding to unlawful 
conduct and how to create comprehensive civil rights protection programs. 

Civil Rights And Police In a collaborative effort to promote civil rights, assist police departments, 
and provide departments with technical assistance, the division provided civil rights training to law 
enforcement on hate crimes identification, response and prosecution, civil liability, sexual harassment, 

and racial and cultmal awareness. 

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

Racial Profiling 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 to all traffic 
stops where a traffic citation or warning was issued. After 1 30 police departments appealed the Secretary 
of the Executive Office of Public Safety's determination that they must collect additional traffic stop 



144 



IH'BLIC r'ROTECI ION BlRl-Ali CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBLRTIES DI\'ISION 

data for an additional year, the division prepared and issued responses to the appeals on October 18, 
2004. 

Civil Rights hiitiatives With NAAG division members continue to serve in leadersliiji positions 
in the National Association of Attorneys General's (NAAC) Civil Rights Working (iroup, consisting 
of representatives of state Attorneys General from throughout the country working to enhance 
the cooperative relationship between the states and the U.S. Department of Justice and the Kt]iial 
Hniplo}'nient Opportunity (Commission in ci\il rights enforcement. 

Democratic National Convention Security The division assisted federal officials aiul Boston police 
in itlentif)'ing and addressing civil rights and civil liberties issues arising from demonstrations and other 
actions taken at the Democratic ("(invention in the summer of 2004. The legal issues includeil civil 
rights in soft security zones, permitting processes for demonstrators, sires for protestors within sight 
and sound of convention locations, arrest standards, use of force and search issues, and procedures for 
processing those arrested. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Education The division participated in the National Conference on Integration and Affirmative 
Action in Education on October 15, 2004 to discuss legal issues and challenges for K- 1 2 school integration 
programs; presented "Making the Case for Integrated Schools: The Case of Lynn, Massachusetts" at the 
national conference, "Building Blocks for Inclusive Communities;" and participated in the Harvard 
Civil Rights Projects conference on School Integration. 

Arab, Muslim, South Asian, Sikh Community 7 he division is working with a "Community-Law 
Enforcement Working Group" to develop new efforts at encouraging ongoing communication between 
law enforcement and the Muslim, South Asian, Arab and Sikli communities in Greater Boston. 

Community Hate Crime Prevention The division participated in the Watertown Hate Crimes 
Community Forum on November 9, 2004, the Needham Town Hall Forum "When Hate Comes to 
Town" on March 31, 2005, and "A Challenge for the 21st Century: Hate Crimes, Domestic Terrorism 
and the Constitution," a criminal justice conference at Bridge-water State College on April 12, 2005. 

Disability Community The division participated in the Coalition for the Legal Rights of People 
with Disabilities, Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council, and NAAG Disability Rights in 
Public Accommodation Ttsk Force. 



145 



i'L'blk: i'rotection bureal; consumer protection and antitrust division 

Fair Housing Ihc division participated in "Damages and Injimctive Relief in Hair Housing 
Cases, " training tor tiie Fair Housing Center ot Creater Boston on June 2, 2005; "Fostering Secure and 
Diverse Coniniunities," a HUD regional hur housing conference on April 4, 2005; and a predatory/ 
discriminatory lending practices conference on June 28, 2005. 

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

The Consiuner Protection and Antitrust Division (CPAD) is the leading voice in the Commonwealth 
tor consumers disadvantaged by unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the marketplace. I he division 
enforces both state and federal consumer protection and antitrust laws by investigating and prosecuting 
civil cases. By aggressively enforcing the consumer ancf antitrust laws, CPAD helps protect consumers 
from unethical business practices, and insures that businesses compete on a level playing field based on 
the best c]uality, service and price. 

CPAD also promulgates consumer protection regulations, mediates consumer complaints against 
businesses, and provides information to the public through Attorney General Reillys Consumer Hotline, 
advisories and information on Attorney General Reillys Web site, distribution of brochures on consumer 
topics, and speaking engagements across the Commonwealth. 

Through the Consumer Complaint and Information Section (CCIS), the division acts as a resource 
for consumers and businesses, providing information, direction to additional resources at the state and 
federal level, and free mediation services to consumers who have encountered a problem in a purchase 
of consumer goods or services. The division dso provides grants to a statewide network of 18 Local 
Consumer Programs (LCPs) and nine Face-to-Face Mediation Programs to furnish information and 
mediation services. The information C]C1S 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 unfiiir or deceptive conduct revealed by these cases 
have also served as the basis for draft legislation (identity theft, telemarketing fraud) and regulations 
(travel services, long-term care facilities). 

CPAD staff included Jesse Caplan, Division Chief; Christopher Barry-Smith; Caitlin Burke; Jack 
Christin; April English; Julie Esposito; Mary Freeley; Sara Hinchey; Diane Lawton; Stephanie Kahn; 
Mark Kmetz; Pam Kogut; I imothy Moran; Carmen Osorio-Bermudez; Kasey Lindsey; Betty Maguire; 
Mary Marshall; Lois Martin; David Monahan; Scott Schafer; Jeffrey Shapiro; (Christine Sullivan; Thuy 
Wagner; Judith Whiting; Betsy Whittey; Cicoffrey Why; Marvina Wilkes; and Mar)- Wollenhaupt. 



146 



Pl'Bl IC PROTECTION Bl'REAl" CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

CCIS sciii incliiilccl (!ail (i.ihrici. Director; Melissa Armstrong; 'I'iK,iii\' Bennett; I'.iiil (^arey; 
Christina Ciampolillo; Max Feldpaiisch; Ricardo Goodridgc; Jeremy Janow; Breiula King; l^ose Miller; 
Julie Papcrnik; Anya Petroff; Andria Simon; and Jon Wai Tommee. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

HEALTH CARE AND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 

• Bristol-Myers Squibb ("BMS") Taxol and Buspar Litigation (U.S. District (^oiirt, DC) 
In 2001 and 2002, CPAD joined Attorneys General Irom across the country in Hling suits in 
connection with antitrust allegations that BMS harmed consumers by illegally maintaining the 
monopolies of its anti-anxiet)' drug, Buspar, and its cancer drug, Tiixol, by conspiring to keep 
generic competition off the market. In 2003, BMS entered into Consent Judgments resolving 
the lawsuits. In July 2004, approximately 1,000 Massachusetts consumers received refund 
checks totaling over $535,000 in overpayments h)r Buspar. In November and December 
2004, Massachusetts state programs, including Medicaid, the Department of Public Health, 
the Executive Office of Pharmacy Services, and the Group Insurance Commission, received 
over $4 million in reimbursement in connection with both the Buspar and Taxol cases. 

• Muitistate Pharmaceutical Antitrust Settlements CPAD participated in separate multistate 
settlements with the pharmaceutical companies Perrigo, Alpharma, and CihixoSmithKline 
resolving antitrust allegations in connection with sales and marketing of generic children's 
ibuprofen and the drug Relafen. These cases resulted in close to $400,000 returned to the 
Commonwealth. 

• Tufts Health Plan (Suffolk Superior Court) In January 2005, CPAD, working with the 
Insurance Division, obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance with Tufts Health Plan, resolving 
claims that the health insurer violated state consumer protection and insurance laws in connection 
with the 2003 "Pharmacy Assessment" law that imposed fees on pharmacies based on the number 
of prescriptions filled. Tufts agreed to pay the Commonwealth a total of $75,000. 



FALSE CLAIMS 

• Commonwealth v. O'Neill, Finnegan & Jordan, and Unum Life Insurance Company 

(Suffolk Superior Court) In June 2005, C^PAD and the Insurance Division filed suit against 
O'Neill, Finnegan & Jordan (OFJ) and Unum Life Insurance Company (LInum), alleging that 



147 



I'UBLIC: PRO! ttn ION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

the insurance broker and insurance carrier vidlated the Massachusetts False Claims Act by faiMng 
to disclose hundreds oi thousands oi dollars the broker received from the carrier in connection 
with Croup Insurance C'onimission contracts to provide lite insurance to state employees and 
retirees. Simultaneous with the HIing of the lawsuit, OFJ and Uiuuii entered into C^onsent 
Judgments in which they agreed to j:iay the state $1.3 million in false claims damages. 

ELDER PROTECTION 

• Commonwealth v. Affordable Hearing Aid Technolog y (Suffolk Superior Court) In 
August 2004, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment against Attordable Hearing Aid Technology 
of Chelmsford, Custom Care Hearing Aid Center of Lexington, and their principal, Debra 
Arnett, in connection with a 2003 lawsuit alleging that Arnett engaged in multiple violations of 
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act in the conduct ot her hearing ,iid businesses. The 
original lawsuit alleged that Arnett misrepresented her professional c]ualifications, engaged in 
false advertising of hearing aid services, lailed to properly size hearing aids, and misrepresented 
the types and quality of hearing aids sold to consumers, most of them elders. The Consent 
Judgment resolving the lawsuit required Arnett to refund $40,000 to consumers harmed by her 
practices. 

• Commonwealth v. Jesse L. Corbin Funeral Home (Suffolk Superior Court) In June 
2005, CPAD hied suit against the Jesse L. Corbin Funeral Home, alleging that the Mattapan, 
Massachusetts funeral home collected payments lor pre-need fimeral arrangements, htiled to 
account for the deposits, and in some cases spent the money h)r personal expenses. At the same 
time, ("PAD entered a Consent Judgment resolving the lawsuit. Under the Consent Judgment, 
the fimeral home must pay over $27,000 in lull restitution to consumers, and $10,000 in civil 
penalties and attorneys lees. 

CHILD PROTECTION 

• On-line Sales of Alcohol to Underage Students (SuHolk Superior Court) In December 
2004, CPAD obtained (Consent Judgments against three on-line liquor retailers — Wine Clobe, 
Sherry-Lehman, and Clubs of America — for selling wine, beer and liquor to underage students 
over the Internet. In March 2005, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment against a fourth on-line 
retailer — Queen Anne Wine Exchange. Under the terms of the Consent Judgments, each of 
the businesses was ordered to pay a $5,000 civil penalty. 

• On-Line Sales of Cigarettes to Minors (Suffolk Superior Court) In August 2004, CPAD 
obtained a (Consent Judgment against dirtcheapcig.com requiring it to pay the state $125,000, 
and in February 2005 obtained a ("^onsent Judgment against eSmokes, Inc., requiring it to pay 



148 



I'l'BlJc: PRCri'tCI Kl\' Bl'REAl' CONSl'MER PROTI-CTION AND ANTITRl S I DU'ISION 

the state SiSO, ()()(), resolving lawsuits filed against these on-line cigarette retaileis in 2003 lor 
selling cigarettes to Massachusetts teenagers without verifying whether they were 18 years old 

— the legiil age to purciiase cigarettes. Another I ntcrnet cigarette dealer, Broadway Smoke Shop, 
entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance requiring it to pay $3,000 to the Commonwealth 

and end its illegal sales to minors. 

• On-Line Sales of Illegal Weapons (Sufh)lk Superior (^ourt) In August 2004, CPAD filed 
lawsuits against seven out-of-state online weapons dealers for selling and shipping illegal weapons 
into Massachusetts. The cases arose from undercover sting operations where investigators from 
the Investigations Division were able to purchase illegal weapons from these companies over the 
Internet, and to have them deliveretl to addresses within Massachusetts. Ihe illegal weapons 

— many of them popular with young people — included stun guns, switch-blade knives, 
swords, nunchaku (a/k/a numchucks), throwing stars, sling shots, and dirk knives. Four of the 
online dealers — Bynoon.com, Discoiuit Martial Arts Supply, Lifestyle Fascination, and Talley 
Products — agreed tt) Consent Judgments that ban all future sales of weapons into Massachusetts 
and order them each to pay civil penalties of $5,000. In September 2004, CPAD obtained 
preliminary court orders against the remaining online dealers, C&M Enterprises, Copgear.net, 
and Martial Arts Gear, prohibiting them from selling weapons into Massachusetts. 

• On-Line Sales of Ammunition (Suffolk Superior (]ourt) In August 2004, CPAD 
filed lawsuits against three out-of-state ammunition dealers for illegally selling ammunition 
over the Internet to Massachusetts residents. The lawsuits resulted from imdercover sting 
operations conducted by the Investigations Division. State law requires dealers be licensed to 
sell ammunition and prohibits the sale of ammunition to minors or those without a permit. 
None of the companies held the proper state license or had taken the required steps to verify' 
that purchasers were authorized under state law to buy ammunition. 

• Clock Handguns In July 2004, CPAD notified Clock, Inc., that handguns it began selling 
in Massachusetts did not comply with the Attorney Cenerals Handgun Sdes Regulations because 
the guns did not have either a magazine safety disconnect or an effective load indicator, one 
of which is required luider the regulations to prevent accidental injuries or deaths. As a result. 
Clock immediately notified CPAD that it would recall all handguns shipped to dealers and 
distributors in Massachusetts. 

INTERNET AND HIGH TECH 

• Commonwealth v. DC Enterprises (Suffolk Superior Court) In July 2004, C'PAD filed 
a lawsuit against DC Enterprises and its principal, William T. Carson of Weston, Florida, for 



149 



PLIBLIC I'RcrrECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

illegally sending thousands of unwanted electronic "spam " messages from a business address in 
Newton, Massachusetts. This lawsuit was the nation's first state action to enforce the federal 
CAN SPAM Act, which went into effect in January 2004. CPAD's lawsuit alleged that Carson 
and his company, DC Enterprises, sent unsolicited and misleading e-mail messages offering 
pre-approved mortgages, and that the messages failed to include opt-out mechanisms, failed to 
clearly identify the messages as advertisements, and used non-functioning sender addresses in 
violation of the federal law protecting against unwanted spam, the Massachusetts Consumer 
Protection Act and state laws regulating advertising of mortgage loans. In October 2004, Carson 
entered into a Consent Judgment requiring him to pay $25,000 in civil penalties. 

• Commonwealth v. Leo Kuvayev. et al. (Suffolk Superior Court) In May 2005, CPAD 
filed a lawsuit against Leo Kuvayev and six other individuals with Massachusetts ties accused of 
running an elaborate "spam" operation in violation of federal and state consumer protection laws, 
including the federal CAN SPAM Act. According to the lawsuit, Kuvayev and his associates 
sent hundreds of millions of unsolicited "spam" e-mails to consumers and businesses across the 
United States directing them to Web sites selling a variety of illegal products, including counterfeit 
prescription drugs, pirated software, and pornography. Kuvayev and his "spam gang" had been 
tracked to Russia and other countries overseas, while using a Boston post office box address 
for some of their business operations. CPAD successfully obtained an emergency court order 
shutting down an estimated 250 illegal Web sites that Kuvayev and his ring had operated. 

• Commonwealth v. Mainline Airways and Luke R. Thompson (Suffolk Superior Court) 
In September 2004, C^PAD obtained a Cx)nsent Judgment against Mainline Airways and its 
principal, Luke R. Thompson, in connection with a 2003 lawsuit alleging that Thompson 
used an elaborate Web site and on-line booking system to defraud consumers by selling them 
discounted flights between Los Angeles and Honolulu on a non-existent airline he called 
"Mainline Airways." LInder the Consent Judgment, all consumers received full restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Clockworks.com (Suffolk Superior Court) In October 2004, CPAD 
obtained a Consent |udgment against Clockworks.com of Westfield, Massachusetts and its 
owner, James Stoudenmire, for unfair and deceptive practices in connection with offering watch 
and clock repairs and supplies. The judgment stemmed from a 2003 lawsuit alleging that 
Stoudenmire failed to deliver products advertised on his website to consumers in Massachusetts 
and 40 other states. Under the terms of the Consent Judgment, Stoudenmire was ordered to 
return more than $13,000 in refunds and credits to approximately 150 consumers. 



150 



Pl'BIJC I'ROTECnON BlREAl' CONSl'MER PROTECTION WD ANTITRl'ST niV'ISION 

CONSUMER CREDIT AND DEB 1 COLLEC TION 

• In ReSchreiber & Associates (Suttolk Superioi (loiirt) In November 2004, (M'Al) Hied ,in 
Assurance of Discontinuance against a 1 )anvers, Massacluisetts law Hrni, Schreiber &: Associates, 
resolving an investigation into the law firm's debt collection practices. The Assurance resolved 
allegations that the Schreiber firm violated both state and federal debt collection laws by, among 
other practices, using obscene language with consumers when collecting debts, harassing and 
embarrassing consumers, and making unsubstantiated threats against consumers. Under the 
Assurance, Schreiber and its president and owner, Jeffrey A. Schreiber, paid a total of $ 1 ()(),()0() in 
restitution, civil penalties, and costs of the investigation. The Assurance also required Schreiber 
to implement new policies and procedures to prevent future abuses. 

• Commonwealth v. Mortg a ge One Financial Corp. (Suffolk Superior C^ourt) In August 
2004, CPAD, with the a.ssistance of the Massachusetts Division of Banks, filed a lawsuit and 
Consent Judgment against Mortgage One Financial Corp., alleging that the company illegally 
issued rate-locks and misled consumers with mortgage loan commitments it could not honor. 
Under the judgment, the Norwood, Massachusetts based mortgage broker was ordered to pay 
almost $300,000 in restitution to approximately 150 Massachusetts consumers who had been 
promised, but never received, f<ivorable interest rates on their mortgage loans. 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

• In Re Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless, and Sprint PCS (Suffolk Superior Court) In 
July 2004, CPAD helped lead a group of 32 Attorneys Ceneral in resolving allegations that 
three of the largest wireless phone carriers — Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless, and Sprint 
PCS — used misleading advertisements and failed to adequately disclose important information 
about cell phone service agreements and wireless coverage areas. Under the terms of the 
Assurance of Discontinuance, Verizon, Cingular and Sprint must provide detailed information 
to consumers before entering into cell phone contracts and offer a comprehensive return policy, 
including a minimum three-day right to cancel with no penalties or activation charges, and a 
minimum fourteen-day trial period when consumers can terminate .service without paying an 
early termination fee. The Assurance also required the companies to pay the states a total of 
$3 million; Massachusetts received $425,000. 

• In Re AT&T (Suffolk Superior Court) In February 200S, CPAD filed an Assurance of 
Discontinuance against AT&T addressing allegations that the company over-billed certain AT&T 
long distance customers, and sent bills to other consumers who were not Ar& T customers. 



151 



public: protection bureau consumer protection and antitrust division 

Under the Assurance, Al'& 1' made refunds to all harmed consumers, paid the (^ommonweakh 
$140, 000, and provided the Massachusetts National Guard with 1,100 long distance calling 
cards worth approximately $30,000. 

• Commonwealth v. Norvergence (Sutlolk Superior Court; United States Bankruptcy 
Court, NJ) In November 2004, CFAD tiled suit against Norvergence, Inc., a New Jersey-based 
telephone company, tor detrauding more than 200 Massachusetts small business owners who 
had signed long-term contracts for discounted telephone and Internet services. According to the 
lawsuit, Norvergence required the small businesses to enter into long-term leases tor a "matrix 
box;" Norvergence then assigned those contracts to a number ot financing companies throughout 
the United States. In 2004, Norvergence tiled tor bankruptcy protection and ceased providing 
any telephone or Internet services, but lett its customers subject to collections actions from 
the financing companies holding the "matrix box" contracts. In June 2005, CPAD obtained 
a default judgment against Norvergence that rescinds the customer contracts and requires the 
company to pay the Commonwealth $445,000 in civil penalties. In related actions, CPAD 
obtained multistate settlements with several of the finance companies (TCF Leasing, Inc., CIT 
Technology Financing Services, Inc., Lyon Financial Service, Inc, (d/b/a U.S. Bancorp), and 
Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc.), providing over $1 million in relief to Massachusetts-based 
Norvergence customers. CPAD continues to investigate finance companies holding Norvergence 
contracts. 

OTHER CONSUMER PRCjrECneW 

• Commonwealth v. Riverside Mitsubishi, et aL (Worcester Superior Court) In 2003, 
the Central Massachusetts Office, with the assistance of CPAD, tiled suit against Riverside 
Mitsubishi, an Auburn, Massachusetts car dealership, and its owners and operators, Todd, Daryl 
and Brenda Rivernider, for defrauding over 100 consumers by failing to pay off outstanding 
trade-in loans on cars, failing to provide consumers with tides to cars they bought, and in some 
cases failing to deliver cars at all, when the dealership abruptly closed its doors in November 

2003. In May 2004, Daryl and Brenda Rivernider were found in contempt of court for selling 
and otherwise transferring certain assets without court approval. The Attorney General obtained 
a receiver over the dealership properties, ami, in November 2004, the properties were placed 
into bankruptcy and defaults were entered against the individual Riverniders. In the fall of 

2004, the Attorney General sought to enforce the contempt judgments against the Riverniders 
property in Florida, which ultimately led to lawsuits being filed in Florida state court. The 
Attorney Cieneral continues to litigate this case to obtain restitution for consumers, as well as 
civil penalties, costs, and injunctive relief. 



152 



I'UBLIC PROrtCnON lU'REAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND AN [ I I Rl'ST ni\ISION 

• Commonwealth v. Car Center USA, et al. (Suffolk Superior (louit) In February 2()()S, 
("I'AD obtained a Consent Judgment against four North Shore used car dealerships ami tluir 
principal owners resolving allegations that they defrauded consumers out of luuulrcds of 
thousands of dollars by failing to pay off outstamling trade-in loans on cars, tailing to timely 
deliver car titles to consumers, and failing to purchase or activate extended warranties purchased 
by consumers. Under the judgment. Car Center USA, Suzuki of Boston, Horeign C^ars North, 
and Cars R Us, and their principals, Nader and Ardeshir Jamali Affoussi, were ordered to pay 
consumers approximately $3().0()() in restitution; activate over 200 extended warranties valued 
at over $300,000; and pay a[iproximately $20, 000 in civil penalties. 

• Commonwealth v. Boston Fitness LLC (d/b/a Gold's Gym Downtown Crossing ) (Suffolk 
Superior Court) In January 200S, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment against Boston Fitness 
LLC, doing business as Cold's Cym Downtown Crossing, and its owner. Marc Orlandella, 
resolving a June 2004 consimicr protection lawsuit. The 2004 lawsuit alleged that, among 
other unfair and deceptive conduct, Odandella and Gold's Gym took thousands of dollars in 
membership fees from consumers, and then refused to refund these fees when the club failed to 
open as advertised. Under the judgment, Orlandella was ordered to return $9,000 to harmed 
consumers. 

• Commonwealth v. Global Marketing, LTD and Dennis Drummond (Suffolk Superior 
Court) In April 2005, CPAD secured a default judgment against Global Marketing, LTD, its 
principals, Dennis and Linda Drummond, and related entities, for defrauding as many as 90 
consumers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in connection with the marketing and sale 
of vacation time-shares. Under the judgment, the defendants were ordered to pay $ 1 .3 million 
in restitution, civil penalties, and attorneys' fees. The individual defendants have all moved out 
of state, and CPAD continues to take legal action in Massachusetts and elsewhere to collect on 
the judgment. 

• Commonwealth v. lames Brien, the American Sunroom Company, and Associated Leisure 

Products (Suffolk Superior Court; United States Bankruptcy Court) In February 2005, CPAD 
filed suit against James I^rien of Andover, Massachusetts, and Associated I.eisiue Products for 
defrauding consumers in the sales and installation of swimming pools. CPAD successfully 
obtained preliminary orders shutting down the company and freezing its assets. The company 
was later placed into bankruptcy. (]PAD continues to litigate these cases seeking restitution, 
penalties and costs. 



153 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTKJN AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. Francis P. Bellotti. Jr. and Insurance Loss Restoration Services, Inc. 

(Siifh)lk Superior Court) In April 2005, CPAD obtained a C^onsent Judgment against Francis 
P. Bellotti, Jr., a South Attleboro contractor, resolving a June 2003 lawsuit alleging that Bellotti 
defrauded at least 13 fire victims. The 2003 lawsuit alleged that 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 over 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 Consent Judgment ordered Bellotti to refund $50,000 to consumers 
and contractors. 

• In Re Blockbuster Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) In March 2005, CPAD joined Attorneys 
Ceneral from 46 states and the District of Columbia in a settlement with Blockbuster Inc., 
resolving allegations that the video rental company misled consumers in connection with its 
"No Late Fees" advertising campaign. 1 he settlement, filed as an Assurance of Discontinuance, 
provided refunds to consumers who were forced to pay "restocking" and other fees, and required 
the company to revise its advertising. Blockbuster also agreed to pay Massachusetts $12,500. 

• Auctioneer Cases (Suffolk Superior Court) In August 2004, CPAD took actions against 
three auctioneers accused of misleading consumers with advertisements that falsely represented 
that items available for purchase had been bought at estate sales or confiscated by the government. 
In an Assurance of Discontinuance filed against Anwar Klian and Fidelity First Financial Corp., 
the auctioneer agreed to change his advertisements and to pay the Commonwealth $10,000. 
CPAD's agreements with two other auctioneers required them to cease and desist from their 
alleged deceptive practices. 

• Commonwealth v. Simon Property Group (Suffolk Superior Comt; United States District 
Court, MA) In November 2004, CPAD filed suit against Simon Property Croup, the owner 
and operator of Simon Malls, alleging that Simons marketing and s;ile of its Simon Gift Cards 
violated the Massachusetts Gift Certificate law. CPAD's lawsuit alleged that Simon violated 
the law by charging gift carcf holcfers multiple fees, including dormancy fees, that substantially 
reduce the value of the card. Simon claimed, among other defenses, that Massachusetts is 
preempted from enforcing state law in these circumstances imder the National Bank Act and 
the powers given to the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Simon, 
based in Indiana, owns and operates l4 malls in Massachusetts. CPAD continues to litigate 
this case. 



154 



I'UBLK.I'ROIKCIION Bl'REAU C:ONSl)MER I'ROIKCI KIN AND ANnTRl'ST niVISION 

• Home Heating Oil and Propane (SiiHolk Sii|icri()r (^oiinl In NovcmiIki 2004, (^PAl) 
obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance against AstroFuel, LLC and two oihci ivl.iicil lie.iting 
oil businesses located in Swampscott and Marblclicad, Massachusetts, resolving .ilkg.uions that 
the home heating oil dealers refused to honor fiNcd price contracts with customers. Lliulcr 
the settlement, Astrofuel must honor hxcd price contracts it entered into with consimiers for 
the winter heating season, and the companj' also agreed to contribute S 10, 000 to a local fuel 
assistance program. In January 2005, ("PAD filed a lawsuit against Lyons Fuel of Arlington, 
Massachusetts, alleging the home heating oil dealer reneged on promises to its customers who 
entered into capped price contracts for the winter heating season. In M.uch 2()()S, Lyons 
resolved the lawsuit by entering into a Con.sent Judgment that required the dealer to honor 
its price promi.ses with consumers and to pay $10,000 to a local Kiel assistance program. Also 
in M.irch 2005, CPAD obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance against E. Osterman Cuts in 
connection with the sale of propane. Under the terms of the Assurance, Osterman agreed to 
revi.se its contracts, to provide approximately $57,000 in credits to hundreds of consumers, and 
to contribute $5,000 to a fuel a.ssistance program. 

• Commonwealth v. Richard C. Kostandin (United States Bankruptcy C^ourt, NH) In 
February 2005, CPAD filed an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against Richard 
Kostandin, the owner and operator of RCK Construction, a seller and installer of modular homes. 
CPADs complaint alleged that Kostandin converted and fraudulently transferred assets of his 
corporation for personal gain and to the detriment of RCKs creditors, including approximately 
26 Massachusetts consumers who paid for modular homes that were never delivered or were 
delivered but improperly installed. In May 2005, CPAD obtained an order denying Kostandin's 
homestead exemption; after an evidentiary hearing in June, 2005, CPAD obtained an order 
and judgment denying his right of discharge of his debts. C^PAD is continuing to assist the 
bankruptcy trustee in recovering assets for potential consumer restitution. 

• Xintra Institute of Technology (Suffolk Superior C^ourt; United States Bankruptcy 
Court) In June 2005, CPAD filed a lawsuit and Consent Judgment against Xintra Institute of 
Technology, a now-defunct vocational school, for defrauding students - many of them recent 
immigrants - by closing its doors without refunding students" tuition pa\'ments. While the 
school is in bankruptcy, CPAD continues to pursue assets and other monies that ma}- be available 
to provide refimds to harmed students. 

• Commonwealth v. All County Storage, William Kennedy, and Kazis Furs (Suffolk Superior 
Court) In August 2004, after one week of trial, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment against All 
County Storage and its principals, Nikki Granitsas and William Kennedy, and a default judgment 



155 



pliblk: prcyi hci ion biireali consumer protection and antitrust division 

against Steven Ka/is, arising otit of a 2002 lawstiit alleging luihiir and deceptive practices in 
the storage oFluindreds of fur coats. In April 2005, C^PAl) conducted a two-week trial against 
All County Storage, Cranitsas and Kennedy, arising out of a separate 2002 lawsuit against the 
warehouse storage company for alleged unfair and deceptive practices targeting lower income 
consumers who had been evicted hom their homes. CPAID is awaiting the court's decision in 
the case. 

ANTITRUST 

• Commonwealth v. Oracle Corp. (U.S. District (^ourt, San Francisco, CA) Oracle and 
PeopleSoFt are two of the largest designers of "enterprise" software systems that automate 
financial and human resource management functions tor government and large organizations. 
In September 2004, after a four-week antitrust trial, the United States District Court in 
San Francisco held that the merger of Oracle and PeopleSoft would not substantially lessen 
competition, allowing the merger to go forward. 1 he decision resolved the February 2004 
antitrust challenge brought by the United States L^epartment of Justice and six states, including 
Massachusetts, to block Oracle's hostile takeover of its rival, PeopleSoft. The lawsuit alleged that 
the proposed actjuisition would substantially reduce competition and ultimately hurt consumers 
in Massachusetts and across the country. 



156 



ru'BLic PWTrtcnoN bureau cxtmsi'mf.r protfxtion ano am riRrsT [")I\isi()n 

STATISTICAL, SUMMARY 

MONEY RETURNED IP THE COMMONWEALTH 

(I\naltics/c;o,st,s/Otliei) $7,248,460 
CONSUMER RESTH UnON RECOVERED 

CPAD $1,040,0871 

CCIS $141,534 

Local Consumer Programs $2,700,077 

Face To Face Mediation Prot;rams $ 1 , 1 1 8,759 
CONSUMER HOTLINE CALLS 

CCLS 70,197 

Local Consumer Programs 40,785 
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS RECEIVED/REFERRED 

CCIS and Local Consimier Programs 12,158 

Face To Face Mediation Programs 4,442 
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS MEDIATED 

CCIS 1,036 

Local Consumer Programs 6,806 

Face To Face Mediation Programs 2,08 1 



157 



I'UBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Atniciis Curiae Massachusetts joined a number of amicus curiae briets sponsored by other state 
Attorneys General, inckiding supporting state "Do Not Call" laws, advocating for consumers in 
banking matters, and supporting eHorts to control tobacco advertising targeted at children. In addition, 
Massachusetts wrote two amicus curiae briek supporting consumers in connection with collection actions 
in Ohio stemming horn the Norvergence litigation. 

Consumer Advocacy Massachusetts joined multistate letters and comments to federal agencies and 
Congress, and participated in federal initiatives, advocating for consumers and state enforcement of 
consmner laws in the areas of class action reform, bankruptcy, credit counseling, tobacco, and wireless 
phone services. Massachusetts has also advocated for pro-consumer state legislative proposals relating 
to debt collection and public guardianships. 

Privacy & Identity Theft Attorney General Reilly remains a national leader on privacy and identity 
theft issues. In the new state legislative session, he proposed "Security Freeze" legislation (Senate Bill 
237) that would give every Massachusetts consumer the option of telling credit reporting agencies not to 
make their credit reports available to others without the consumer's express permission. Without access 
to a consumer's credit report, an identity thief is unable to open a credit card under that consumer's 
name. Massachusetts is also a lead state in national investigations of security breaches at data companies 
that resulted in the unauthorized dissemination of confidential information belonging to thousands of 
Massachusetts consumers. In February 2005, CPAD issued a new consumer brochure called Identity 
Theft: It Could Happen To You! Attorney General Tom Reilly's Guide to Protecting Yourself and Your Credit. 
And CPAD staff have addressed consumer groups and professional organizations on how individuals 
can protect themselves from identity theft, and what to do if they become victims. 

Manufactured Housing CPAD continued its role in connection with protecting residents of 
manufactined housing communities from unfair practices by taking and mediating complaints from 
residents and regular participation at Manufactured Housing Commission meetings across the state. 

TOBACCO 

Cigarette Advertising and Sales Targeted to Minors In light of the ready access minors have to 
cigarettes by purchasing them online, Massachusetts joined other Attorneys Gener;d and federal officials 
in calling on the credit card industry and major shippers to stop handling transactions by Internet 



138 



in'BlIC PROTECTION Bl'REAl' CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTIIRl'ST DIVISION 

cigarette rct.iilcrs. As a result, the creilit card companies agreed to stop h.uidlint; tiiose irans.Rtions; 
shippers have not yet acted. In March 2005, (]FAD joined a muhistate tninciis iv/r/jc brief in support 
of the American Legacy Foundation (AI.F) in connection with l.orillard's challenge to Al.F's "truth" 
advertising campaign targeting the dangers of smoking. 

The Tobacco Master Settlement - 2005 MSA Payment The ( Commonwealth received $254,593,760 
ill April 2005 as its share o[ the 2005 Annual Pa\'meii( uiuler the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement 
Agreement, and another $2,818,035 in August 2004 in back MSA payments hom Cleneral Tobacco 
(^ompaii)', bringing the total amount received imder the MSA to more than $ 1 .6 billion. CiPAL) closely 
monitored and enforced the settlement to ensure that the Commonwealth received the full amoinits 
due uniler the agreement. Attorney General Reilly also, luuler CL. c. 291), §3(i), reported to the 
legislature c]uarterly on MSA payments. 

Tobacco Master Agreement - Significant Factor Determination In the spring of 2005, the 
major tobacco companies who were original participants in the MSA moved for a "Significant Factor 
Determination" in connection with their 2003 MSA payment. The tobacco companies are seeking to 
reduce their 2003 MSA payment to all of the states by as much as $1.1 billion. Massachusetts and the 
other states, in coordination with the National Association of Attorneys General, have commenced their 
defense. Under procedures set forth in the MSA, the states and the tobacco companies select a single 
decision-maker who will determine whether the MSA was a significant flictor in the tobacco companies' 
market share losses for 2003. A final determination is expected in March 2006. 

Non-Participating Manufacturer (NPM) Enforcement In 2005, CPAD began implementation 
and enforcement of a new statutory and regulatory scheme, initiated by the Attorney General, that 
requires NPMs to file certification statements with the Department of Revenue and the Attorney 
General, and prohibits the NPMs from selling tobacco products in Massachusetts until and unless 
they establish escrow accounts, they have deposited funds into those accounts, and all their cigarette 
brands sold in the state are listed on a directory. In February 2005, CPAD obtained its first Consent 
Judgment against a cigarette stamper, G. A. Andron, for stamping and selling cigarettes in Massachu.setts 
that had not been listed on the Ma.ssachusetts directory. CPAD also continued to litigate cases against 
cigarette manuficturers that did not comply with the states NPM Escrow Law (G.L. c. 94E). In August 
2004, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment against Sun Tobacco, resolving a 2002 NPM enforcement 
action and requiring Sun to pay $25,000 in civil penalties and its parent. General Tobacco, to join 
the MSA and make back escrow payments. In February 2005, CPAD obtained a Consent Judgment 
against FTI, an Italian NPM, for failing to make required escrow payments. In May 2005, CPAD 
obtained a judgment against LIniversal Fiamilton that requires the cigarette manufacturer to establish 
an escrow account under c. 94E, to make a $33,000 payment for past 2001 and 2002 cigarette sales in 



159 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

Massachusetts, aiul to pay civil penalties of $ 1 0(),()()0. Massachusetts also continued to participate with 
Attorneys General in other states in detendinj; litigation brought to challenge the NI'M enforcement 
activities oi those states. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Consumer Education/Advisories ("PAD, in some cases in coordination with other divisions within 
the Attorney Generals Office, issued consumer advisories on pressing consumer issues: sweepstake 
scams, piuchasing gift cards, phony government grant scams, ticket scalping, Internet "phishing" 
scams, preparing for the winter heating season, and scams targeting elders relating to the new Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. CPAD also helped publish or update a number of the Attorney General "s 
consumer guides and brochures, including Identity Theft: It Could Happen to Von, and The Attorney 
GeneraTi Guide to Keeping Warm this Winter. CPAD also sponsored a series of National Consumer 
Week initiatives in February 2005. 

Consumer Complaint and Information Section (CCIS) CCIS provided consumer information 
by responding to over 70,000 telephone calls to the Consumer Hotline, by responding to letters, 
by distributing brochures, and through public speaking engagements. CCIS also responded to 
approximately 452 public records requests from the press and consumers seeking complaint information 
against specific businesses. CCIS also participated in National Consumer Week activities in February 
2005 by, among other things, appearing at several MBTA stations, malls and post offices and answering 
consumers' c]uestions while also providing them with brochures and pamphlets on various consumer 
protection issues. 

CPAD Attorneys CPAD attorneys participated as speakers and panelists in consumer education 
events, as well as in industry seminars and forums, on numerous issues, including identity theft, Internet 
safety, predatory lending, prescription drugs, and other consumer protection issues. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

The Fjivironmental Protection Division (EPD) serves as litigation counsel on enviroimiental 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 



160 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECmON DIVISION 

Initiiuivc to ciisuic tli.it the ('oiiimoinvcilths own .igciK ics .ihidc bv state ,uul tcdcial cnviionmLiit.il 
laws, and in doiiii; so the division may bring enhircenient actions against those agencies in coiut wlicre 
the Attorney Cieiieral, in his enforcement discretion, deems action necessary. Based on the Attorney 
Cieneral's broad aiitliority to protect the environmein of the C'ommonwcalth, EPD initiates and 
intervenes in state and federal Htigation, and [larticipates in administrative proceedings before federal 
agencies on significant environmental issues. EPD defends lawsuits challenging the actions of state 
environmental agencies and the legality of state environmental laws. 

EPD staff included James R. Milkey, Division Chief; Frederick Augenstcrn; Matthew Brock; Nora 
(^horover; Carolyn Edwards; Benjamin Ericson; James Farrell; I. Andrew (^loldberg; Nancy (Betsy) 
Harper; Carol lancu; Matthew Ireland; Eleanor Johnson; Sin lip Earn; Einda Myllmaki; William Pardee; 
Amv Pinabella; and Danah lench. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

NA1 lONAL AND REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION ISSUES 

• Global Warming/Climate Change Attorney General Reilly continued his leadership role in 
seeking to address the problem ofglobal warming. On August 28, 2003, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency issued two rulings declining to regulate greenhouse gases under the federal 
Clean Air Act. The office served as lead counsel in Commonwealth of Mass. v. EPA , a challenge 
to those rulings in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sixteen states or other governmental 
entities and fourteen national or regional environmental groups joined the challenge. EPD 
filed its reply brief on December 17, 2004, and presented oral argument on April 8, 2005. At 
the end of the fiscal year, EPD was still awaiting a ruling from the Court. 

• Mercury Emissions In Fiscal Year 2005, the federal EPA issued two sets of regulations 
regarding the emission of mercury from power plants. Power plants are the largest source of 
mercury, which poses serious neurological risks, especially to children and pregnant women. 
EPD joined several other states in filing a challenge to both sets of regulations in the D.C. 
Circuit. EPD also filed suit in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts challenging EPA's fitilure 
to turn over key documents EPD had pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. 

• New Source Review EPD continued to play a significant role in a multistate and EPA 
enforcement action against American Electric Power, a large Ohio-based power company, for 
upgrading plants without installing Best Available Control Technology rec]uircd by the New 
Source Review (NSR) provisions of the federal Clean Air Act. During Fiscil Year 2005, significant 

161 



PUBL IC ['ROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

discovery and settlement negotiations continued. In the meantime, EPD continued its efforts 
working with other states to challenge two sets of regulatory changes that will significantly 
weaken the NSR program. On January 25, 2005, the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in 
one of those challenges, and issued a ruling on June 24, 2005, striking down some of EPA's 
regulatory changes and upholding others. Ihe challenge to the other set of NSR regulations 
is still pending, although a judicial stay of those regulations t,PD secured in December, 2003 
remains in place. 

STATE AIR POLLUTION LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

• 128 Sales The Superior Court imposed a $270,000 penalty in a case involving the sale of 
vehicles that were not certified as meeting state auto emission standards. 

• General Motors CiM agreed to pay a $230,000 penal t)' to settle allegations that it imported 
some cars that violated state auto emission standards. The company also agreed to pay $77,000 
toward a Supplemental Environmental Project that will help clean up public buses owned by 
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority. 

• Power Plants In May 200 1 , DEP adopted new emissions standards for the six older power 
plants in Massachusetts. In Fiscal Year 2005, EPD continued its defense of a challenge to those 
regulations filed by the owner of one of the power plants. 

ENERGY CONSERVATION 

During Fiscal Year 2005, Attorney General Reilly endorsed state legislation mandating new energy 
efficiency standards. He also worked with other states in putting together a challenge to the Department 
of Energy's failure to set new energy efficiency standards for various appliances. 

ENFORCEMENT OF OUR HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE L:)ISP0SAL AND 

MANACJEMENT LAWS 

Under G.L. c. 2 IE, the Attorney General is charged with the responsibility of recovering 
Commonwealth funds 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 afi:er the state has stepped in to itself clean up the 
contamination. This saves the Commonwealth money up frt)nt and results in the efficient administration 
of site cleanups. EPD also enforces our hazardous and solid waste management laws to prevent 
environmental contamination from occurring in the first place. 

• Mendon Road EPD continued to pursue recovery of costs the state spent many years ago to 
clean up coal-related wastes containing a compound known as ferric ferrocyanide. 1 he so-called 

162 



■UBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

McikIoii Road case was filed several years agi) af;aiiist Narragaiisett Klectric for Lieanu|i costs 
the state spent, wliicli now total several million (.lollars with interest. The First ( Circuit referred 
the question of whether ferric fcrrocyanide is a hazardous substance under the (comprehensive 
Hnvironmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act to EPA, and f^'I'A issued a ruling 
that it was. During I^'iscal Year 2005, HIM) helped secure a dismissal of an appeal the company 
took of HPAs administrative ruling, aiul continuetl to press its case in feeleral District (!ourt. 

• Boston Jimk/Boston Edison in another major 21 H action, El'D is seeking recovery, from 
Boston Edison and others, of monies being spent to clean up the site of the Boston C'onvention 
Center. EPD is working closely with the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority and the 
Boston Redevelopment Authority, co-plaintiffs in the case. In Fiscal Year 2()()'S, EPD pre\ailed 
in Commonwealth v. Boston Edison , 444 Mass. 324 (2005), an important interlocutory 
appeal before the SJC. The SJC reversed the trial court and held that 1) the (Commonwealth 
is not liable under c. 21 E for the exercise of its enforcement discretion regarding whether or 
not to bring an enforcement action and 2) the C-ommonwealth is entitled to pursue joint and 
several liability against all liable defendants (although the issues of Boston Edison's liahilit}' and 
affirmative defenses remain to be resolved at trial). The SJC ruled for the first time that any 
non-liable Commonwealth agency (in this case, the Executive Office of Administration and 
Finance) — not just DEP — may seek joint and several liability under c. 21 E against any liable 
defendant, provided the other recjuirements for recovery are met. The case has been remanded 
back to the trial court. 

• Weymouth NeckVEast Bay cases These two cases, which included both affirmative and 
defensive elements, concerned a contaminated site in Weymouth. EPD reached a settlement 
that required private parties to complete a cleanup of the area, saving the Commonwealth great 
expense. 

• D.B. Enterprises EPD continued its prosecution of owners and operators of a large landfill 
in the Town of Wendell, seeking to recover millions of dollars that DEP spent to stabilize the 
landfill to prevent its catastrophic collapse. In Fiscal Year 2005, EPD won summary judgment 
on liability. 

• Commonwealth v. Trant EPD received a judgment from the Superior (Court on October 
6, 2004 finding the estate of Carl Trant and co-defendant Tire Recycling and Development, 
Inc. liable to the Commonwealth for the $644,860.95 in unreimbursed response costs that 
DEP incurred in cleaning up the tire pile at Trants property in Brimfield, and for any of the 
Commonwealths future response costs at the site. The Court also ordered that the Clerk of the 



163 



PUBLIC I'ROl IiCTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

Court pay to the Commonwealth $72,918.81 (the proceeds ot a Hquidation auction oKIrant's 
equipment) that the (]ourt has been liolding since 2()()(). 

• Commonwealth v. Flaherty EPI) continued its suit against developers ot a contaminated 
site in Tyngsborough who were disclaiming liability tor the cleanup. 

• Commonwealth v. D'Ang elo (Broadway Brake) EPL) filed suit against Philip D'Angelo, 
owner of a contaminated property located in Brockton, and a trust he created to recover almost 
$200,000 in c. 2 1 E response costs and to get the historical releases of oil and hazardous material 
at the property cleaned up. EPD also sued Broadway Brake, a company D'Angelo owned that 
had operated out ot the property, to seek a civil penalty for failure to comply with state law 
during a cleanup ot a more recent release ot tuel oil. The parties settled this matter, and Final 
Judgment was entered on May 26, 2005, requiring D'Angelo and Broadway Brake to clean up 
the propert)', pay a civil penalty ot $50,000, and pay $195,000 in response costs. 

• Commonwealth v. Parker (Cataumet Garage) EPD prevailed on summary judgment in 
this case involving an owner who disclaimed liability to clean up a contaminated site in Bourne. 
The Court issued a judgment that, in addition to finding the owner liable, ordered him to pay 
$62,380 in civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The owner has appealed. 

• Commonwealth v. Beaudette (Sandy Bay) The Court entered a Modified Final Judgment 
as part of a settlement to resolve John Beaudette, Inc.'s noncompliance with the terms of a 
1997 Final Judgment and Settlement Agreement. The case is a Chapter 21 E cost recovery 
and enforcement "inability-to-pay" case involving two sites in Rockport. The Modified Final 
Judgment requires JBI to establish a letter ot credit, tor the benefit ot the DEP, and a Standby 
Trust, in the amount of $100,000; pay the Commonwealth $67,000, the full amount ot its 
unreimbursed costs; and pay a penalty of $20,000, of which $10,000 has been deterred and 
will be waived if JBI complies in full with all requirements ot the agreement. 

• Commonwealth v. Town of Longmeadow EPD brought suit against the Town of 
Longmeadow and ciurent and former employees for allegedly disposing of solvents and waste 
oil through underground drains near wetlands; improper disposal ot asbestos wastes; releasing 
freon and other harmful coolants from the crushing of appliances; burying drums ot hazardous 
material and large amounts ot solid wastes, including old tuel and oil tanks, truck tires, street 
sweeper equipment, concrete and asphalt; operating its recycling tacilit)' in ways not approved 
by DEP; discharging sewage into various state waters and improperly maintaining town sewer 
lines; and altering wetlands areas without required permits. Under the final judgment, the 



164 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BDREAl! ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

town was reeiiiiied to \x\y a S2S(), ()()() i.i\il pcii.ilt)' {a record h)r a municipality), a portion of 
which will be waived if the town successfully returns to compliance mider prescriheti terms and 
conditions, and to conduct environmental management systems audits and compliance audits 
for virtually all town properties and to correct any environmental violations found at any of 
them. Kach of the individual defendants paid a $7,500 civil penain,'. 

• Commonwealth v. Town of Wayland In a 2002 settlement, the town at;reeil to pa)' a 
$25,000 penalty, although $10,000 was suspended. The town agreed to pay half of the suspended 
penalty to .settle allegations of a new violation. 

• Commonwealth v. Troiano 1 he Superior (^ourt granted the Attorney Cicneral s motion 
for a Preliminary Injunction on March 24, 2005, recjuiring Troiano to fulK' abate nuisance 
conditions at his Grafton food waste recycling business. 

• Commonwealth v. Eskanian EPD sued the owner of four gas stations in Medford and 
Maiden alleging that he failed to clean up his properties in accordance with c. 2 IF, and to 
comply with various state air pollution requirements. 

NATURAL RESOURCE RECOVERY. PROTECTION. AND PRESERVATION 

• Natural Resource Damages EPD, with the federal government, brought a case against the 
City of Holyoke Electric Department involving coal tar wastes in the Connecticut River. EPD 
secured entry of a consent decree that will require payment of a total of $500,000, including 
$345,000.00 for natural resource damages, and $36,755.00 as reimbursement for state costs 
of NRD assessment. 

• Buzzards Bay Oil Spill EPD, with the federal government, is pursuing natural resource 
damages from the owner of the barge that caused an oil spill in Buzzard's Bay in 2003. 

• Protection of Endangered Species and Plants: Capolupo v. DEW (^apolupo, who wanted 
to build a single family home on a Merrimack River island in Salisbury that is prime Bald Eagle 
habitat, challenged Fisheries' regulatory interpretation of MESAs "take" prohibition as ultra 
vires, arguing that the legislature did not intend for a "take" to include "mere habitat alteration. ' 
On March 4, 2005 the Superior Court granted EPD's motion to dismiss, agreeing with EPD's 
arguments that Capolupo's challenge was not ripe and that there was no actual controversy for 
declaratory relief because Capolupo had not yet applied for a permit. Capolupo filed a notice 
of appeal on April 1, 2005. 



165 



I'LiBLIC I'RIVIECTION BURtAU ENVIRONMENTAL r'RC-)TECTION DIVISION 

WETLANDS. WATERWAYS. AND WATER POLLUTION 

Much of EPD's environmental work is done to protect the Commonwealth's water-related resources, 
including our water bodies, drinking water, wetlands, and tidelands. EPD brings suit against parties 
that violate the state laws passed to protect these critical resources. 

• Commonwealth v. Adesa in a case involving alleged wetlands violations in Franiingham, 
EPD obtained a settlement ret]uiring restoration and payment ol a $225,000 civil penalty. 

• Commonwealth v. Brandvwine EPD is prosecuting a case involving wetlands violations 
in Billerica. 

• Commonwealth V. LaMountain EPD obtained a preliminary injunction against a developer 
For alleged wetlands violations in Oxford. 

• Commonwealth v. Santos EPD obtained a judgment against a homeowner in Millis for 
wetlands violations along the Charles River. The judgment requires restoration and the payment 
ofa $102,500 civil penalty. 

• Commonwealth v. B&M Fitzgerald After a jury trial, EPD obtained a judgment against 
a Westheld homeowner for violating state Title 5 septic system regulations and the Consumer 
Protection Act. The judgment required payment of $50,000 in civil penalties, restitution and 
attorneys' fees. 

• American Rooter In this case involving the use of an unauthorized septic system treatment 
technology, the company agreed to a $10,000 penalty, half of which was suspended. 

• Municipal wastewater treatment cases EPD, with the federal government, handled 
numerous cases against municipalities, including Billerica, Brockton, Chicopee, Fitchburg, 
Gloucester, and the Greater Lawrence Sanitary District, regarding violations at their wastewater 
treatment plants. 

• Protection of Public Conservation Land The Attorney General enkirces Article 49 ol the 
Amendments to the State Constitution (as amended by Article 97), which serves to protect 
public park land and land dedicated to con.servation purpo.ses. EPD continued its involvement 
in a controversy concerning the Town of Hanson, which sold two parcels of conservation land 
to private parties. EPD submitted an dniicin brief to the SJC in Lindsay v. Town of Hanson , 
a ca.se involving one of the two parcels. On June 29, 2005, the SjC issued a ruling in which it 
held that the land was not in fact protected conservation land (at least with respect to a bona fide 



166 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

purchaser) becuise the town meeting vote to acquire the laiul coiueni(il.ueil that a conservation 
restriction he recorded, anti that act never occiii led. 

DEFENSIVE LITIGATION 

EPD clefends state environmental agencies and offici;ils sued on environmental issues. This defensive 
litigation includes both high profile matters, such as defense of the newly enacted state Oil .Spill Act 
against a preemption challenge by the Coast Guard, .uul man)- "nuts and bolts" cases. 

• Edgartown The Superior (iourt affirmed DEP's issuance of a groundwater discharge permit 
to Edgartown Wastewater Commission to operate its wastewater treatment facility. 

• Clifford A citizen group challenged DEPs grant of a Chapter 91 license to the City of 
Everett to build a water-dependent park on filled tidelands near the Maiden River. EPD prevailed 
in Superior Court on motions tor judgment on the pleadings and siuiimarv judgment. The 
Superior Court found that DEP could permissibly find water-dependent uses in waters like 
the Maiden River that were once tidal but are no longer, as Chapter 91 was best read to allow 
uniform licensing and other regulatory treatment of tidelands, whether a dam had been built 
downstream or not. It found DEP's water-dependency conclusion in this case reasonable, since 
visual access to the water could support enjoyment of the water, and the park had other features 
to support water enjoyment, like water-themed interpretive signs. 

• Pi res v. DEP and Town of Easton The Superior Court denied a motion for judgment on 
the pleadings in this Chapter 30A wetlands appeal, holding that the Commissioner properly 
found that the project met the regulatory criteria for redevelopment projects even though 
the ALJ never reached the question (because it was mooted by her finding on another issue). 
The Court held that the Commissioner's redevelopment "finding " was sufficient to meet the 
statutory requirement of c. 30A, §1 1(8), that there be a determination of each issue of fact or 
law necessary to the final decision since "the Commissioner's reasoning is discernible from his 
reference to the pre-filed testimony of the Departments witnesses; it appears that he found the 
facts to be as the Departments witnesses testified." 

• KJtras The Superior Coiut granted EPD's Motion to Dismiss after two owners of property 
in the Town of Aquinnah (f/k/a Ciay Head) alleged that DEP had effected a "regulatory taking" 
of their land through dela\'ing wetlands approval. 

• Fore River EPD obtained a judgment in favor of l^EP in this c. 3()A wetlands appeal 
concerning whether the water body in question was part of the Fore River. 



167 



public: protection BURtAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

• Charlestown DPA Cases In tlie consolidated Charlestown Designated Port Area Cases ( U.S. 
Cypsum V. EOEAetal. . C.A. No. 03-0214; LaFarge North America v. EQEA et a!. , (LA. No. 
03-0215; and Pizztiti v. E.OEA et al. , C.A. No. 03-0216), the Superior Court ruled on cross 
motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Commonwealth 
on .ill claims, upholding the Office of Coastal Zone Management's 2002 decision to redraw 
the boundaries of the Charlestown section of the Mystic River Designated Port Area ("DPA"). 
CZM's decision redrew the boundaries to conditionally exclude the properties of two owners, 
even though those properties still met the criteria for inclusion, because CZM concluded that 
the conditioned exclusions would substantially improve the overall inhastructure ot the DPA, 
leaving it better able to support maritime industrial activity. 

• Riverdale Mills v. DEP The Superior Coiut upheld DEP's interpretation of the term "human 
consumption" in DElP's Drinking Water regulations to include supplying water to bathrooms 
h)r the purpose of flushing toilets and washing hands, where it also was available tor drinking, 
brushing teeth, and cleaning eating utensils, cups and dishes. Riverdale Mills had challenged a 
DEP order requiring it to stop using water from its private well lor those purposes unless and 
until Riverdale Mills satisfied the regulatory requirements for a public water supply, including 
complying with the required testing protocol lor public water and using a certified operator. 

• Greenbush Ihe Superior Court alfirmed DEP's issuance ol a wetlands variance allowing 
the MBTA to build the Hingham portion ol the Greenbush Line. The Hingham Conservation 
Commision and a ten citizen group had appealed the variance. The Court ruled that the 
Hingham Conservation Commission, which has merely an advisor)' role in the issuance of a 
variance, cannot prevent the DEP from issuing a variance indefinitely by continuing to rule that 
the plans submitted dining the order ol condition stage were insufficient; that the DEP held 
an evidentiary hearing by allowing the parties to submit prefiled and rebuttal testimony; that 
there was substantial evidence in support of the issuance of the variance; and that the variance 
does not violate MESA because the variance specifically required the MBTA to comply with 
MESA. 

• Moot V. Goliedg e EPD prevailed in this challenge to DEP's regulatory exemption for 
landlocked tidelands and the application of this exemption to the North Point development near 
Lechmere station in Cambridge. 1 he landlocked tidelands exemption is a critical component of 
DEP's Chapter 9 1 regulations because it allows DEP to focus on licensing areas with appreciable 
impacts on existing waterways, instead of those historic tidelands which, because of their distance 
from the water, contribute little to the public's rights of access to, and use of, the water. 



168 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2005, EPD handled enforcement proceedings leading to judgments or similar 
resolutions requiring payment of $2,298,475.95. T his figure is for penalties, cost recovery, and other 
payments awarded in Fiscal Year 2005, whether or not actually paid in Fiscal Year 200^. It docs not 
include penalties that are subject to waiver if the defendant stays in compliance. In Fiscal Year 2005, 
HPD received actual payments totaling S 1 ,820,847.23 in penalties, cost recovery, and other payments. 
Other cases resulted in court judgments rec]uiring private parties to undertake costly cleanups — a 
savings of millions of dollars for the Conuuonvvcalth. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

BRCmOMFIELDS 

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. One of the liability reforms authorizes the Attorney General to enter into 
Brownfields Covenant Not to Sue Agreements ("Brownfields Covenants") that provide liabilir\' relief 
beyond what is otherwise available under Chapter 2 IE, the state hazardous waste site liabilir\' law. 
The Brownfields Covenant Program addresses site specific liability concerns for complex cleanups and 
important redevelopment efforts. 

Applications for Brownfields Covenants are assessed according to the benefits they create for local 
communities and the Commonwealth by: 1) creating new, permanent jobs; 2) resulting in affordable 
housing benefits; 3) preserving historic buildings; 4) creating or revitalizing open space; or 5) providing 
some other public benefit to the community in which the site is located. 

In Fiscal Year 2005, EPDs Brownfields Unit continued to work on a number of diverse cleanup 
and redevelopment projects throughout the Commonwealth. The Brownfields Unit considered several 
applications for Brownfields Covenants and finalized three Brownfields Covenants designed to promote 
cleanup and reuse projects in Falmouth, Palmer, and Westborough. The Brownfields Unit has continued 
its ongoing efforts on various long-term priorit)' projects, and has also continued to solicit new projects 
through outreach and education. 



169 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

Oil November 29, 2004, Brownfields Chief Jim Fairell died unexpectedly. Attorney General ReiUy 
acknowledges with great respect and appreciation the outstanding work that Jim Farrell did in building 
the Brownhelds Covenant Program and in serving the people of the (Commonwealth. 

BROWNFIELDS COVENANl'S HNALIZED 

• Westborough - Westborough Commons Project EPD entered into a Brownfields Covenant 
with Westborough CC, LLC for the cleanup and redevelopment of a 57-acre parcel located at 12 
Union Street in Westborough. Westborough CC is revitalizing the former Bay State Abrasives/ 
Fyrolit manufacturing facility into a community-oriented shopping center with public open 
space that will create an estimated 750 new jobs and provide tax revenue for the city. 

• Palmer - Quabog East Development of Standex International Property A Brownfields 
Covenant helped Quabog FCast LLC purchase the contaminated 5.31 acre Standex International 
Corporation manufacturing facility at 1127 South Main Street in Palmer. Quabog East 
intends to clean up the site and move its regional F4VAC distribution business there, bringing 
approximately 35 full time employees to Palmer. 

• Falmouth - Hatem Enterprises Development of Former Sousa's Texaco The Brownfields 
Unit completed a Brownfields Covenant allowing Fiatem Enterprises to clean up and redevelop 
the former Sousa's Texaco gas station located at 121 East Falmouth Fiighway in Falmouth so 
that it is suitable for a small number of housing units. 

OTHER ACTIVE BROWNFIELDS PROIECTS 

EPD was actively involved in many other Brownfields projects this year, and received draft or final 
applications for Brownfields Covenants for many of these projects. Other projects involve longer-term 
developments for which the Brownfields Unit has provided consulting and assistance toward a future 
Brownfields Covenant or another resolution of liability concerns. 

• Andover - Reichhold Chemical Site The Town of Andover is interested in acc]uiring a 46 
acre former chemical site to redevelop into three-to-five playing fields for active recreation, and 
retain 19 or more acres for open space and recreation. The town and current owner submitted 
a draft application for a Brownfields Covenant, and the Brownfields Unit worked with the 
applicants on a cleanup and redevelopment plan, with a covenant expected to be completed in 
Fiscal Year 2006. 

• Attleboro - Swank Jewelers Site The Attleboro Redevelopment Authority is facilitating 
the cleanup of a contaminated jewelry manufacturing site and redevelopment of the site by a 



170 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

new icwclry nianiitacTurer interested in exp.uuliti^ its operations. The Biownfields Unit hel|ietl 
the Redevelopment Authority assess HabiHtv coneerns for an apphtation h)r a Brownhelils 
Covenant. 

• Attleboro - Texas Instruments Site Preferred Real Estate Investments purchased the nuihi- 
biiilding former Texas Instruments property and is proposing to redevelop it into commercial/ 
industrial and residential developments. PRF.I submitted a final application in May 2005, and 
EPD worked with the apiilicant on a potential Brownfields (Covenant. 

• Belchertown - Former Belchertown State School MJK Ciroup applietl h)r a Browntields 
Covenant as it sought to purchase a three acre portion of the former Belchertown State School 
to build an office, garage facility and parking area for a transportation company that includes 
handicap vans, school buses and vehicles. The Brownfields Unit issued a letter explaining why 
a covenant was not necessary. 

• Berkley - Cranberry Crossing Development at Bogs Landing llie Brownfields Unit 
worked with a developer interested in cleaning up and developing a 72 acre site into 12 to 18 
lots for single family residences and donating a portion of the site to the fown of Berkley for 
public use. EPD received a draft application for a Brownfields Covenant in March 2005. 

• Burlington - Filter Sales Project After entering into a Brownfields (Covenant in 2003 
to help the cleanup and redevelopment of a vacant manufacturing facility as a new air filter 
manufacturing facility, EPD worked with a party who sought to join the covenant agreement, 
explaining why joining was not necessary to respond to liability concerns. 

• Chelsea - Forbes Park Residential Development Ihe Davis Design Development Corp. 
expressed interest in buying, cleaning up and redeveloping the former Forbes Lithographic 
Company Property at 1 Forbes Street on the Chelsea waterfront into 225 housing imits, including 
some affordable units. The Brownfields Unit began to assess the project, and reviewed a draft 
application for a Brownfields Covenant. 

• Easthampton - Ferry Street Project The Brownfields Unit worked with the C^ity of 
Easthampton on plans for a 11 acre vacant property formerly associated with the historic 
Hampton Mills Complex. The City submitted a draft application in September 2004, and 
the Brownfields Unit worked with the City to determine an appropriate regulatory approach 
to clean up and redevelop the site. 



171 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

• Foxborough - Development of Porter Estate Property, Cocasset Road Hoxborough Land 
Partners LLC proposed to purchase the 100 acre former location of a septic treatment and 
disposal lacility, clean it and build cluster housing with significant open space. The Brownfieids 
Unit began reviewing an application for a Brownfieids Covenant. 

• Hudson - Hillside Development Thorndike Development expressed interest in developing 
the 40 acre Hillside site into 1 5 1 units of village-type housing on 25 acres with open space on 
the remaining land. Ihe site is contaminated with arsenic from historic wool operations. 

• Lawrence - Brook Street Park Project Bank of America, owner of a site formerly occupied 
by a dry cleaner, has worked with Lawrence Communit)' Works, Groundwork Lawrence and 
the City of Lawrence to turn the site into a city park. The Brownfieids Unit has worked to 
coordinate funding, regulatory compliance and liability relief for several years, and helped 
the parties move from site assessment to a discussion of the liability relief necessary, with an 
application for a Brownfieids Covenant expected. 

• Lawrence - GenCorp/ Lawrence Gateway Project One of the Brownfieids Unit s long-term 
priority efforts is the Gateway Area of Lawrence. Redeveloping the GenCorp site into parking 
and the abutting Oxford Paper site into a park and open space recreation area will be a catalyst 
for revitalizing the Gateway area — inspiring new development, increased occupancy and use 
in existing mill buildings and expansion of Lawrence General Hospital services. This project 
would create hundreds of jobs and spur economic development in the area, creating significant 
public benefits to greater Lawrence. The Brownfieids Unit continued to participate in regular 
Gateway meetings convened to provide momentum to move the GenCorp and Oxford Paper 
projects forward. 

• Marlborough - Frye Boot Site The City of Marlborough took the former Frye Boot 
Manufacturing site by eminent domain, planning to turn the property into senior assisted living 
housing. The Brownfieids Unit worked with the city to prepare an application for a Brownfieids 
Covenant, which the city submitted in May 2005, and to negotiate an agreement. 

• North Andover - Ozzy Properties Redevelopment of Lucent Site EPD negotiated a 
Brownfieids Covenant, to be completed in early Fiscal Year 2006, for Ozzy Properties to redevelop 
the former Lucent complex, an important part of the Merrimack Valley economy, into a mixed 
office, industrial, and research and development facility to bring back some of the 4,000 jobs 
lost when Lucent closed. 



172 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

• North Attleborough - Handy & Harman Site I lie (.unt-nt owner ot this piopeity, HnuK' 
,uul I l.uni.m I'^leenoiiic Materials (Corporation, is interested in cleanini; up ,incl redeveloping 
this site into a multi-tenant retail center. The BrownHelds Unit began negotiating a Brownfields 
Covenant and worked with abutters, coninienters and persons who requested to join the 
agreement. 

• Norweli - Shaw Saab Project Norwell Pond Realty Irust intends to redevelop a vacant 
anel contaminated automotive facility at 10 and 22 Pond Street into a refmbislied car sales and 
service center. In response to an application for a Brownfields Covenant, EPD explained why 
a covenant was unnecessary to resolve liability concerns related to the development. 

• Pittsfield - Colonial Theatre Restoration Project The Colonial I heatre A.ssociation 
has purchased an abutting contaminated property to help coinplete the restoration of an 
historic downtown theater. 1 he [•brownfields Unit worked to resolve the Associations liability 
concerns. 

• Plymouth - Revere Copper Site Ihe Plymouth Redevelopment Authority is pursuing the 
cleanup and redevelopment of a 1 .5 acre waterfront site formerly operated by the Revere Copper 
and Brass Company. The Redevelopment Authority submitted an application for a Brownfields 
Covenant to fiicilitate the redevelopment of the site into housing, including affordable units. 

• Weymouth, Rockland, and Abington - South Shore Tri Town Development Project at 
Former South Weymouth Naval Air Station This project will clean up and ledevelop 1,400 
acres of land at the Naval Air Station by South Shore Tri Town Development Corporation (which 
will take title from the Navj') and LNR Property Corp., a private developer. The Brownfields 
Unit continued to work with these entities and the many other state and federal regulatory 
bodies to pursue redevelopment of the site. 

• Whitman - Decor Manufacturing Site The Brownfields Unit continued its efforts to help 
resolve Chapter 21E liability and cost recovery at this 6.9 acre site as a tenant at the property 
attempted to purchase the site to expand its business there. 

BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 

This year continued to highlight the important role the Brownfields Covenant Program plays in 
both public and private efforts to transform contaminated and abandoned or underutilized properties 
throughout the Commonwealth. EPD explored cleanup and redevelopment opportunities with a variety 
of property owners and prospective developers that could lead to the creation of new jobs, affordable 
housing, open space, and other important public benefits. 

173 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

The Brownfields Unit has encouraged cleanup and redevelopment projects to proceed in many ways 

— by entering into Brownfields Covenants when appropriate and through education and consulting 
that resolves liability concerns in other ways. Brownfields Covenants may be necessary where cleanup 
is complex and liability concerns stand in the way of a redevelopment opportunity of significance to 
the economic or environmental well-being of a community. There are many cases, however, in which 
a Brownfields Covenant is not necessary iov a project to proceed, once the parties to a development 

— owner, purchaser, developer, lender, or others — understand the liability relief available automatically 
under C^hapter 21 E. Through public outreach and meetings with stakeholders across the development 
spectrum, the Brownfields Unit works to provide interested parties with an understanding of Chapter 
21 E to ensure that questions ol liability are adequately and appropriately addressed throughout the 
development process. 

LEAD I'AIN r 

Massachusetts has a high rate ol lead poisoning among children because, at least in part, of exposure 
to lead-based paint in the state's older housing stock. Luckily, Massachusetts also has one ol the nations 
strongest lead-based paint notification and abatement laws. The Massachusetts lead law requires the 
de-leading or interim control ot lead hazards existing in homes built before 1978 where children under 
six are living. Owners must also notify tenants that a property has not been de-leaded, regardless of 
whether a child under the age of six is living in the home. 

Massachusetts continued a lead paint enforcement initiative with the EPA and the U.S. Department 
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As part of this initiative, EPD reached settlements with 
Winn Management that required testing and abatement of over 7,000 housing units in Massachusetts. 
Winn also agreed to institute a new civil rights policy prohibiting discrimination against families with 
small children. EPD alst) brought two state enforcement actions against landlords in Holyoke. It 
resolved one of those for a ,$21,000 penalty, and the other is still pending. 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE SCHOOLS 

Consistent with Attorney General Reilly's priority on safe schools, EPD participated in numerous 
initiatives to address environmental health and safety concerns in Massachusetts public schools, 
especially indoor air quality. Ihe Attorney General has been a consistent advocate of schools adopting 
Environmental Management Systems to address their environmental compliance issues on an ongoing 
basis. 

EPD continued to work with community groups and other state agencies to identify the common 
environmental health and safety issues in schools, the challenges schools face in addressing those issues, 
and gaps in the laws and regulations governing environmental health and safety. EPD worked with 



174 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION [DIVISION 

several members at the Healthy Schools Ciouncil to develop legislation to atkhess eiiviionmeiual health 
and safety issues in the schools. 

PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS. TOXICS. AND PESTICIDES 

Massachusetts has a long-standing commitment to reducing human exposiue to harmtiil siihst.uiccs 
such as asbestos, toxics, and pesticides. 

Pesticides and Food EPD joined New York, California, and Connecticut in a rulemaking (letitioti 
bek)re the U.S. HPA asking it to implement the Food Quality Protection Act (FQl'A) by modifying the 
tolerances it set for residue levels for five pesticides: alachlor, chlorothalonil, mcthomyl, metribuzin, 
and thiodicarb. 1 hese pesticides are used in the agriculnual production of fruits and veget.ibles, such 
as apples, grapes, peanuts, tomatoes and wheat, commonh' consiuned by children, and HPA has failed 
to apply the mandatory safety factor in setting the allowed levels for these pesticides. 

Pesticides and Schools Attorney Ceneral Reilly and Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR) 
Commissioner Douglas P. Gillespie sent more than 3,600 notification letters to Massachusetts schools 
and child care centers that failed to prepare and file integrated pest management (IPM) plans. These 
plans, required by law, are designed to protect children from exposure to harmful pesticides in and 
around schools. 

POPs Preemption Issue EPD opposed a version of a federal bill to implement the treaty on 
"persistent organic pollutants" that would preempt state regulatory power over certain substances even 
when those substances were not regulated at the federal level. 

THE CLEAN STATE INITIATIVE 

A priority of the Attorney General is compliance, by all state agencies and authorities, with the 
environmental laws and regulations of the Commonwealth. Attorney General Reilly continued his 
oversight of the MBTA's compliance with environmental laws, including the T's compliance with 
a consent decree governing the demolition of its old power plant in South Boston. In addition to 
pressing individual cases against state entities, the Attorney General seeks to have state agencies generally 
implement policies to prevent environmental violations from occurring. 

CAPE WIND 

In November, 2001, Cape Wind Associates filed an application with the Army Corps of Engineers 
for a permit in conjunction with a proposal to build a "wind farm" on Horseshoe Shoals in Nantucket 
Soimd. The proposal envisioned 170 (since scaled down to 130) wind turbine generators on pylons 



175 



I'llBl.lC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

standing .ipproximatcly 260 teet above sea level, spread over 28 square miles ot the Sound. Horseshoe 
Shoals is located in the center of the Sound, more than three miles beyond the coastline and closing 
lines, and 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, no such scheme applies 
to other sorts of projects on the continental shelf The developer of the proposed wind farm took 
the position that in these circimistances a permit from the Army Corps will suffice to authorize the 
project. 

The Attorney General 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 proposiii, the developer's 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. In the Attorney General's opinion, the immediate proposal well illustrates the problem, 
because it would site a massive industrial installation in the middle of a body of water cherished by 
millions for its aesthetic and recreational values and for its contribution to the livelihoods of fishermen 
and of coastal towns. 

Accordingly, Attorney General Reilly continued to raise these concerns in many different forums. 
In Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. Inc. v. United States Department of the Army , 398 F. 3d 
105 (1st Cir. 2005), the First Circuit issued a ruling in a case involving the test tower for the project. 
Attorney General Reilly had submitted an iimicm brief in this case arguing that a permit issued by the 
Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act does not provide sufficient authority 
to allow a private party to occupy federal public trust lands. The Court found it unnecessary to reach 
this issue in the current case but specifically noted that it was a "thorny" issue. EPD followed up the 
Coiut's ruling by submitting comments to the Army Corps of Engineers on February 24, 2005. 

WEAVER'S COVE, I.NG FACILITY 

EPD t)ecame very involved in a controversy over the proposed Weaver's Cove lit]uified natural 
gas terminal in Fall River. EPD filed an administrative petition (joined by Rhode Island) asking the 
federal Department of Transportation to adopt new siting regulations, prepared oral testimony and 
formal written comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on its draft environmental 
impact report, and moved to intervene in the FFLRC licensing process. Attorney General Reilly called 
on FERC to put its review of the proposal on hold until the agency has digested and responded to 
concerns raised in a new study on LNG safety issues done at the request of the Department of Energy. 



176 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

HIM) also siihinittcti coniiuciits siippoitinj; ,i lulcmakiiip petition tli.it the i'.hy of I'. ill Kivcr tiled with 
the Cx),i.st Ciii.iiil; siihinitted coniiiieiits on INCi siting issues to the Senate Committee on Kiiergy & 
Natural Resources; opposed I.NG provisions in the k-deral energy bill; and, with the Clity of Hall River 
and other parties, filed various significant motions and testimony with HHRCl At the very end of Hiscal 
Year 200'), HHR(] voted to approve the Weaver's ('ove facility and HPD began work on a Petition lor 
Rehearing. 

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS 

Much of RPD's legislative work this year was in fighting various efforts to cut back on state authority. 
Hor example, HPD opposed efforts to limit the state role in the siting of liquified natural gas terminals, 
and opposed efforts by the oil industry to win immimity from law suits over contamination related to 
the gasoline additive MTBE. EPD also continued to oppose efforts by the IX-partment of Defense to 
secure additional exemptions from federal environmental laws. 

On the state side, EPD fought for legislation filed by Attorney General Reilly and Senator Brewer 
that would create a statute of limitations for cases brought to enforce the state's cleanup .statute, C.L. 
c. 2 IE. The proposed statute would key the statute of limitations to the discovery of the violation 
instead of to its occurrence, a change important for preserving the integrity of the largely-privatized 
state cleanup program. 

NUCLEAR SAFETY ISSUES 

EPD continued to play a role in nuclear safety issues. EPD transmitted to the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission its concerns regarding the potential vulnerability of spent fuel stored at nuclear power 
plants, and urged the NRG to follow the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences 
addressing those concerns. 

BANKRUPTCY MATTERS 

EPD participates in bankruptcy cases on a fairly regular basis to protect the Commonwealths 
interests. EPD represents the DEP, as a creditor, in numerous cases in which a debtor has environmental 
liability by filing a claim on the DEP's behalf seeking to recover outstanding costs or fees. EPD also 
seeks to prevent a culpable debtor from abandoning contaminated property that would otherwise likely 
create a brownfields site. Where possible, EPD also attempts to compel the debtor to perform cleanup 
actions that are still necessary or to obtain funding from its estate to cover any costs the Commonwealth 
may incur to contain any immediate hazards posed by the debtor's sites. 

In the W.R. Grace bankruptcy, for example, EPD negotiated a stipulation, approved b\- the coiut, 
that the debtors owe the DEP over $700,000 in past costs and fees, as a general, unsecured claim; EPD 



177 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION 

continues to negotiate vvitli Grace and EPA over Grace's future liability at several sites throughout the 
Commonwealth. EPD sped up resolution oi its claim for past costs by coordinating with other state 
agencies (like the Department of Revenue, who owed tiie debtors a refund, and the Comptroller's Office) 
in an effort to obtain the overall best outcome for the Commonwealth. In the US Gen bankruptcy, 
EPI) obtained a $75,000 payment for potential cleanup costs. 

INSURANCE DIVISION 

The Insurance Division represents the public interest in administrative insurance rate setting 
proceedings, brings actions in state court against insurers for unfair acts and practices, provides comments 
and testimony regarding proposed regulations and laws relating to insurance, assists in other litigation 
in the Public Protection Bureau, mediates claims on behalf of consumers, and provides assistance on 
insurance and other issues to members of the Massachusetts elder community. 

The Insurance [division included Glenn Kaplan, Chief; Stacy Book; Gerald Cahill; Michael Dunn; 
Judy del\)ntbriand; Barbara Fain; Burt Feinberg; Maureen Forbes; Rebecca Frade; Stacey Gotham; 
Maureen Hensley-Quinn; Fiilary Fiershman; Tonie Jhun; Shannon Keith; Peter Leight; Stephanie 
Kessler; Ryan Downer; Arwen Thoman; Nathan Rawding; Rosina Lucibello; Pamela Meister; Tom 
O'Brien; Quentin Palfrey; Mary Jane Preskenis; Jayna Stafford; Ruby Mintz; Pat Morgan; Monic.i 
Brookman; and Rachel Weiner. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

RATE CASE LI IICATION 

Insurance rate proceedings involve highly complex litigation, with hundreds of millions of dollars 
in customer premiums at issue. The Insurance L^ivision, with its attorneys, support staff, and in-house 
actuarial and mathematical experts, reviews industry filings and intervenes in rate cases to prevent unfair 
rate increases. The Attorney General, as the only party in the rate cases representing the public interest 
in fair rates for consimiers, and as the only party able to appeal imjustified rate increases approved by 
the (Commissioner of Insurance, plays a ke)' role in this process. 

• 2005 Automobile Insurance Rate Proceeding The automobile insurance rate setting 
proceeding is an annuiil administrative litigation in which the Commissioner of Insurance, based 
on proposals and evidence submitted by the auto industry and other parties, sets automobile 



178 



n'BLIC PROTECnON Bl'RF-AU INSURANCE DIVISION 

insurance rates ior tlie coming \car. Tlie Insurance Division litii;.ires these proceeiliiigs, 
representint; the public interest. 1 he division completed its administrative htif;ation against 
the industry's rcc]ucstcd 5.8% rate hike, and the C^ommissioner issued a decision reducing rates 
by 1.7%. The division's involvement saved consumers approximately $300 million. 

• Appeal of 2004 Auto Rate Case The division also pursued its appeal of the 2004 rate 
decision. While tlie division was largely successful in the litigation of last years rate case during 
the initial litigation, the (Commissioner nevertheless made certain errors in her decision that 
adversely affected consumers. Attorney General Reilly appealed to the Supreme Judicial C^ourt, 
and the SJC remanded portions of the case to the (Commissioner for further proceedings. 

• 2005 Workers Compensation Insurance Rate Proceeding Workers Compensation Insurance 
is a mandatory insurance coverage for Massachusetts companies that pays claims for job related 
injuries and costs Massachusetts businesses over one billion dollars in premiums each year. The 
rates for workers compensation insiuance are set in a cyclical administrative rate proceeding, 
and the industry filed for a 1% rate increase. Attorney General Reilly intervened in the rate 
case, resulting in a settlement for a -3% rate decrease, saving consumers $40 million. 

• Hartford Medicare Supplement Insurance Rate Case Hartford Insurance Company provides 
Medicare Supplement insurance to approximately 900 residents in the Commonwealth. Rates 
for this coverage are approved in an administrative docket before the Commissioner of Insurance. 
Hartford sought a 19.8% rate increase for its Supplement 1 policy and a 23.4% rate increase 
for its Supplement 2 policy. The division's intervention resulted in the reduction of both rate 
increases to 12.9%. 

• Oxford Life Oxford Life sought to increase rates for its 2,000 Massachusetts Medicare 
Supplement insurance customers by more than 20%. The division intervened in the rate case, 
obtained a reduction in Oxford's request, and saved Massachusetts consumers $300,000. 

• FAIR Plan (Homeowners Insurance) Rate Case The FAIR Plan [provides homeowners 
insurance to consumers who cannot obtain coverage from private insurers. Rates for this 
residual market plan are set in a cyclical rate proceeding. The industry sought significant rate 
increases, including higher rates for urban areas. The division intervened, and its actions saved 
Massachusetts consumers over $ 1 ,000,000 in home insurance premiums, and resulted in a rate 
rollback for FAIR Plan policv'holders in much of the ("ity of Boston. 



179 



T'LIBLIC PRCri ECl ION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION 

SUFFOLK SUPERIOR COURT LITIGATION: INSURANCE ISSUES 

In addition to the rate setting cases, the Insurance Division aggressively pursues insurers, insurance 
agents, and other players in the insurance system when they commit unfair acts and practices. 

• Tufts Pharmacies allegedly misled consumers and violated the balance billing laws by passing 
on as a "consumer tax" certain state assessments on the retail pharmacy industry. After Tufts 
encouraged this illegal behavior and misled its policyholders. Attorney General Reilly brought 
an action against Tufts and obtained a $75, ()()() payment to the Commonwealth and changes 
in Iiihs f^calth Plan documents and business practices. 

• Nationwide Insurance Nationwide failed to disclose properly information about its life 
insurance offerings. Ihe division investigated Nationwide, and obtained an Assurance of 
Discontinuance under which the insurer paid $30,000 to the Commonwealth and undertook 
measures to provide restitution worth over $500,000. 

• State Farm State Farm fiiled to follow state disclosure regulations when it resold totaled 
cars in the aftermath ol accidents (consumers who bought the cars did not receive proper notice 
that the cars were salvaged). The division filed an Assurance of Discontinuance in this case, 
and State Farm paid a $15,000 penalty and offered restitution to consumers. 

• Unum Provident/O'Neill Finnegan &c Jordan O'Neill Finnegan & Jordan served as an 
insurance advisor for the Commonwealth's Group Insurance Commission. The advisor, in 
violation of its agreement with GIG, sought commissions from Unum Provident. Unum and OFJ 
paid $1.3 million to the Commonwealth, and agreed to changes in their business practices. 

• Reiiastar Reliastar, a life insurance company formerly called Security Connecticut, tailed 
to disclose certain information regarding a lite insurance investment product. The division 
tiled an Assurance of Discontinuance and Reliastar paid $5,000 in penalties and $31,528.54 
in consumer restitution. 

• Pike Insurance Agency This insurance agency sold policies trom an unlicensed insurer that 
fiiiled to pay medical claims after it became insolvent. Pike entered into a consent judgment with 
the Attorney General, agreeing to changes in business practices and to payment ot restitution 
tor harmed consumers. 



180 



n'BLlC PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION 

• Delta Dental 1 lie division ivccivcil a coni|il,iiiu from a Delta Dental eonsuniei that her 
dentist no longer gave lier tlie negotiated rate after she reachetl the eap on her ilent.il insurance. 
Delta Dentals plan intorniation failed to explain that after the plan cap is met, the dentist does 
not have to offer a negotiated rate. The division entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance, 
and Delta agreed to clarify' its literature and pay a statiitor)' penalty. 

• Michael Porter 1 his insurance agent failed to take reasonable measines to ensure that the 
insiuance products he recommended to his clients were legitimate. After suit, the division 
obtained a judgment against this agent for equitable relief and restitution. 

• Creative Solutions Group, Inc. 1 his insurance broker misled consiuiiers about the benefits 
under a Guardian Life dental plan. The division obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance, a 
statutory penalty, and restitution for consumers. 

• Long Term Care Agent Stings The division conducted a series of stings against long term care 
insurance agents, and found that certain agents and insurers were failing to disclose important 
information to consumers. The division obtained Assurances of Discontinuance against New 
York Life Insurance Coinpany, MetLife Insurance, and a broker, Cawthorne Financial, for 
statutory penalties and ec]uitable relief 

• Harvard Pilgrim This insurer included unlawful limitations on coverage for pre-existing 
conditions in some of its insurance policies. The division obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance 
requiring Harvard Pilgrim to change its contracts and pay a statutory penalty. 

• Jill Goldman After this insurance agent unfairly provided faulty insurance coverage to 
certain small businesses, the division obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance and restitution 
for consumers with unpaid medical bills. 

• Robert Hall Hall was an insurance agent for Employers Mutual, an unlicensed insurance 
company that failed to pay claims. The division sued Hall and obtained a consent judgment 
that required changes in his business practices and provided for restitution for an\' harmed 
consumers. 



['UBLIC: PROTtCTION Bl'RKAU INSURANCE DIVISION 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Investigations initiated 64 

Litigation Initiated (Court cases) 5 

Litigation Initiated (Rate Setting Proceedings) 5 

Judgments Obtained (Superior Court) 8 

Assurances of Discontinuance 10 

Rate Case Stipulations or Judgments 5 

Penalties and Related Payments $ 1 ,200,000 

Restitution and Monetary Savings for Consumers $1,300,000 

Monetary Savings lor Consumers as a result ol Rate Cases $380,000,000 

The division includes two mediation projects, the Insurance Mediation Program and the AC Elder 
Hotline, that help consumers resolve certain individual disputes without legal action. 

MEDIATION CONSUMER MEDIATIONS/ ASSISTED 
PROJECT CALLS COMPLAINTS RECOVERIES 

Insurance 

Mediation 6,396 905 $1,561,533.20 

AC Elder 9,087 3,823 $128,000 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

PUBLIC POLICY INITIATIVES 

In addition to enforcing existing statutes, the Insurance Division actively explores various public 
policy issues. The division advocates regarding potential legislative changes and proposed regulations. 
It also perlorms important research and analysis regarding the actual ellect ol various trends and systems 



182 



I'DBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION 

on the iiisur.iiKc m.irktt .uul on loiisiiiikts. These ilaci, .iiul tlu- coiKliisioiis drawn from tlicni, are 
useful tor public policN' debate surrounding insur.uKe issues. 

Auto Insurance Residual Market Reform I'lie division continued its longstandiiii; ettoris to have 
the (iomrnissioiier of Insurance relorm the way in which consimiers obtain auto insmance when they 
cannot obtain coverage from insurers voluntarily (the "auto residual market system"). The division 
hati provided the (ximmissioner with data demonstrating that the cinrent system perpetuates fraud, 
results in luipretlictable and inec|uitable divisions ol losses among existing carriers, ,uul fails to protect 
consumers. This year, the Commissioner adopted significant residual market reforms, and the division 
testified on the need for reform and made suggestions on how the Commissioner could improve the 
plan to better protect consumers. 

Merit Rating Board This board considers how automobile accidents and driving records are used 
to assign consimiers to certain "safe driver" categories for auto insurance purposes. The board, which 
meets quarterly, is comprised of representatives of the Attorney General's Office, the Registrar of Motor 
Vehicles, and the Commissioner of Insurance. The Insurance Division represents the Attorney General 
on this board. The division continued to participate on the board, and worked toward improving the 
functioning of the "merit rating" system for Massachusetts drivers. 

Auto Insurance Reform Task Force This task force, created by the Governor, looked at ways to 
improve the auto insurance system in Massachusetts. Fhe division served on the task force, and headed 
the safety subcommittee (which focused on proposals to lessen insurance costs by reducing accidents). 
The division participated in the drafting and release of the task force's interim report, and remained a 
task force participant until the Governor disbanded the task force. 

Workers Compensation Insurance Rating Reform Group This group, convened by a committee 
of the Legislature, looked at ways to reform Workers Compensation Insurance rare setting mechanisms. 
The division participated in periodic meetings, and ensiued that small businesses and other rate payers 
remained protected. 

Testimony and Legislative Guidance The ciivision also provided testimony at administrative public 
hearings and before the legislature and provided legislators with guidance regarding regulatory initiatives 
and changes in insurance law. During the past year, the division provided guidance on proposed changes 
to the Safe Driver Program in auto insurance, the Territorial rate setting system, residual auto insiuance 
market mechanisms, competition in auto insurance, the state Consumer Protection Act, Long Term 
Care insurance reform, and proposed healthcare insurance reforms. 



183 



i'liblk: i'rot ection burf.au insurance division 

ASSISTING WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S 
GENERAL GONSUMER PROTEGTION MISSION 

Internet Ammo Dealers Following allegations that certain Internet ammunition dealers had been 
selling ammunition illegally to Commonwealth residents, the Insurance Division, in conjunction with 
the Investigations Division, oversaw a sting operation to review Internet ammunition dealer practices. 
This sting operation and its resulting court cases shut down tiie illegal ammimition sales channels of 
lour Internet ammunition dealer operations: Dan's Sporting (joods, C & EJ's Hunting and Fishing, 
Marksman's Mart and the Ammobank. Ihe division's judgments barred these unlicensed sites Irom 
selling ammunition in Massachusetts and imposed penalties against the perpetrators. 

GONSUMER MEDIATION AND OUTREAGH 

Insurance Mediation Services In Fiscal Year 2005, 6,396 people, an average of 533 each month, 
called the Insurance Division's Insurance Mediation Program to ask questions and seek help with 
insurance problems. The Insurance Division mediators, assisted by undergraduate interns trained by 
the Insurance Division, answered the questions ot callers, provided intormation, guidance and relerrals, 
and, when appropriate, sent consumer complaint forms. 

Some 45% of the callers each month were concerned about health insurance. Many of these callers 
had recently been laid off from their jobs and were not familiar with their health insurance rights. Many 
small business owners also contacted the Insurance Division to ask questions about their responsibilities 
under Massachusetts' "mini COBRA," which allows lormer employees to continue health insurance 
coverage in certain situations alter losing their jobs. 

Approximately 25% ol the callers sought help with auto insurance problems. Most were having 
dilHcidty with accident claims; others asked about preniiimi billing, cancellations and surcharges. 

In addition to the consistently high volume of calls related to health and automobile insinance, the 
mediation program received inquiries related to a wide range ol other types ol insurance, including short 
and long term disability, lile insurance and annuities, travel insurance, credit insurance, and possible 
insurance scams. Callers asked questions about how to evaluate insurance belore pmchasing a policy', how 
to cancel lunvanted insurance, how to appeal a denied claim, and how to deal with incorrect billing. 

In Fiscal Year 2005, the Insurance Division opened 9()S consumer complaint hies. As with the 
telephone inquiries, a significant portion ol these written complaints related to health insurance. Three 
hundred fifty-one of the new complaints, 39% ol the total, involved health insurance. The top six 
health insurance complaint categories were claim denials (68), billing problems (57), mini CX")BRA 
(29), misleading sales (29), disability claims (28), and employer's hiilme to remit health insurance 
premiums (27). 

184 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCE DIVISION 

111 Fiscal Year 2()()S, Insurance 1 )ivisi()n mediators closed ^59 consumer complaint Hies and lecovcred 
S 1 ,561 ,S33.2{) for Massachusetts consumers. 

AG Elder Hotline Attorney CJeneral Reillys Hkler Hotline provides a central place where senior 
citizens, age 60 and older, and their families can cdl for assistance on insurance issues and other consumer 
matters. AG Elder provides written and oral information, referrals within the Attorney Cieneial s Office 
or to other government agencies, and mediation services. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, AG Elder received more than 9,087 calls from consumers, opened 3,823 
intakes on elders, and closed 4,304 complaints. AG Elder's mediation services saved consumers 

$128,()()(). 

Most complaints (630) were against non-health businesses. Other significant areas of concern were 
telemarketing, sweepstakes, mail solicitations and mail fraud (480); credit card and other debt (360); 
and home improvement contractors (220). Health insurance continued to be a major concern, although 
the number of complaints in Fiscal Year 2005 decreased to 240 from over 400 in Fiscal Year 2004. 

AG Elder staff and volunteers participated in five speaking events; attended two conferences where 
they provided literature and answered questions from the public; took advantage of training sessions on 
a variety of topics, including utility shut off protection, wireless phone complaints. Medicare rights and 
protections, the professional role of a mediator, consumer rights related to banking transactions, and 
debt collection; and attended a 33-hour training on mediation provided by the Communirv Dispute 
Settlement Center. 

HOSPITAL AND HMO COMMUNITY BENEFITS 

Division staff oversee the Attorney General's Community Benefits Guidelines for hospitals and 
HMOs, including the Attorney General's Community Benefits Advisory Tiisk Force. The Advisory Task 
Force includes representatives of hospitals, HMOs, community health advocacy 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. 

Ihe Attorney General continued to oversee and monitor the electronic filing of hospital and 
HMO community benefit annual reports, working with the Massachusetts Hospital Association, the 
Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, and consimier health advocates. 



185 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BLIREAU INSURANCE DIVISION 

ELDER PROTECTION UNIT 

Elder Protection Unit I he Elder Protection Unit seeks to enhance protections for Massachusetts 
elders by improving the coordifiation and monitoring of elder issues, including the office's outreach 
efforts and its response to matters involving elder abuse and fraud. The unit draws on the talents of staff 
throughout the office. An internal steering committee, composed of division chiefs or bureau chiefs as 
well as other representatives with substantive jurisdiction over elder cases and matters, creates the policy 
agenda for elder issues within the office. The steering committee meets on a quarterly basis. 

Attorney General Reilly, the PPB Bureau Chief AAGs and mediators appeared on local cable 
television programs, radio, and at elder events to discuss issues affecting elders, including health care, 
telemarketing, financial fraud, charity fraud, and identity theft. Staff spoke at assisted living facilities, 
senior centers, hospitals, TRIADs and community groups, and also distributed information and 
answered questions at the annual conference of the Massachusetts Councils on Aging, and at two events 
sponsored by the Massachusetts Alzheimer's Association. Staff also trained municipal police cadets on 
elder fraud and abuse. 

Staff served as representatives on various elder advisory boards including the Massachusetts District 
Attorneys Association's Elders and Persons with L^isabilities Sub-Committee, Massachusetts End of Life 
Commission, and Bt)ston Partnership for Elder Adults. 

Elder Abuse Grant Project In late 2002, the Attorney General's Office was awarded a training 
grant from the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice, to establish an inter- 
disciplinary initiative to improve the capacity of prosecutors, law enforcement, elder service and domestic 
violence professionals to recognize, investigate, and prosecute abuse perpetrated against older individuals. 
The project received a no-cost extension to operate through September 30, 2005. 

With assistance from the project's multi-disciplinary Steering Committee, the office partnered 
with the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association (MCOPA) to develop a protocol and procedure 
on elder abuse in the community. MCOPA's board of directors adopted the protocol and sent it to 
police departments throughout the Commonwealth. The office also produced At the Hands of Others: 
Elder Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in Massachusetts, a 25 minute police roll call video on elder 
domestic violence and sexual abuse. The video was closed-captioned and released as part of a training 
packet to 351 police departments and to regional police training academies and prosecutors. 

The project coordinated with the Worcester and Essex County District Attorneys' Offices to create 
pilot roundtables, composed of representatives from the district attorney's office, law enforcement, 
elder services, domestic violence advocates, health professionals, and multicultural organizations, to 



186 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

(.liscuss liow best to h.iiuile rfgioii.il cUlcr issues. 1 ho Hist meetings of these roiiiull.ililes weie held in 
Lite Marcli 2005. The Essex (lounry l^oinult.ihle pLins to focus on ekler fin.iiKi.il exph)it,ition; the 
Worcester Cloiint\' Rouiidtable pl.ins to focus on elder domestic violence. 

I'he project is currently waiting on final approval from tlie office on Violence Against Women for 
its Well site/Web page resource on elder abuse issues. 

The Attorney General's Working Group on Assisted Living Facilities The Office convened an 
Assisted Living Facilities working group to develop a plan to identif^' and address perceived gaps in the 
hiws governing assisted living facilities. The group is meeting with advocates and industry groups. 

End of Life Issues Consistent with the Attorney General's dual role of prosecuting drug-related 
offenses while protecting consumers' access to needed prescription drugs for pain management through 
their ph\'sicians, the office joined with 31 other Attorneys General in a written comment to the Drug 
Enforcement Agency, urging the DEA to develop a balanced policy regarding the dispensation of 
controlled substances for the treatment of pain. The office ;ilso issued a Web-based advisory concerning 
advance directives. 

The Attorney General's Elder Fraud Alert Calendar Fhe internal steering committee produced 
the Attorney Cener;il"s annual calendar covering a variety of fraud prevention information, including 
scams; foreign lotteries; home improvement; health, life and annuity scams; Internet; identity theft and 
charities fraud. The office distributed 25,000 English language, 2,500 Spanish language, and 2,500 
Portuguese language calendars to law enforcement, elder groups and individual consumers, and also 
posted the calendar on its Web site. 

INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

The Investigations Division conducts investigations primarily 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, and subjects; obtain and review 
documentary evidence from numerous sources including individuals, corporations, and federal, state, 
county and municipal agencies; conduct surveillance, background checks and asset checks; analyze 



187 



public: protection bureau investigations division 

financial iccords and perform otlier 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. Attorney's 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, Managing 
Investigator; Monique Cascarano; Todd Davis; Susan Devine; Ashley Dizel; Eric Funk; Jim Gentile; 
Jake Harney; Mary H. Marshall; Nozomi Miuakami; Nicholas Paras; Lou Russo; Richard Steward; 
and Nancy Ward. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

The division initiated 89 investigations in the following major areas: 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIl^ERTIES 

The division investigated hate crimes, allegations of police misconduct and other violations of the 
Massachusetts Civil Rights Act. Investigations were also conducted into allegations of discriminatory 
housing and employment practices, as well as investigations to determine compliance with the rules and 
regulations established by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Architectural Access Board. 

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST 

Investigators continued to assist the office in bringing 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 multistate 
and nationwide investigations into fraudulent sweepstakes promotions and telemarketing scams. The 
division also participated in Internet stings gun enforcement and healthcare initiatives. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

The division's role in EPD cases primarily involved locating and identif)'ing 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 defunct companies 
responsible in part for such violations, and reviewed, evaluated and analyzed financial documents and 
prepared ability to pay analyses. The investigators also participated in lead paint inspections. 



188 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BURFALI INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

INSURANCE 

Investigators reviewed and investigated businesses and orgaiu/ations ami agents oHering long teiin 
care insurance plans. Other cases investigated incliuled iinlawhil sales practices, known <is "churning," 
and the sale of fraudulent or costly life and health insurance policies. 

PUBLIC CHARI 1 lES 

The division investigated intlividuals associated with organizations wiio raised finuis troni the pulilic 
in violation of Massaciuisetts law. In some instances, solicitors posecl as law enforcenient or oihei piil>liL 
officials or otherwise misrepresented themselves or the charitys pinpose. The division also investigated 
cases of excessive compensation to trustees. 

CRIMINAL BUREAU 

Investigators worked on ca.ses that resulted in indictments against individuals for violations of the 
Commonwealth's criminal laws. Cases included larceny against the elderly and vulnerable bv home 
improvement contractors anci illegal charitable fundraisers. 

TRIAL DIVISION 

The division played a major role in tort actions filed against the Commonwealth by investigating 
allegations of abuse, mistreatment and deaths of individuals in state care; iilleged 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. The division also investigated cases involving 
contract disputes and eminent domain proceedings. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

The division opened 89 investigations in Fiscal Year 2005, with 255 investigations ongoing as of 
June 30. 2005. 



189 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 



INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 



DIVISION/BUREAU 



OPENED DURING 

FISCAL YEAR 2005 



ONGOING AS 

OF 6/30/05 



Consumer Protcction/Aiuitrust 


29 


Civil Rights 


8 


Public Charities 


7 


hisurance 


5 


PPB/Ciiminal 





Government 


7 


Environmental Protection 


7 


Trial 


26 



84 

40 

6 

16 

9 



23 

77 



TOTAL 



89 



255 



SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Abandoned Properties Project 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 of the buildings, and, in some instances, assisted in 
inspecting properties scheduled for renovation. The division researched properties in Boston, Taunton, 
New Bedford, Worcester, and Brockton. 



190 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU DIVISION OF PUBLIC OIARITIES 



DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES 



The Division of I\iblic Charities carries out the Attorney General's responsibilities to represent the 
public interest in the proper soMcitation and use of charitable funds and to "enforce the due apphcation 
of funds given or appropriated to pubHc charities within tiie commonwealth and prevent breaches of 
trust in the administration thereof." C.L. c. 12, §8. A public charity is an entity which is non profit, 
whose purpose is charitable, and which benefits a portion of the public; in addition to philanthropic 
organizations, examples of public charities include nonprofit hospitals, schools, social service providers, 
and cultural organizations. 

With the exception of religious organizations and certain fcdcralK' chartered organizations, all public 
charities must register with the division and all registered charities must submit annual Hnancid reports. 
The registrations and financial reports are public records and the division maintains public viewing files. 
More than 22,000 charities are registered with the division, as well as over 300 professional fundraisers 
presently soliciting donations on behalf of charities in Massachusetts. In addition to registering and 
obtaining financial reporting by charities and fiwidraisers, the Attorney General is the defendant in all 
proceedings brought to wind up the affairs of a public charity or to change the terms of a charitable 
trust. 

Ihe division engaged in corporate governance and oversight initiatives to ensure that the governing 
boards of institutions carried out their fiduciary duties of due care and loyalty, and continued its activities 
in areas central to its mission: enforcement litigation to address deception and fraud in charitable 
fundraising, estate and trust actions to ensure that charitable trust funds were appropriately administered 
and applied, enforcement of laws requiring accountabilit)' by public charities, and he;ilthcare. 

The division recognizes that charities provide vital services in our communities while both enjoying 
certain benefits due to their tax exempt status and assuming certain obligations. As a result, the 
division was involved in a number of initiatives intended to strengthen the charitable sector, including 
presentations to a large number of public groups and bar organizations on charities issues and adding 
instructional materials to the charities section of the Attorney Generals website. 

The Public Charities Division included: Jamie Katz, Chief; Leslie Bennett; Amy Bryson; Sandra 
Cardone; Eric Carriker; Brant Casavant; Patricia C^lifton; Daniel Ferullo; Bernard Greene; Ann Higgins; 
Cathy Hoffman; Tenelle Jones; Beth McGillicuddy; Kathleen O'Connell; Johanna Soris; Elizabeth 
Story; and Eric Swansburg. 



191 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

CHARITY GOVERNANCE 

Much of the Attorney Generars oversiglit of charitable corporations focuses on stewardship by 
charity boards of directors. The division may become involved when directors breach their individual 
fiduciary duties of due care and loyalty or to prevent the misuse of charitable funds. In some cases, 
the division engaged in investigations and then negotiated governance agreements that provided for 
reforms in how charities operate. In other cases, the division filed enforcement actions in court after 
investigations. 

• Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp. Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp., a non-profit 
corporation based in Agawam, Massachusetts, is the second largest credit counseling corporation 
in the country. It holds itself out as providing credit counseling services to individuals who have 
amassed excessive credit card debt. In the spring of 2004, the Attorney General sued Cambridge 
Credit in state court for violating both charities and consumer protection laws. Cambridge 
Credit has also been sued by North Carolina, which settled its claim, and is involved in disputes 
with other federal and state regulators. While Cambridge Credit has since changed its operations 
and fees in response to concerns raised by the divisions lawsuit, the Attorney General has not 
yet resolved his case against the company. 

• For-Profit Acquisitions The division continued to devote considerable time and resources 
to reviewing proposed for profit acquisitions ot health care providers and other charitable 
corporations. Massachusetts charitable organizations may not, on their own, "convert" to tor 
profit status. If charitable assets are to be transferred to a for profit, it must be tor fair value, 
the transaction must be necessary and in the best interest of the charit)', and the charit)' board 
must have acted carefully and in a manner uninfluenced by conflict of interest. The division 
reviewed a number of proposed transactions and either agreed to the transactions or negotiated 
resolutions. 

• Review of Asset Dispositions A charitable corporation must give 30 days advance written 
notice to the Attorney General before 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. 180, §8A(c). On a regular basis and in 
substantial volume, the division reviewed correspondence and documents about transactions 
involving charities. 



192 



f'lJBLlC PROTECTION BUREAl' DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES 

• Charitable Corporation Dissolutions In onlcr to cease corporate existence, cii.iritabie 
corporations nuist dissolve thiougli a (iroceeilint; in the .Su[ireme [iklicial Court, lo enforce 
the public's interest in the disposition of charitable assets, the Attorney General is a parry to 
all voluntary dissolutions of charitable corporations under C.L. c. 180, §1 lA. After review, 
negotiation of necessary modifications, and assent b\' the tlivision, the dissolving charity files the 
pleadings in the Supreme Iiidicial ('oiut. The division reviewed many transactions involving 
proposed dissolutions. 

SOLICI TAIION OF CHARITABLE FUNDS 

Under G.L. c. 68, §19, every charitable organization intending to solicit fimds from tiie pubHc, 
except religious organizations, must apply to the division for a solicitation certificate before engaging in 
fundraising. Upon receipt, the division reviews certificate applications for compliance with statutory 
requirements. Unless there is a deficiency in the application, all certificates are i.ssued within a 10 day 
statutory period. 

Under C.L. c. 68, §§22 and 24, all persons acting as professional solicitors, professional fimdraising 
counsel, or commercial co venturers in conjunction with soliciting charitable organizations must register 
annualh' with the division. Solicitors and commercial co venturers must also file a suret\' bond in the 
amount of $ 1 0,000. All fundraisers must also file with the division a copy of each fimdraising contract 
they sign with any charitable organization, and solicitors must later file a financial return regarding 
each fundraising campaign. 

The Attorney General takes affirmative legal action against charities and professional fundraisers 
for unfair or deceptive solicitation practices and to enhirce 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. 

• Cancer Fund of America The division settled this case involving a national charity. Cancer 
Fund of America, just prior to trial. The division had brought suit on the basis that Cancer 
Fund and its paid fundraisers used deceptive practices and representations in the course of their 
fimdraising. Cancer Fund of America agreed to pay $75,000 to two Massachusetts charities to 
settle the lawsuit, and the charity and the fundraisers also agreed to reform a number of their 
fundraising practices. 

ESTATES AND TRUSTS 

The Attorney General focuses much attention on cases addressed to the preservation and protection 
of charitable trusts. 



193 



PUBLIC I'ROTECTKW BUREAU DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES 

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston In the wake ot the announced closings ot numerous 
Boston-area C^atholic parishes, the division began dealing with the RCAB over the handling of 
certain restricted hmds and restricted properties either held by, or on behalf of, specific parishes. 
Fundraising for the RCAB and its parishes over the years has resulted in the creation of a large 
number of restricted hmds. I'he division has worked with the RC^AB, as well as gathered 
information from outside sources, to ensure that the assets in those restricted funds go to the 
proper charitable organizations after the closing of the parishes. 

In accordance with his authority to "enforce the due application" of charitable trust funds and 
to "prevent breaches of trust in the administration thereof," the Attorney General is also an 
interested part)' in the probate of all estates in which there is a charitable interest and in all other 
judicial proceedings affecting charitable trusts. The division continued to handle a large volume 
of cases in this area, including proposed allowances of accounts, will compromises, sales of real 
estate, changes of purposes or beneficiaries of charitable trusts and bequests, amendments of 
charitable trusts to meet IRS requirements, and terminations ot charitable trusts under G.L. 
c.2()3, §25. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Charitable Corporation Dissolution Statistics Ihe division assented to 86 fiiuil judgments dissolving 
charitable corporations pursuant to G.L. c. 180, §11 A. 

Public Viewing Files The division responded to over 868 requests to view files and, in response, 
produced approximately 1,933 files. 

Wills, Trusts, and Other Probate Statistics The division received and reviewed 962 new wills, and 
received and reviewed 1,997 interim accounts and 718 final accounts for executors and trustees. The 
division received, reviewed, and assented to 50 petitions for license to sell real estate and received and 
reviewed 379 miscellaneous complaints and filings. 

Charitable Organizations: Registration and Enforcement The division processed approximately 
19,508 annual financial reports; annual filing fees totaled $1,793,510. Thedivision reviewed 815 new 
organizations, determined them to be charitable, and registered them. The division sent each new 
charitable organization a packet ot information about the division's registration and filing requirements. 



194 



PUBLIC PROTFCTION BL'REAII DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES 

As part of an ongoing compliance prograni, tli\ ision statf also contacted cliariiies whose annual (ilings 
were deficient or delinquent to rectit}' tiling deHciencies. 

Registration of Professional Solicitors and Fund Raising Counsel llie division received and 
approved 308 registrations, resulting in $6S,2()() in fees to the Commonwealth. 1 he division 
received registrations from 87 solicitors, 187 fimd raising coiuisci, and 34 commercial co venturers. 

MONEY RECOVERED FOR THE COMMONWEALTH TREASURY 

C^haritable Registration Fees $1,793,510 

Fundraiser Registration Fees $65,200 

Other fees, requests for copies, requests $628.25 

for computer information 

TOTAL $1,859,338.25 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Legislation The Attorney General sponsored legislation that would enhance the financial integrity 
and operating strength of public charities. The Attorney General first circulated the draft legislation 
within the charities community and among legislators. After revising the legislation, the Attorney 
General filed the legislation in the spring of 2005. It provides for certifications by board members, 
whistleblower protections, and other measures designed to help charities strengthen their finances and 
operations. 

Healthcare The division focused much of its efforts on healthcare. Consistent with the Attorney 
Generals strong interest in resolving problems related to the delivery of healthcare, the division 
monitoreci the actions of a number of the significant non-profit healthcare institutions that are public 
charities in Massachusetts, including both hospitals and insurers. In particular, the division continued 
its review of the finances of a number of financially distressed Massachusetts hospitals. The division 
continued to look at academic medical centers in Boston and elsewhere, but also reviewed the activities 
of community hospitals. The division, for example, devoted much attention to working on financial 



95 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

and management issues at Hubbard Regional Hospital in Webster, Massachusetts, which has endured 
severe financial distress and management turmoil. The division also began an effort to review the 
finances of Massachusetts non-profit HMO's. 

Technology and Public Access The division continued to scan images of filed documents into its 
computers, a project that will ultimately help both information retrieval and compliance efforts and 
will allow the public better access to the documents. The division also began a program with the IRS 
that will bring the division new technology so it can easily retrieve data provided to the IRS by many 
charities. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

The division continued its ongoing public education efforts regarding charitable giving and charity 
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 education^ publications. 



UTILITIES DIVISION 

The Utilities Division represents utility consumer interests and is authorized to intervene in 
administrative and judicial proceedings on behalf of consumers in connection with any matter involving 
the rates, charges, prices or tariffs of an electric, gas, telephone or telegraph company doing business 
in the commonwealth and subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Telecommunications 
and Energy ("Department" or "DTE"). G.L. c. 12, § HE. The division appears before state and 
federal courts and administrative regulatory bodies such as the DTE, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission ("FERC"), and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). In many of these 
matters, particularly public utility rate cases, the division is the only active participant advocating on 
behalf of Massachusetts consiuners. 

The Utilities Division focused on advocacy of consinner interests in connection with traditional 
utility rate cases (electric, gas and telephone) and wholesale electric restructuring issues. Work continued 
among interested parties to enhance the service quality provided by the state's utilities. 



196 



PUBLIC. PROTECTION BUREAt' UTILITIES DIVISION 

I he Utilities Division staff iiKiikletl: [oseph K()|;ers, ('hief; Hdvvarcl Bohlen; Wiliiei Bor^ella; 
Alexander ('.oeliis; Patricia Kelley; Judith 1. aster; Ciolleen Medonnelh iVnn\- Michalski; liniodn- 
Newhard; Doe I'ichard; and Karlen l^eed. 

SIGNIFICANT CASR SUMMARIES 

UTILITY RATE CASES 

• Boston Edison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Commonwealth Electric 
Company, d/b/a NSTAR Electric, DTE 03-121 On January 16, 2004, NSTAR asked the 
D IF. to approve tariffs h)r standby rates for large and medium-sized commercial and industrial 
customers who have their own on-site, self generation facilities. After eight days of evidentiary 
hearings, NSTAR and several interveners filed a settlement agreement with the Dl H on Jimc 4, 
2004. The division did not sign the .setdement and asked the DTE to approve the .settlement 
agreement with modifications: ( 1 ) that standby rates in the agreement, as well as exemptions to 
certain on-site generating customers, be only temporary; (2) that the settlement standby rates 
include a contract demand transition charge, contract demand transmission charge and an 
administrative fee to prevent under-recovery of distribution system costs; and (3) that NSTAR 
perform studies and analyses on the type, amoiuit and benefits of on-site generation iniits on 
the distribution system. On July 25, 2004 the DIE, approved the settlement but indicated that 
the rates would only be in effect until NSTAR's next rate case when the DTE would investigate 
the issues the division raised. 

• Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, DTE 03-124; 
Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, DTE 03-126; 
Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, DTE 02-79; National 
Grid / New England Power Company, FERC Docket No. ER 97-678-000/ER97-2800 The 

divisions comprehensive settlement with Massachusetts Electric Company/National Grid 
provided significant retail customer benefit through a combination of credits and deferrals with 
an aggregate value to customers of $71.2 million. The settlement resolved disputed issues in the 
four cases, including the recovery of increased costs associated with Massachusetts" Renewable 
Portfolio Standards, ISO-New P'ngland market rule changes, uplift, and the reclassification 
of Massachusetts Electrics customers to Standard Offer Service from Default Service; set 
the rate for Standard Offer Service; and resolved the treatment and deferral of unrecovered 
wholesale purchased power expense. The settlement was one of the top ten settlements in the 
Commonwealth in 2004. 



97 



I'UliLIC I'ROTECTION BURi'.AU UTILITIES DIVISION 

• Blackstone Gas Company Rate Case, DTE 04-79 Blackstone Cias, the states smallest gas 
company, sought a general increase in base rates, claiming a revenue deficiency of approximately 
$82,000. Following several months of negotiations, Blackstone and the division reached an 
agreement that balanced the financial needs of the Company with the concerns of customers 
regarding cost containment - a $40,000 annual base rate increase with a 5-year Performance 
Based Rate Plan ("PBR"). The DTE approved the settlement. 

• Boston Edison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Commonwealth Electric 
Company and NSTAR Gas Company, DTE 03-47 On October 5, 2004, the DTE issued 
an order ot notice regarding an examination of NSTARs reconciliation filing lor its pension 
and post-retirement benefits other than pensions ("PBOP") recovery mechanism. Fhe DTE 
conducted hearings; the matter remains open at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Western Massachusetts Electric Company, DTE 04-106 WMECO provided the division 
with rate case working papers demonstrating it could file for a $17 million base rate increase, 
primarily to recover increases in healthcare and pension related costs, as well as create a PBR 
tiiat would allow increases in rates to account ior capital projects planned over the next tew 
years. After a series of settlement discussions, WMECO agreed to accept a distribution rate 
increase of $6 million in 2005 and another $3 million in 2006 in exchange lor abandoning its 
rate case filing until 2007, saving customers approximately $8 million. The DTE approved the 
settlement on December 29, 2004. 

• Bay State Gas Company, DTE 05-27 Bay State Gas, who serves about 300,000 natural 
gas customers in Massachusetts, filed a major rate and PBR case on April 27, 2005, seeking a 
30% distribution rate increase over the next 5 years. This base rate case, the first since 1 992 and 
since NiSource Inc., based in Merrillville, Indiana, took over Bay State Gas, raised a number 
of issues, including service quality, the condition ot the Company's distribution system and 
merger related issues. The matter remains open at the end ol the fiscal year. 

• Cambridge Electric Light Company, Commonwealth Electric Company, FERC Docket No. 
ER05-742-000 On March 29, 2005, the ("ompanies asked FERC to approve major changes to 
their formula rate transmission tariffs passed through to retail customers. The division protested 
the tariffs; FERC accepted the proposed tariffs for filing but suspended them to conduct hearings 
on their reasonableness and settlement judge procedures. On May 31, 2005, FERC] assigned 
a settlement judge, and the parties remain in settlement negotiations at the end of the fiscal 
year. 



198 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UIJLIIJI.S niVISION 

ELECTRIC MATTERS 

FERC WHOLESAI.E MARKET ISSUES 

• Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, etal., FERC Docket No. ER04- 157-000 In atoinii.inion 
case to the l^egional Transmission (Organization ("R TO") filing, the New England Iransmission 
Owners filed requests to increase their HERC^ authorized return on equity ("RCOE'ltor huilding 
new transmission lines and lor an incentive bonus to their ROE. 1 he division joined briefs 
filed by the Massachusetts Mimicipal Wholesale Electric Company, the Attorney Cieneral of 
Rhoile Ishuul and other mimicipal power companies opposing the requests. (On May 27, 2()()S, 
the Administrative Law Judge granted the transmission companies a ROV. of only 10.72% 
compared to the 12.8% requested and rejected the 1% incentive bonus on new transmission, 
saving Massachusetts customers approximately $18-30 million/year. The iVlunici[i.il Light 
Departments appealed the decision to the fi^ill (Commission on the basis that the allowed retiun 
is excessive. The matter remains open at the end ot the fisc;il year. 

• Devon Power LLC, et al., FERC Docket No. ER03-563-030 (On November 4, 2004, the 
division, on behalf of a coalition consisting of the Rhode Island Attorney General, the New 
Hampshire Consumer Advocate, AIM, The Energy Consortium, NSTAR and Strategic Energy, 
filed testimony at FER(" opposing the IS(0-New Englands proposal for Locational Installed 
Capacity ("LICAR " the amount of generation capacity required by ISO-NE, on a regional basis, 
to ensure there is enough generating capacity in the system to allow it to work if there is a loss 
of some generating capacity). On November 9, 2004 FERC issued an order "clarifying" the 
scope of its evidentiar)' hearings, which had the effect of summarily dismissing a large portion of 
the divisions testimony without a hearing. On December 9, 2004 the division filed a petition 
for review of that order in the First Circuit Court of Appeals; the Court dismissed the appeal 
as premature. The Coalition filed initial briefs on April 15, 2005, and reply briefs on April 27, 
2005. An Initial Order from the ALJ was issued on June 1 5, 2005 accepting the ISO's proposal. 
The matter remains open at the end of the fiscal year. 

• USGen New England, Inc., FERC Docket No. ER04-84 1-000 (Salem Harbor Power 
Plant) P(i&E's subsidiary USden New England asked ISO-New England for permission to 
retire its Salem Harbor plant, claiming that it could not afford the $175 million of equipment 
needed to comply with DEP air regulations (US(]en later reduced its request to $85 millinn for 
the first phase of upgrades). ISO-NE decided USGen could not retire the plant, but, on July 8, 
2004, FER(" refused to approve USCens proposed contract that would have allowed IS(0-NE to 
charge customers $85 million for environmental upgrades. FERC ordered the parties to piusue 
settlement, and they agreed that customers will pay $6.75 million to Dominion, the plants 



199 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BDREAl) UTILITIES DIVISION 

new owner, co keep Salem Harbor running until 2008 wlien transmission upgrades will help 
maintain reliable power. (Aistomers will pay $168.25 million less than originally proposed. 

• Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, FERC Docket No. ER04-98 1 -000 On July 
1 , 2004, the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company asked FERC to approve a 1 ,334% 
increase in rates to recover increased costs of September 1 1, 2001 security measures, storage of 
spent fuel, local zoning restrictions, pensions, and decommissioning of its retired power plant in 
Haddam, Connecticut (four Massachusetts utilities own 43% ol the plant). On July 30, 2004, 
the division filed a FERC protest and joined the Connecticut Department ot Public Utility 
Control in arguing that FERC should either reject the requested rate increase as insufficiently 
supported or conduct a hearing to determine just and reasonable rates based on prudently 
incurred costs. FERC allowed the provisional rates to go into effect, subject to refund, and the 
matter is pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

• ISO New England, Inc., FERC Docket ER05-7 15-000 On March 21, 2005, ISO- 
New England asked FERC to approve monthly Installed Capacity Requirements ("Objective 
Capability Values") for the 2005/2006 Power Year. The division, the Rhode Island Attorney 
General, the Maine Public Advocate and the New Hampshire Consumer Advocate protested 
ISO-NE's assumptions concerning the tie benefits from its interconnections with neighboring 
control areas. FERC accepted the protest, saving Massachusetts customers approximately $460 
million in lower LICAP payments over the next five years. The Connecticut Commission 
chidlenged FERC's authority over this issue, and the matter is pending at the end of the fiscal 
year. 

• Consolidated Edison Energy MA Inc., FERC Docket ER05-903-000 On April 29, 
2005, Con Ed submitted a reliability must run agreement for an electric generating unit in 
West Springfield, asking for ISO-NE's reliability determination as Con Ed considered whether 
further capital improvements to the unit would be cost justified. The matter is pending at the 
end of the fiscal year. 

ELECTRIC UTILITY TRANSITION CHARGE RECONCILIATIONS 
The transition charge is a mechanism established by the Electric Restructuring Act of 1997 for an 
electric distribution company to recover its allowable stranded costs as a charge to customers. A company 
must annually reconcile or "true-up" its forecasted transition charges with the amount it actually recovered 
through its rates. Ci.L. c. 164, § lA(a), and 220 C.M.R. § 11.03(4)(e). The division reviews the 
reconciliation filings to insure that companies only recover costs permitted by the Restructuring Act. 



200 



Pl'BLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric light Company, DIE 02-84 After Fitclihuii; ni.idc an 
electric reconciliation anil inHation ailjustnieiit tilini;, the ili\isioii asked the DIE to ( 1 ) ilen\' 
the Company's rec]iiest to recover congestion costs for which the supplier is respt)nsible; (2) 
require the (Company to correct its miscalculated working capital requirement; and (3) require 
the (Company to monitor a $4^0, ()()() uniform transition charge under-collection From its G-} 
customers. On May 19, 2()()S, the DIE approxed the C]om[iany"s tiling. 

• Western Massachusetts Electric Company, DTE 03-34 On September 2.^, 2003, WMEC^O 
submitted an amencied reconciliation filing for the calendar year 2002 to comply with Western 
Massachusetts Electric Company, DTE 01 -36/02-20 (2003). On September 24, 2004, the DTE 
adopted the divisions recommendations on the accelerated amortization of transition costs and 
the compoimding of interest on transition charge over-collections. As a result, customers will 
receive an estimated $5.5 million reduction in transition charges. 

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, DTE 03-115 Fitchburg made its 2003 
reconciliation on October 31, 2003. I he matter remains open at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Cambridge Electric Light Company and Commonwealth Electric Company, DTE 03- 
118/04-114 The Companies made their 2003 transition charge reconciliation adjustment 
filing on December 1, 2003; they made their 2004 transition charge reconciliation adjustment 
filing on December 7, 2005. 1 he division conducted discovery on the filings and engaged in 
settlement discussions. The matter remains pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Boston Edison Company, DTE 03-1 17 The Company made its 2003 transition charge 
reconciliation adjustment on December 1, 2003. After discovery and settlement discu.ssions, 
the division reached an agreement with the Company that resulted in refunds to ratepayers in 
the amount of $4,725,000. 

• Western Massachusetts Electric Company, DTE 05-10, 04-40, 04-109 WMECO 
submitted an amended reconciliation filing on March 31, 2005, for calendar years 2003 and 
2004 to comply with Western Massachusetts Electric Company, DTE 01-36/02-20 (2003) and 
the rate settlement in Western Massachusetts Electric Company, DTE 04-106 (2004). The 
division conducted discovery and filed expert testimony. The matter remains pending at the 
close of the fiscal year. 

• Boston Edison, d/b/a NSTAR Electric, DTE 05-44 On May 25, 2005, the Company 
asked the D IF^ to approve tariffs affecting its transition and distribution charges designed to 



201 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

prevent over-collecting on its transition charge during 2005. On June 9, 2005, the division 
asked the D I'H to reject the Company's proposal. 1 he matter is pending at the close ot the 
fiscal year. 

• Cambridge Electric Light Company, d/b/a NSTAR Electric, DTE 05-45 On May 25, 

2005, the CAimpany asked the DTE to approve tariffs affecting its transition and distribution 
charges that would increase the monthly bill tor the average residential customer using 500 
KWH of electricity by $5.13 or 7.3 percent. On June 9, 2005, the division asked the DTE to 
reject the Company's proposal. The matter is pending at the close of the fiscal year. 

ELECTRIC INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING RELATED CASES 

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, DTE 05-29 When Standard Offer Service 
and the Electric Industry Restructuring Act's 15% rate reduction ended on March I, 2005, 
Fitchburg could, consistent with its approved Restructuring Rate plan and the Restructuring 
Act, file for substantial rate increases (almost $l,100/customer for its 26,000 customers). The 
division entered into setdement discussions with Fitchburg to smooth recovery of these costs, 
and reached a settlement, joined by AIM and LEAN, that would provide for no bill change for 
almost half (46.6%) of Fitchburg's customers and 5.2% for the remaining customers during 
calendar year 2005. The Company also agreed to an arrearage forgiveness/credit-coimseling 
program for low-income customers. The Department approved the settlement. 

• Investigation Into the Costs That Should Be Included in Default Service Rates, DTE 
03-88A-F On April 24, 2003, the DTE identified the types of costs that should be included 
in default service rates, and announced an investigation to determine the amount of these costs 
incurred by each electric distribution company. Settlement discussions were held with all the 
electric utilities; the DTE held evidentiary hearings on December 13 and 14, 2004; and on 
January 21, 2005, the division filed a settlement agreement with the utilities and AIM. On 
March 31, 2005, the DTE approved the settlement. 

• Boston Edison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Commonwealth Electric 
Company, d/b/a NSTAR Electric, DTE 04-60, 04-61, 04-68, 04-78 NSTAR asked the 
DTE to approve buyouts of its purchase power contracts with Pittsfield Generating Company, 
MASSPOWER, Ocean State Power, and Dartmouth Power Associates. The division reviewed 
the filings and participated in evidentiary hearings. The DTE approved the buyouts. 



202 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

ELECTRIC COMPANY FINANCING PROPOSALS 

• Boston Edison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Commonwealth Electric 
Company, d/b/a NSTAR Electric, DTE 04-70 On August 27. 2004, NSTAR asked the 
Dl H to approve the securitization of approximately S67S million relating to the liquidation 
of obligations under power purchase agreements with MASSPOWER and Dartrnoiuh Power 
Associates. 1 he division reviewed the filing and participated in evidentiary hearings. ( )n January 
21 , 2005, the D FE approved the .securitization. 

NATURAI. GAS 

• Berkshire Gas Company, DTE 04-52 On June 9, 2004, Bcrksiiirc C las niailc its first annual 
price cap rate adjustment filing under its performance based rate ("PBR") [ilan, seeking approval 
of normalized revenues of $252,197, or a base revenue increase of .92 percent; an inflation 
adjustment under its PBR; and exogenous costs. The division filed comments and requested 
an investigation. On August 27, 2004, the DTE denied the Company's requested exogenous 
costs increases, but permitted a .66 % rate increase under the inflation fictor adjustment of the 
Company's PBR. 

• Berkshire Gas, DTE 04-47 Berkshire Gas asked the DTE to approve a gas portfolio 
optimization agreement and a gas sales and purchase agreement between Berkshire Gas and BP 
Energy Company. The DTE conducted hearings and the division filed briefs on September 24 
and October 1 , 2004, challenging the Company's proposals. The DIE approved the agreements, 
but ordered the Company to refund its $ 1 1 8,000 in legal fees in its next cost of gas adjustment 
filing. 

• KeySpan Energy Delivery New England, DTE 04-62 On June 1 8, 2004, KeySpan asked the 
DTE to approve consolidation of the Boston Gas Company, Essex Gas Company and Colonial 
Gas Company tariffs for Cost of Gas Adjustment (CGA). The division attended a public hearing/ 
procedural conference and participated in evidentiary hearings. On November 30, 2004, the 
DTE approved the Company's petition with conditions, including the proper treatment of gas 
acquisition costs and implementation of a mitigation plan for Essex customers. 

• KeySpan Energy Delivery Services, DTE 04-9 KeySpan asked the DTE to approve a gas 
portfolio management agreement and a gas sale agreement between KeySpan and Entergy- 
Koch Trading, L. P. The division opposed the agreements on the ground that the complexity 
of the optimization transactions with multi-jurisdictioniil entities would increase the likelihood 
of trading which is not in the best interests of consumers. On December 28, 2004, the DTE 



203 



PUBLIC I'Rcri HCriON BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

approved tlie proposal, permitting the C^onipany to share in margins earned on the custoiTier 
assets. The division awaits the resuhs of an external audit to be filed with the DTE reviewing 
the first year of transactions. 

CAS SAFETY 

• NSTAR Gas Company, DTE 05-36 NSTAR Gas asked the D IE to hold an adjudicatory 
hearing after DTEs Pipeline Safety and Engineering Division issued a Notice ot Probable 
Violation (NOPV). The NOPV alleged NSTAR Gas did not comply with federal pipeline 
safety regulations, resulting in a natural gas explosion that killed two children in Hopkinton 
on July 24, 2002. The matter remains open at the end of the fiscal year. 

LONG-RANGE NAFURAL GAS SUPPLY FORECAST APPROVALS 

• New England Gas Company, DTE 04-6 On December 30, 2003, New England Gas filed 
its Long Range Forecast and Resource Plan h)r November 1 , 2003 through October 31 , 2008. 
The division participated in an evidentiary hearing on September 8, 2004. 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 
RETAIL RATES 

• Verizon's Alternative Regulation Plan, DTE 01-31 Verizon filed a $4.3 million tariff 
modification that would increase local dial tone rates lor I million Massachusetts customers 
who are not on a bundled service plan by $.34 per month, ellective October 6, 2004. The 
division filed comments urging the DTE to investigate the proposal, but the DTE allowed the 
rate increase to go into ellect without investigation. 

WHOLESALE RATES 

• Verizon's Petition to Amend All Its Interconnection Agreements, DTE 04-33 Verizon filed a 
petition on February 4, 2005, to amend by consolidated arbitration all of its 100+ interconnection 
agreements with wireline and wireless competitors to reflect the Federal Communications 
Commission's Triennial Review Order. The division intervened, and continues to monitor the 
docket. 

• Mass Market UNE Impairment Review, DTE 03-60 On August 20, 2004, the FCC 
issued an interim order asking state commissions to file summaries ol the evidence in their 
state Triennial Review Order (TRO) proceedings. The DTE asked the parties to attempt to 
file a joint summary of the results of the DTE'sTRO proceeding, DTE 03-60 (which the DTE 
suspended just before hearings began), but the carriers could not agree on a joint version and 
some submitted separate comments. The matter remains open at the end of the fiscal year. 



204 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

FFDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGULATORY POLICY PROCEEDINGS 

• Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Rulemaking, FCC Docket WC 04-36 After the HCC 
released an order requiring all VoIP providers to provide 91 1 emergency service, the division 
participated in a multistate enforcement action against Vonage, a VoIP provider whose technology 
lacked 91 1 capabilir\', which appears to have contributed to the deaths oi intliviiluals in Texas 
and Florida. The division helped prepare an Assurance ol Voluntary Compliance (AVC]) lor 
Vonage that focuses on short-term notification of 91 1 incompatibility pending the FCC] effective 
date. The Vonage matter is pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

• NASUCA Truth In Billing Petition, FCC CG Docket No. 04-208, 98-170; FCC Truth 
in Billing Rulemaking, FCC CC Docket 98-170, CG Docket 04-208 On March 18, 2()0S, 
the FCC denied NASUCA's petition asking the FCC to investigate phone carriers' practice of 
passing along ordinary operating costs as "regulatory compliance" fees in monthly line item 
surcharges on customers' bills. The FCC] also sought comment on preempting stare wireless 
terms and conditions legislation and on extending the point-of-sale disclosure requirements of 
the 32-state Attorney General Assurance of Voluntary Compliance to all wireless carriers. The 
division filed joint comments with the Nation;d Association of Attorneys General, and continues 
to monitor the FC"C docket. 

WIRELESS 

• Cingular Multistate Wireless Inquiry Ihe division is participating in a multistate inquiry 
into consumer complaints about Cingular Wireless's transition fees and incompatibilities arising 
from Cingular's merger with AT&T Wireless. The matter remains open at the end of the fiscal 
year. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
DOCKET SAVINGS 

Western Ma.ssachusetts Electric Clompany, DTE 03-34 $5,500,000 

Boston Edison Company, DTE 03-1 17 $4,725,000 

Berkshire Gas, DTE 04-47 $ 1 1 8,000 

Western Massachusetts Electric C:ompany DTE 04- 1 06 $8,000,000 



205 



I'l'BLIC PROTECmON BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

Massachusetts Electric Company, DTE 03-124 ct al. $71 ,2()(),()()() 

Blackstone Gas Company, DTE 04-79 $40,000 

Individual Division Total Savings $89,583,000 

Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, et al., ER04- 157-000 $18,000,000 - 

$30,000,000 

USGen New England, Inc., Docket No. ER04-84 1-000 $168,250,000 

ISO New England, Inc. FERC Docket ER05-7 15-000 $460,000,000 

Total Savings Working With Other Parties $646,250,000 - 

$658,250,000 

GRAND TOTAL $1,382,083,000 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Increasing the Penetration Rate for Discounted Electric, Gas and Telephone Service, DTE 01- 

106 On August 8, 2003, the DTE ordered utilities to electronically transfer all residentiiil accounts 
to the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) tor the sole purpose of identifying 
customers eligible tor discounted service, and indicated that it would consider proposals tor rate recovery 
of increased expenses resulting from the computer-matching program in a second phase. On December 
3, 2004, the DTE allowed utilities to recover revenues lost as a result ot this low income program ;is 
part of the next reconciliation filing (electric companies) or as part of the LDAF filing (gas companies). 
1 he division continues to monitor implementation ot the computer matching program. 

Utility Service Quality The division continued to examine the issue ot utility service quality, 
working with consultants, unions, customer groups and other interested parties to review the service 
quality pertormance of Massachusetts-based companies. 

Service Quality Standards for Gas and Electric Companies, DTE 04-1 16 On December 13, 2004, 
the DTE opened a docket to review existing service quality regidations. I'he division filed comments 
based on its Energy Advisors, LLC, report that reviewed DTE regulations and suggested modifications. 



206 



1 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BLIREAL' ITILITIFS niN'ISION 

ami a.skcd the D IF. to open an investigation inio requiring utilities to pettoi ni compteliensive inspections 
for stray voltage. I lie matter remains pending at the end of the Hscal year. 

All Electric and Gas Companies' Annual Service Quality Reports, DTE 05- 1 2 through 05-25 ( )n 
March 1 , 2(){)5, all Ma.ssachusetts electric and gas distribution companies filed their 2004 annual service 
quality reports with the DTE. On April 21, 2005, the division asked the DTE to investigate further 
the information in the companies' reports. The matter is pending at the end of the fiscal year. 



207 



REGIONAL OFFICES 



Western Massachusetts 

Central Massachusetts 

Southeastern Massachusetts 



REGIONAL OFFICES WESTERN MASSACIU'SETIS DIVISION 

RFGIONAI OFFICFS 
WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

The Western Massachusetts Division (WMAS) ot the Office of the Attorney General, located at 
1 350 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, as well as civil 
defensive litigation and administrative law matters arising in the tour Western Massachusetts coimtics: 
Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin and Berkshire. The Government Bureaus statewide Municipal Law 
Unit is also housed in the Western Massachusetts Division and provides by-law review and approval, 
as well as training anci advice to town and municipal officials throughout the state. The Business and 
Labor Protection Bureaus (BLPB) Fair Labor Division's Western Massachusetts Office is responsible 
for enforcing the states wage and hour laws on behalf of the citizens of Western Massachusetts. The 
division also responds to a large number of consumer complaints and provides educational outreach 
to area residents. 

The division consists of the following full-time staff members: a division chief deput)- division 
chief, twelve assistant attorneys general, two civilian investigators, a consumer liaison, one investigator 
assigned to the BLPBs Medicaid Fraud Unit, four Massachusetts State Police Officers, four Fair Labor 
Division Inspectors, one administrative assistant, one par;iiegal, and six support staff. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Western Massachusetts Division staff included: Janice Healy, Division 
Chief; Michelle Aube; Bruce Bussiere; James Clark; Susan Decker; Jonathan Driskell; Joseph Drzyzga; 
Robyn Gay; John Gibbons; Sandra Giordano; Kelli Gunagan; Bart Hollander; Timothy Jones; Karen 
Kapusta; Dana Lapointe; Susan DeVine; Tom Nartowicz; William O'Neill; Robert Ritchie; Michael 
Russo; Palmer Santucci; Matthew Shea; Cynthia Sherman-Black; Laurie Simmons; Maria Smith; 
Richard Steward; Eva Szczech; Rosemary Tarantino; Theresa Ukleja; James Whitcomb; and Judy 
Zeprun Kalman. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

The following provides an overview of several significant cases undertaken by the Western 
Massachusetts Division during Fiscal Year 2005: 



211 



REGIONAL OFFICES 



WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 

• Kleiser-Walczak 1 his small animation production company in North Adams had previously 
admitted non-payment violation due to market downturn. Company agreed to accept a citation 
and sent proof of restitution payment in the amoimt of $83,000 of which $54,000 was wages 
and $29,000 was bonus earnings not subject to the wage law. Citation with civil penalty of 
$4,000 issued. 

• Capeway Roofing This Westport roofer worked on three public schools in Chicopee. Failed 
to pay seventeen employees the increase in the prevailing wage rate that occurred during the 
contract. Restitution and civil penalties in the amount of $4,300. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES 
NON-PAYMENT OF WAGES AND PREVAILING WAGE MONIES 

QUARTER COMB. RESTITUTION CASES CASES TELEPHONE WALK INS 
AND PFNAITIFS/FINFS OPENED CLOSED CAMS 



1st 
2nd 
3rd 
4th 



38,872 
159,468 

74,239 
55,470 



151 


135 


2,294 


91 


143 


150 


2,141 


84 


147 


159 


2,150 


62 


133 


131 


2,137 


80 



TOTAL 



328,049 



574 



575 



8,722 



317 



212 



REGIONAL OFPICES WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

CRIMINAL BUREAU 

• Commonwealth v. Bog le Ihis c.isc involved a violent trafficker who picack'ci to ten years 
in prison lor cocaine tralficking and running crack distribution houses after a wiretap and 
undercover investigation by this Office. Hour co-defendants received three to five year sentences, 
with others receiving various sentences, in total, eleven defendants were convicted. 

GOVERNMENT BUREAU 

• Michael and Marcus McCreary v. Edward Ramos & Matthew Keating i iiis is an action 
for civil rights violations and personal injuries which arose as a result of an altercatit)ii at a 
courthouse. A probation officer subdued the plaintiff, Michael McCreary, after he started a fight 
during his sons trial and a court officer subdued Marcus McCreary, who was fighting with the 
officers who were arresting his father. The case against the probation officer was dismissed. After 
an eight day trial in July 2004, the jiuy found that the court officer had committed an assault 
and battery and had violated the plaintiff s right to be free from excessive force when taken into 
custody. The jury deadlocked on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, which 
was subsequently dismissed as duplicative of the assault and battery claim. The jury awarded 
the plaintiff $1.00 in compensatory damages and $3,000.00 in punitive damages. 

• Darlene Anderson v. Berkshire Community College (BCC) The plaintiff alleged that she 
slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot at BCC. A trial in February 2005 in Berkshire Superior 
Court resulted in a directed verdict in BC^C's favor because of the plaintiff's failure to prove 
that her fall had been the result of an unnatural accumulation of snow or ice. 

• Melody Farris v. University of Massachusetts Ibis tort action arose from the plaintiff's 
slip and fall on wet stairs at her UMass-Amherst dormitory while she was a resident and 
undergraduate student there. In an effort to avoid her failure to make timely presentment under 
c. 258, the plaintiff's complaint included a breach of contract claim and a claim for breach of 
the warranty of habitability. The plaintiff alleged injuries including a fractured T6 vertebra and 
internal bleeding from bruised kidneys as a result of her fall. Our motion to dismi.ss this action 
on presentment grounds was successfully argued before Judge C. Brian McDonald on July 10, 
2003 and judgment was entered in UMass's favor. The plaintiff appealed and after argiunent, 
the judgment was affirmed by the Appeals Court. 



213 



REGIONAL. OFFICES WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Ronald P. Weiss A magistrate found the respondent was 
not "responsible" on a traffic citation. Pursuant to statute, the officer then sought and partially 
prevailed at a de novo hearing before a district court judge. The respondent challenged this, 
arguing that a de nt)vo hearing as provided by statute violated the double jeopardy, due process 
and separation of powers clauses. The magistrates' judgment was affirmed and the appeal was 
dismissed. 

• Judith Glenn v. City of Springfield Police Department and Massachusetts Department 
of Personnel The plaintiff claimed she had been denied a promotion because of her race, sex 
and sexual orientation. She also asserted a claim for negligent infliction ot emotional distress. 
In 1992 she took the Police Sergeants exam and, in March 1993 received a score of 81, thus 
placing her 13th on the list. In July 1993, the DPA published a corrected score for the exam, 
which scored her at 80, placing her 17th on the list. In 1995, interviews were conducted of the 
top 16. She was not interviewed for and was not promoted to the position of Sergeant. The 
entire case was dismissed without prejudice. 

• East Longmeadow Public Schools v. Massachusetts Department of Education and 
Massachusetts Department of Social Services This was an action for declaratory relief to review 
and reverse a decision of the DOE's Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) as well as for 
reimbursement of monies expended pursuant to that decision. The BSEA decision affirmed 
DOE's earlier decision that East Longmeadow is fiscally and programmatically responsible tor 
the special education programs, at out-of district residential schools, tor two siblings in DSS's 
custody. After moving between different Massachusetts municipalities, the children's mother 
moved out of state. The children's father, who has had no contact with the children for years, 
lives in East Longmeadow. Disputed issues before the BSEA included the location of the 
children's residence for purposes of determining the responsible local educational agency; the 
adequacy of the notice to East Longmeadow of its responsibilities; and DSS' s responsibilities. 
The court allowed the Conmionwealth's motion for summary judgment, finding that the BSEA 
judge correctly ruled on the merits. 

• City of North Adams, et al. v. Board of Education, et al. This case arose out of the plaintiffs' 
effort to undo the Board of Education's (the "Board's") grant of a charter to the Berkshire Arts 
& Technology Charter School ("BATCS") in North Adams. The plaintiffs contended, in the 
main, that directing public funds to BATCS violated the anti-aid amendment and that therefore 
a statute as well as certain regulations of the Board should be declared invalid and funding tor 
BATCS enjoined (Count I); that actions of certain members of the Board violated provisions 
of the conflict of interest law and that therefore the Board's approval of the establishment of 



214 



REGIONAL OFFICES Vt'ESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

BATC^S should be resciiKlctl ore.uiLclcil (( j)iiiu II): .iiui th.it the Board, in coiuiiictiiii; the inilihL 
hearing on the charter school application and tiiroiigh other actions, violated the [il.iintilts' rights 
and that therefore the Board's approval sliould be set aside (Count III). Ihe (^)inmonwealth 
prevailed on its motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. 

• Ty Stockman v. BAMVLPB. RMV. Daniel A. Grabauskas. in his official Icapacityj as 
Re gistrar of the aforesaid Registry of Motor Vehicles This was a 30A arising out of a decision 
affirming the lifetime revocation of the plaintiff's licen.se to operate a motor vehicle. Various 
i.ssues of first impression — including the effect to be given to .Stockmans motor vehicle homicide 
conviction that was vacated as duplicative of his involuntary manslaughter conviction and the 
proper construction of G.L. c. ^O, § 24(l)(c)(4) — were raised. In a full opinion, the Appeals 
Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court in favor of the defendants and upheld the 
revocation of Stockmans license for life. Later, the Appeds Court denied Stockman's petition for 
rehearing and the Supreme Judicial Court denied his application for further appellate review. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

GOVERNMENT BUREAU 

As of Jime 30, 2005, there were a total of 175 Government Bureau cases consisting of 79 Irial 
Division cases and 96 Administrative Law Division cases pending in the WMAS Division. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, 64 new civil defensive cases were assigned and one affirmative case was 
approved for litigation. In addition, one new case was assigned to a volunteer assistant attorney general, 
new cases were assigned to special assistant attorneys general and a WMAS assistant attorney general 
was assigned to supervise the litigation and handling of those cases. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, 42 cases were closed by division staff. 

lotiil Saved for the Commonwealth on civil defensive litigation cases: $541,220. 

MUNICIPAL LAW UNIT 

During Fiscal Year 2005, the Municipal Law Unit reviewed: 712 general by-laws, of which 627 
(88.0%) were approved, 38 (5.3%) were approved with partial deletion, 9 (1.3%) were disapproved, 
20 (2.8%) were returned with a finding that no action by the Attorney General was required by state 
law, and 18 (2.5%) received cautions; 1056 zoning by-laws, of which 1008 (95.5%) were approved, 14 
(1.3%) were approved with partial deletion, 2 (0.2%) were disapproved, 2 (0.2%) were returned with 



215 



REGIONAL Or-V-ICES WESTtRN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

a fintlins; rhat no action by the Attorney Cjcncral was required by state law, and 30 (2.8%) received 
caurions; 6 historic district by-laws, all ol which weie approved and 13 charter arnenilnietiis, all oi 
which were found to be consistent witli state law. 

rUBLl C I'R O JECn ON BUREAU 
Civil Rights Division 

Pending Housing Discrimination cases 6 

Settlements .mi] (Consent Judgment achieved in 

Housins; Discrimination cases working in 

collaboration with intervening plaintiffs'counsel 2 cases settled for a total of '^ 24, 000 

Pending Massachusetts (;]ivil Rights Actions (MCR.^) 

Pending MC^RA Investigations 

Public ('liariiies Division 

Pending Publie Charities Cases 

Pending Public Charities Investigations 

Consumer Division 

Pending Consumer Ceases 2 

Pending Consumer Investigations 4 

Total Consumer trails Received 1,643 

Total Consumer Complaints Received 171 

Consuirier Correspondence Processed 

by Consumer Liaison 1 ,8 14 

Money Saved Consumers'! hrough 

Consumer l,iaist)n Mediation $77,062.04 

CRIMINAL BllREAU 

Pending ( jiminal ( iases 5 

Pending ( 'liminal Investigations 7 

216 



REGIONAL OFFICES WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT INITIA FIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

GOVERNMEN r BUREAU 
Civil Defensive Litigation 
WMAS continued to provide the highest quahty of legal representation to agencies and individual 
state employees required to respond to litigation filed by members of the public. During Fiscal Year 
2005 there were 175 civil defensive litigation matters active in the division. 

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 
Civil Rights Division 
The Attorney Generals WMAS Division continued to meet its statutory responsibilities to 
affirmatively prosecute housing discrimination actions throughout Western Massachusetts and obtained 
significant settlement results in two housing discrimination cases. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, WMAS also continued with its efforts to assist schools throughout the 
region in ensuring that students" civil rights are protected. To that end, division staff participated in 
numerous outreach and training efforts designed to educate school personnel at all levels regarding 
the key components of a comprehensive student civil rights policy, along with more specific trainings 
focusing on the prevention of bullying, harassment, hate crime and civil rights violations. 

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division 
I hrough the efforts of our division's 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 effectively met. Additionally, our division continued to advance 
the Attorney Generals priorities in the area of elder protection through cross-bureau outreach and 
education programs and an elder protection conference designed to educate senior and elder protection 
providers regarding scams, fraud and abuse. 



217 



REGIONAL OFFICES WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

During Fiscal Year 2005, staff in the WMAS regional office were actively engaged in advancing 
numerous Attorney Generals Office cross-bureau initiatives and trainings. Division staff advanced the 
Attorney General's child protection and school safety priorities by providing the Springfield School 
System with numerous civil rights training programs for school personnel. The Deputy Division Chief 
four assistant attorneys general, and six support staff participated in a variety of programs, including 
the 36th anniversary year of the Springfield School Volunteers Program. The Division Chief actively 
participated in the development of a community based Weed & Seed Initiative that targeted the Mason 
Square section of Springfield for crime reduction and neighborhood revitalization. The Attorney 
Generals Abandoned Housing Project is also contributing to this initiative. WMAS staff also participated 
at the local level in the Attorney Gener;il"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 ot the Public 
Protection Bureau. Regional staff advanced this priority by conducting numerous educational training 
programs for area seniors and elder service providers. Staff also volunteered their time to the "Spruce 
Up Springfield" park cleanup campaign. 

In order to foster communication and cooperation among local law enforcement agencies, staff 
attended the monthly meetings of the Springfield Violence Prevention Task Force. Assistant Attorney 
General staff also actively fostered our Office's relationship with the local leg;il community through 
participation in the Women's Bar Association, the Hampden County Bar Association, and as panelists tor 
legal programs at Western New England College School of Law. Additionally, 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 nimierous cross-bureau working groups, including the 
Diversity Committee, the Web site Committee, the Elder Strike Force, and the Professional Development 
Unit working group. Lastly, staff participated in numerous professional development training programs 
presented by the Attorney (icneral's Institute. 



218 



REGIONAL OFFICES CINTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

The Central Massachusetts Division (CMAS) o{ tlic Office of the Attorney Ciencral is located at I 
Exchange Place in Worcester. The CMAS Division is coni[irised of lawyers, inspeaors, and atlniinistrative 
staff committed to promoting Attorney General I'om Rcill\''s initiatives in the Central Massachusetts 
region and responding to the specific needs oi Worcester County residents. During Fiscal Year 2005, 
( ;MAS was comprised of members of several of the Attorney Cenerals bureaus and divisions, including 
the Business and labor Protection Bureaus Fair Labor and Business Practices Di\isi<)n; the Public 
Protection E^ureaus Consimier Protection and Antitrust Division; and the Government Bureaus Trial 
Division. In addition to handling cases, the regional office responds to nimierous calls and in-person 
visitors from Worcester (^oimt)' residents and businesses seeking consumer information and wage and 
hour assistance, and making requests for educational oiureach. 

l^iuing Fiscal Year 2()()S, the (Central Massachusetts Division staff inclutted: Rosalyn (jarbose. 
Division Chief; James Gentile; Salvatore Giorlandino; Alex Ciuardiola; F.ileen Hcrnandez-C^ole; Edward 
Horniak; Charisma Lam; and Wendy Parsons. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

GOVERNMENT BUREAU 

The Attorney Generals Central Massachusetts Division continued to provide the highest equality 
of legal representation to state agencies and individual state employees required to respond to litigation 
filed by members of the public. Highlights of the Government Bureau cases handled by the CMAS 
staff in Fiscal Year 2005 include: 

• Breneman v. Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, et al. (U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
First Circuit) A panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the 
District Courts dismissal of the plaintiffs' takings claim against the Massachusetts Aeronautics 
Commission. The District Court had dismissed the case against the Commission because of 
1 1th Amendment immunity. 



219 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

• Gonsalves v. Commonwealth, et al. (Franklin County Superior Court) The plaintiH, a 
former inmate of the PrankHn County Jail, brouglit a negligence action against the Sheriff seeking 
recovery for injuries that he suffered when he jumped off the jail's third tier and landed on his 
head. He claimed his injuries were caused by die failure of medical personnel in the Franklin 
Sheriff's Office to provide him with adequate psychiatric treatment. The Commonwealth's 
motion to dismiss the suit was allowed. 

• Carboni v. Quinsigamond Community Colleg e (Worcester Superior Court) The plaintiff 
claimed that the College discriminated against him based on his male gender by hiring two 
women for faculty positions and by retaliating against him for filing an MCAD Complaint against 
the College. The plaintiff's initial settlement demand was $175,000. Through mediation, the 
Commonwealth was able to achieve a favorable settlement of $32,500 with the plaintiff 

• Crisanto Mendonca v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme judicial Court and 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, unreported 
decision) This case was a federal suit challenging the validity of various SJC orders in cases 
involving the plaintiff In a summary decision, the First Circuit affirmed a lower court judgment 
dismissing the pro se suit against the SJC. 

• Stern v. University of Massachusetts, et al. (U.S. District Court) The plaintiff is a UMASS 
Amherst student who brought suit against the school and various parties contending that the 
school is required to provide him with health insurance coverage notwithstanding his part-time 
status. The U.S. District Court dismissed the case as being barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 

The case is on appeal. 

• DSS v. Willard (Mass. Appeals Court) The Appeals Court affirmed judgments in favor of 
DSS in a case involving termination of parental rights. The father had a long history of alcohol 
abuse, domestic violence, and a criminal record involving violent crimes such as assault and 
battery. 

• DSS V. McHug h (Mass. Appeals Court) The Appeals Court affirmed judgment in favor of 
DSS in a case terminating mother's parental rights. Appeals Court found that there was clear 
and convincing evidence that mother was unfit as a parent. 

• Fafel v. Middlesex Sheriff lames DiPaola (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit) The 
First Circuit affirmed a lower court judgment barring the plaintiff from pursuing his state court 
employment litigation against Sheriff DiPaola. 



220 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTR.'M, MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

• Locator Services, Lt. v. Treasurer (Suprciin.' IiuliLi.il ("ouir) I he Stare Ircasiircr .ip[iLMkcl 
from the Superior Court's (Connor, J.) denial of the Ireasurers motion for summary judgment 
in this case brought by an asset locating company on behalf of 55 claimants. I ho plaintiff 
contended, among other things, that the Commonwealth was required to pay conipoiiiul interest 
to the 55 claimants on 103 eminent domain takings dating back as far as 1956. On a(i|ieal, the 
SJC^ ruled in the Ireasiirer's hivor on all legal issues except one. 

• Jouvelakas v. Minnehan, et al . (U.S. District (!ourt) Ihe plaintiff was the mother of a boN', 
who at 1 4, stole his parents car and took it for a 60+ mile joy ride on 1-93 from New Hampshire 
to Massachusetts at speeds of 1 00 to 1 25 miles per hour. State Troopers Minnehan and Sullivan 
apprehended him. The boy contended that the troopers beat him severely and brought a civil 
rights action against several state police officers and Thomas Foley, the retired colonel of the 
state police. The boy pleaded guilty in Juvenile C]ourt on various criminal charges regarding 
the incident. The case was favorably settled after mediation. 

• Shramek v. University of Massachusetts, et al . {Worcester Superior C^ourt) Ihe plaintiff 
is a graduate of UMass. Amherst who was beaten up in September 2001 by another student 
during a fraternity parry on privately owned property. He brought a negligence suit against 
the school and several college fraternities. The superior court denied the university's motion to 
dismiss. 

• Butler V. State Police (Worcester Superior Court) This case was a personal injury suit 
arising from an April 1997 collision between a State Police cruiser and the plaintiff's vehicle. 
Case setded favorably for $12,500 where initial demand had been for $100,000. 

• Claire E. Murphy-Doubleday v. Massachusetts Department of Correction (Middlesex 
Superior Court, Lowell) This case was a c. 1 5 1 B discrimination case against DOC] by a plaintiff 
seeking to become a correctional officer. The court granted the DOC^'s motion to dismiss the 
case on statute of limitations grounds. 

I'UBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 

In Fiscal Year 2005, CMAS handled numerous investigations and the following highlighted 



Ciises: 



• Adventure World RV (Continued litigating case filed in May of 2004 against related 
corporate entities and owners and managers of Adventure World RV for imfair and deceptive 
practices in connection with their sale of recreational vehicles. Defendants' alleged unlawful 



221 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

acts and practices included: failing to pay oH loans on traded in recreational vehicles; failing to 
provide consumers with titles to purchased recreational vehicles; failing to pay off original loans 
after refinancing; and tailing to purchase extended warranties paid tor by consumers. In June 
of 2004, the court issued a preliminary injunction against the corporate defendants and David 
Hirsch. The three corporate defendants and David Hirsch had filed for bankruptcy in January 
2004. The Commonwealth filed proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court in the corporate 
and David Hirsch bankruptcies and is seeking restitution on beh;ilf of injured consumers. In 
September 2004, the Commonwealth filed a complaint to determine dischargeability of debt 
with the Bankruptcy Court. Litigation continued into next fiscal year. 

• Commonwealth v. Riverside Mitsubishi. BIR Enterprises. LLC CMAS staff continued 
to vigorously litigate this consumer protection case against Riverside Mitsubishi and its owners 
and managers, Daryl, Todd and Brenda Rivernider, for defrauding consumers through various 
unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with their sale of used and new motor 
vehicles. Defendants' unlawful acts and practices included: tailing to pay off loans on traded 
in vehicles; tailing to provide consumers with titles to purchased vehicles; failing to provide 
promised "cash back" or refinancing; failing to provide advertised incentives; failing to pay off 
original car loans after refinancing; and tailing to purchase extended warranties paid for by 
consumers. During Fiscal Year 2005, staff obtained default judgments against the Riverniders 
in state court and successfully petitioned the court to appoint a receiver over all defendants. The 
trustee filed vokmtary bankruptcy petitions on behalf of BJR and Riverside Mitsubishi in order 
to pay corporate debts. The Commonwealth filed proofs of claim in the corporate bankruptcies 
and seeks to share, for the benefit of injured consumers, in any funds generated by bankruptcy 
trustee's sale of dealership property. Staff also contested a homestead exemption the Riverniders 
claimed on property owned in Florida, and filed an extensive motion and memorandum in 
support of its motion for final judgment and assessment of damages in the Massachusetts state 
court suit. 

• Commonwealth v. Theresa Smith In 2003, Teresa Smith pleaded guilty to wire and mail 
fraud in federal court in June 2003, and is currently serving a 57-month prison term and has 
been ordered to pay $885,166.19 in restitution. The wire and mail fraud charges are based on 
the same acts that formed the basis for a separate case brought by the Commonwealth under the 
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. In May, 2005, the Commonwealth filed a Consent 
Judgment providing for permanent injunctive relief consistent with complaint filed with the 
court. 



222 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. Blackstone Valley Investment. LLC, et al. After investigation into 
allegations that this business swindled a mentally impaired woman out of her home, a complaint 
was filed against the business and principals on May 5, 2005. A Temporary Retraining Order 
was issued on the same da)'. On June 2, 2()()S, ihc court allowed in [lart and denied in part 
the C^ommonwealth's Motion for I'reliminai)' Injunction. Litigation continued into next fiscal 
year. 

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 

For Fiscal Year 2005 Fair Labor and Business Practices cases and statistics, please refer to the Fiscal 
Year 2005 Report of the Business and Labor Protection Bureau. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING: 



Central Massachusetts staff participated in numerous outreach, education, and training opportunities 
in Worcester County communities including: 

• Presentations on wage and hour issues to Worcester County Bar Associations Labor and 
Employment Croup; Lutheran Community Services, Refugee and Immigrant Services; and 
the Massachusetts Department of Educations Conference at the College of the Holy Cross 

• Presentations on bias and/or youth mediation programs at North Central Charter Sch(5ol, 
Fitchburg; Burncoat High School, Worcester; and the Worcester Boys and Ciirls' (]lub 

• Presentation on itlentity theft for Worcester Cable Show ("Soapbox") 

• Presentations on elder fraud at Cyprian Keyes and the Barre Senior Center 

• Presentation to the Worcester Institute for Seniors in Education (WISE) on the Attorney 
Cenerals statutory authority and office overview 

• Division Chief served on the Worcester Mayors At Risk Youth Task Force; Worcester City 
Managers Communitj' Task Force on Bias and Hate Crimes; and statewide interagency task 
forces on child labor issues and occupational safety 

• Worked with Worcester City Officials to address abandoned housing issues in Worcester 
neighborhoods 

• Worked with the City Managers Task Force on Bias and Hate Crimes and Anti-Defamation 
League to m;ike Worcester a "No Place for Hate" (".ommuniry 



223 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

• Participated in Worcester County's Elder Abuse Roundtable sponsored by Attorney General 
Reiily and District Attorney Conte's Office 

• Participated on the Office of the Attorney General Elder Steering Committee 

• Assistant Attorney General Giorlandino served as co-chair oi the Trial Division's Civil Rights 
Practice Group 



I 



224 



1 



RF.GIONAl. OFFICES .SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

Tlie Southeastern Massachusetts Division (SHMAS) located at lOS WiNinm Street, New Bedford, 
one of Attorney General Tom Reillys three regional offices, is coniinittetl to proniotint; the Office's 
initiatives in the Southeastern Massachusetts rei;ion. The division consists of lawyers, inspectors, 
mediators, and administrative staH that work through the Business and Labor Protection Bureau's Hair 
I.aborand Business Practices l^ivision; Public Protection Bureau's Civil Rights Division and ("onsimier 
Protection Division; Covernment Bureaus Administrative Law Division and iii.il Division; and whom 
handle .1 wide range of matters from various areas of the Attorney Cieneral's Office. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, staff included |im Sweeney, Division (^hief; C]ecile Byrne; I'odd Davis; 
Diane Lopes Flaherty; Paul Gordon; Anita Maietta; Stephen Maishaiek; I'imoth)' McGuire; Patricia 
Medeiros; Mario Paiva; and Patricia Tapper. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

The following provides an overview of cases undert;iken by SEMAS staff during Fiscal Year 2005 

GOVERNMENT 
Administrative Law 

• Cummings V. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Bristol Superior Court) The Court uphekl the 
indefinite suspension of a driver's license as an immediate threat because the driver killed two 
people while driving under the influence of alcohol. 

• Colameco v. Board of Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds, et al. (Plymouth 
Superior Court) The Court upheld the suspension of plaintiff's driver's license for eight years 
upon his third conviction for operating under the influence of alcohol. 

• Marquit v. Department of Social Services (Barnstable Superior Court) The Court upheld 
a Department of Social Services' decision to support a G.L. c. 51A report of neglect of the 
plaintiff's child. 

• Butler V. Department of Social Services (Bristol Superior Court) The Court upheld a 
Department of Social Services decision to support G.L. c. 51A report of abuse by plaintiff of 
his daughter. 



225 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

• Benoit. with and by her minor child v. Commonwealth (Barnstable Superior Court) The 
Court upheld a decision that the Town of Mashpee provided a special education child with a 
fair and proper education. 

• Mailloux. by his Guardian v. Division of Medical Assistance and Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts (Barnstable Superior C^ourt) The parties settled claims in six consolidated cases 
arising from the Division of Medical Assistance the amount and type ot personal care assistance 
given to the plaintitt's disabled son. 

• Automotive Recyclers of MA. Inc.. and Borges v. Daniel A. Grabauskas. Registrar of 
Motor Vehicles (Bristol Superior Court) The Court upheld the authority of the Registrar ot 
Motor Vehicles to accept certain titles for reconstructed vehicles. 

The division ;dso successfully handled a number of other cases arising out of a range of administrative 
agency decisions. Those cases included appeals from the Registry of Motor Vehicles license suspension 
and revocation decisions, appeals from the Department of Social Services decisions involving findings 
of abuse or neglect and termination of parental rights, appeals from the Retirement Board and Civil 
Service Commission decisions, appeals from decisions of the Housing Appeals Committee, appeals from 
decisions of the Department of Employment and Training on entitlement to unemployment benefits, 
appeals from the Board of Registration in Medicine decisions, and challenges to agency regulations. 

TRIAL 
Torts 

• Rodriguez v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Public Safety (Bristol 
Superior Court) Ihe parties resolved a claim arising out ot an accident in which a state police 
cruiser that was traveling the wrong way down a one way street struck the plaintilt s vehicle. 
Plaintiff sought approximately $30,000; the case settled for approximately $10,000. 

• Dias, individually and as administratix of the estate of Amarantes v. Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts (Bristol Superior Court) A wrongful death claim of $100,000 was dismissed. 

• Cabral v. Patrick lordan, William Bucelezicz. Marc Lavoie and the Commonweatlh. 
Department of State Police: Saraiva v. Patrick lordan. William Bucelewicz. Marc Lavoie and 
the Commonwealth. Department of State Police (Fall River District Court) Two personal 
injury cases arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred when plaintiffs car was struck 
by an individual who was evading the State Police were dismissed. 



226 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

• Ruth Walkden. as administratrix v. Commonwealth (Bristol SiiptriorC^oiiit) A wroni^Fiil 
death case arising out of the death of a woman receiving services through the Department of 
Mental Health was setded for $3,000. 

CONTRACTS 

• Franchi Equipment Co. v. Massachusetts Highway Department (Middlesex Superior (^oiirt) 
A construction contract claim arising out of bridge reconstruction project of approximately 
S9(),()()0 was settled for S25,()()(). 

• Comark Government and Education Sales. Inc. v. Commonwealth (Suffolk Superior 
Court) Contract claims of approximately S200,000 arising out of computer purchase were 
settled for $10,000. 

• IDM Environmental of Massachusetts v. Manafort Brothers v. Commonwealth (Middlesex 
Superior Court) Construction contract claims arising out of the demolition of Boston State 
Hospital of approximately $2,000,000 were setded for $800,000. 

• Superior Abatement, Inc. v. Commonwealth, et al.. (Suffolk Superior Court) A construction 
contract claim arising out of the demolition of Boston State Hospital of approximately 
$900,000 settled for $13'>.()00 from the Commonwealth. Other parties also contributed to 
the settlement. 

The SEMAS Division also handled a number of additional Trial Division cases involving personal 
injuries on state propert}' or as a result of motor vehicle accidents with state vehicles and cases involving 
contractual claims against the Commonwealth. 

PUBLIC PROTECTION 
Consumer Protection 

• Commonwealth v. Nelson Rego, d/b/a Sunset Video Productions (Suffolk Superior 
Court) A case was brought in which a video company failed to deliver first communion videos 
and wedding videos to consumers. Under the settlement agreement, the video company was 
required to deliver the videos and donate three CD/DVD players to three local Boys & GiHs 
Clubs. 

• Commonwealth Sardinha Sausage. Inc. d/b/a Amaral and Son Products (Bristol County 
Superior Court) A case was brought against a Fall River sausage manufacturing plant for 
operating without the necessary license from the Department of Public Health. The court 



227 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

issued an injunction against the continued operation oi the plant without the hcense and ordered 
payment of $7,000 in penakies to the Commonwealth. 

• Commonwealth V. Rachel M. Deschene-Costa d/b/a LO Paradis Funeral Home (Bristol 
Superior Court) As a result of a case brought for htiiing to honor pre-paid funeral contracts, a 
Judgment for $496,305.33 in restitution to consumers was entered, and a partial payment of 
the Judgment has been obtained. 

CONSUMER PROTECTION MEDIATION 
Home bnprovement 

• Almeida's Home Improvement We assisted a New Bedford homeowner who had contracted 
with Almeida's Home Improvement. The contractor had damaged her slate roof, which in turn 
caused leaking of her attic ceiling. The homeowner was able to obtain $9,626.00. 

• HM Services Co. 1 hrough mediation, a consumer was able to obtain full reimbursement 
for $830.00 that the consumer paid the contractor to install two skylights, but which the 
contractor tailed to do. 

• Lumber Liquidators Through mediation, a consumer was able to obtain a refund of $978.60 
for an overcharge tor the cost of flooring supplies. 

Debt Collection 

• Arrow Financial Services The division convinced a debt collection company to stop pursuing 
a $3,056.48 debt that the company was mistakenly trying to collect, using aggressive tactics, 
from a consumer who had not incurred the debt. 

Auto Sales and Repair 

• Barry's Dartmouth Nissan Volvo The division assisted and obtained a refund of $1,799 
for a consumer who had his extended warrant)' cancelled by the car dealership. 

• L&R Auto Repair The division assisted a consumer in obtaining a refund ot $1 ,300 for a 
vehicle that he had purchased that did not pass the inspection. 

• RRR Auto Sales The division mediated and obtained a refimd ot $4,339.55 tor a 
consumer who experienced multiple mechanical problems after purchasing a vehicle from the 
dealership 



228 



RFGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSF.TrS DIVISION 

Solicitations/Scams 
• Community Reading Club I lie division inctli.itcd .iiul ohr.iincd ,i atuiul of $4196.52 
for a mentally challenged eonsiinier \slio was eauglit u["i in a multiple magazine subscriptions 
scam. 

Other 



• Sovereign Bank Ihe division mediated a dispute between the Bank and a consmner who 
had paid oft an auto loan, obtaining the title and reimbursement of fees totaling $235. 

• JK Harris & Company The liivision mediated and obtained a refimd of $2,405 from a 
company that tailed to perform a contract to resolve the consumer's income tax problems. 

• Forbes Co. Ihe division obtained a refund of a consimiers deposit of $6,500 on a parcel 
of land, after the seller dicf not complete the sale. 

• NStar Electric & Gas The division successfully mediated a dispute between NStar and 
a consumer. NStar had improperly billed the consumer for $1,000.29 and then placed the 
account into debt collection when the consumer did not pay. 

• Private Mentoring Group The division obtained a refiand of $7,898.45 for a consumer who 
had enrolled in an Internet mentoring program that did not deliver the promised program. 

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION 
Overdue Wag e 

• Winds A citation of $1,025 was issued and upheld on appeal against an Easton window 
washing company for failure to pay overtime. 

• Temp Job Agency After an investigation, the company paid $3,300 in back wages that it 
had failed to pay to painters. 

• Brooks and Eaton A citation was issued against a Freetown trucking company recjuiring 
the company to pay $18,169.89 in restitution and a $36,000 penalty for issuing payroll checks 
with no funds in the payroll account. 

• Marguerite Concrete, Inc. After an investigation, a FrankJin concrete company agreed to 
pay $5 1 ,208 owed to 24 employees for overtime work, and a $4,000 penalt}'. 



229 



REGIONAL OFFICES 



SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 



Prevailing Wag e 

• DG Services After an investigation for underpayment of wages, the company agreed to 
pay their sheet metal workers a total of $9,600. 

• Gil-Den Inc. /Daniel Loranger After an investigation, a New Bedford construction company 
was cited for failure to pay the prevailing wage and failure to submit certified payrolls, and was 
recjuired to pay restitution to the employees. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

GOVERNMENT 

Administrative Law and Trial Litigation 
During Fiscal Year 2005, the division was assigned 32 and closed 23 Administrative Law cases and 
assigned 6 and closed 10 Trial cases. At the end of Fiscal Year 2004 there were 49 open Administrative 
Law and/or 'Lrial cases in the division. Cases handled by the division in this area of law saved the 
Commonwealth a total of $3,490,754.71. 

PUBLIC PROTECTION 

Consumer Protection and Civil Rights Litigation 

Cases Opened 3 

Cases Closed 3 



Restitution 



Consumer Protection Mediation 
Calls 

Consumer (Complaints Received 

Consumer Complaints Resolved/Mediated 

Total Saved SEMAS Consumers 



$503,305.35 and 
donation of 3 
cd/dvd players 

2,444 
286 
280 

$57,974.86 



I 



230 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

BUSINESS &: LABOR PROTECTION 
Fair Labor &: Business Practices 

Calls 6,174 

Noii-payiiient and Pre\ailing Wage complaints - Opened 594 

Non-payment and Prevailing W;ige complaints - Closed 845 

Total iU'stitution and Penalties/Fines $366,128.86 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

During Fiscal Year 2005, SEMAS consumer staff continued to integrate consumer information into 
the Consumer Complaint and Information Section (CCIS) Everest database allowing for a consistent, 
accurate and streamlined consumer complaint mediation and reporting process. 

Attorney General Reilly, along with SEMAS staff, spoke regarding anti-hazing at the 'Protecting 
Students from Harassment, Hazing, and Hate Crimes conference at Barnstable High School in 
December of 2004. 

Assistant Attorney General Steve Marshiilek sat as hearing officer with the Registry of Motor Vehicle's 
Board of Appeal weekly. Diane Lopes Flaherty served on the AGO Elder Steering Committee/AGO 
Elder Strike Force. Kayla Barnes, a student at New Bedford High School, interned during Fiscal Year 
2005. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

YOUTH 

During Fiscal Year 2005, and since 2002, the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office has been a 
collaborating partner in New Bedford Public Schools Youth Court program due to the efforts of Assistant 
Attorney General Patricia Medeiros. Pattie continued to serve on the advisory board of this juvenile 
diversion program recognized by the National Youth Court Center. Assistant Attorneys General Timothy 
McGuire, Stephen Marshaiek and Jim Sweeney assisted with training and volunteered as judges. 



IM 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

SEMAS Staff was part of the executive planning committee and presented a worksliop on conflict 
resolution at New Bedford Public School's Third Annual Youth Summit. The community collaborative 
initiative offers speakers, presentations, and activities to empower youth. 

SEMAS staff assisted students for a second year in their Summer of "Work and Learning Project with 
the production of a television segment to be aired on local cable TV, filmed at the SEMAS Regional 
Office, on topics relating to young workers, young consumers, and the function of the regional Office 
of the Attorney General. The students interviewed division staff as they learned to compile and edit 
the television segment. The Projects goal was to combine the benefits of classroom learning with one- 
the-job experience and to assist high school seniors in passing the MCAS. 

During Fiscal Year 2005, SEMAS staff presented information to constituents at a variety ot events. 
Attorney General Reilly and SEMAS staff spoke at the Ellis Elementary School in Pembroke about 
Internet safety. Additional presentations at local schools reached approximately 70 fifth and sixth graders. 
At the Sylvan Learning Genter's "We Care About Kids Day", staff provided parents and children with 
information about Internet safety and teen dating violence. The division, along with staff from the Fair 
Labor and Business Practices Division also delivered a child labor presentation for the Massachusetts 
Association of (Cooperative Education. 

SEMAS staff also volunteered at programs sponsored by the New Bedford Prevention Partnership, 
such as: National Night Out, an annual community event for a night out against crime; Lights on 
After-school, a national program replicated by the City of New Bedford and the New Bedford Prevention 
Partnership; and SMILES Breakfast Glub Mentor program. Division Ghief Jim Sweeney continued to 
volunteer at the Colonel Daniel Marr Boys & Girls Club mentor program. 

ELDER 

Attorney General Reilly, along with SEMAS staff, spoke on elder issues at the Council on Aging 
in Pembroke and staff regularly visited the Councils on Aging in Acushnet and Fairhaven. Outreach 
presentations were provided to numerous seniors on how elders can protect themselves and feel safe in 
their homes & communities, consumer issues, identity theft, scams, and home improvement. 

Educational presentations were given at the Gape Cod Synagogue in Hyannis; a monthly IRIAD 
meeting at the Plainville Senior Center, the Seekonk Lions Club, a volunteer foster grandparents 
group at Coastline Elder Services and to assisted living flimily members at The Oaks in New Bedford. 
Helpful information was provided to seniors at a Wellness and Safety Fair at the Council on Aging in 
East Bridgewater; a at Senior Health & Fitness Day Fair at Old Colony YMCCA in East Bridgewater. 
SEMAS staff spt)ke and provided information packets at the 2nd annual Portuguese Elder Conference, 
"Know Your Rights II" at Fort Taber Community Center Hall in New Bedford. 

232 



REGIONAL OFFICFS SCH'THEASTERN MASSACHL'SETTS DIVISION 

Various tips from the Attorney Ciciicrals Hldor F-r.uicI Alert calendar; ACI's atlvisories; A( i HIder 
hotline nuniber appeared regularly in New Bedford's Senior Scope, a monthly and free newspaper which 
serves the City of New Bedford, the Towns of Aciishnet, Dartmouth, Fairhaven, Gosnold, Marion, 
Mattapoisctt and Rochester and is published b\' the City of New Bedford with a grant from Coastline 
Elderly Services. 

CONSUMER 

Consmner Mediator and Outreach Coordinator, Diane Lopes Flaherty presented a seminar on the 
Dos and Don'ts of Hiring a Home Improvement Contractor at New Bedford Chamber of Commerces 
annual Home Show and at the Plumb Library in Rochester. Diane spoke to the Southeastern MA 
Building Officials Association at its nionrlily meeting about home improvement complaints to discuss 
strategies to educate homeowners and appeared on WBSM 1420 AM radio talk show "Open Line" on 
the topic of home improvement contractor's law and elder issues. 

COMMUNirV 

SEMAS staff served on United Way of Greater New Bedfords' Citizen's Review Board and 
[larticipated in monthly Neighborhoods United neighborhood group meetings and activities. 

Staff attended community initiatives such as ACTS, A Commimity Together Succeeds; the Cir\' of 
New Bedford's volunteer citj'wide group seeking creative solutions to violence at New Bedford High 
School and 'Tathways to Prevention . . . Roads to Recovery" a new program to shape the direction of 
the City's substance abuse and prevention and treatment initiatives. 

EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

SEMAS region;d office staff continued to participate in Attorney General Institute trainings on 
various topics including New Massachusetts Rules of Criminal Procedure; Public Records Officers 
procedures; Housing Discrimination; and an Appellate Advocacy Program. Staff participated in monthly 
Local Consumer Program/Consumer Coalition meetings and training. 

SEMAS regional office staff attended an Executive Briefing on Workplace Violence and the 
Employer's Response; the annual Federal Reserve Bank National Consumer Protection week conference 
in Boston; and a National Association of Attorneys General conference in Chicago. 



255 



I 



I