(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 .."

Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2008 with funding from 
State Library of IVIassachu setts 



http://www.archive.org/details/reportofattorney2006mass 



Public Document 



No. 12 




W\)t Commontoealtl) of ifHasisJacIjugetts; 



Report of the 

Attorney General 

for Fiscal Year 2006 

July X 2005 - June 30, 2006 



Ref 

MR 

34 0M3 
R467 
2006 
C.l 




Publication of THis Document Approved by Ellen M. Bickelman, State Purchasing Agent. 
Publication Number CRl 523-0 1/07-4. 40-Docuprint Express 



State Library of Massachusett 
State House, Boston 







Thomas F. Rni in 
AT rORNF.Y GENERAL 



The- Commonwlaltii oi Massac husi:tts 
Office of the Attorney General 

OnF. ASHBL'RTON PlaCF. 

Boston, Massachusitts 02 108- 1 698 



In accordance with the provisions of Section 1 1 of Chapter 1 2 oi the Massachusetts 
General Laws, I hereby submit the Annual Report for the Office of the Attorney General. 
This Annual Report covers the period from July 1 , 2005 to June 30, 2006. 



Respectfully submitted, 

Thomas F. Reilly 
Attorney General 




m 

3U0PA3 

XOOIq 

CI 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL APPOINTMEN TS i 

EXECUTIVE BUREAU 1 

General Counsel's Office 2 

Human Resource Management Office 4 

External Affairs Office 6 

Information Technolog)^ Division 7 

Budget Office 8 

Operations Division 9 

Communications Office 10 

Francis X. Bellotti Law Library 1 1 

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 15 

Fair Labor and Business Practices Division 15 

Medicaid Fraud Control Unit 46 

CRIMINAL BUREAU 57 

Appellate Division 59 

Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime Division 63 

Criminal Justice Poliq^ Division 69 

Environmental Crimes Strike Force 76 

Financial Investigations Division 78 

Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division 84 

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division 91 

Safe Neighborhood Initiative Division 100 

Victim/Witness Assistance Division 1 1 3 

Victim Compensation and Assistance Division 1 1 9 

State Police Detective Division 124 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 


GOVERNMENT BUREAU 


129 


Administrative Law Division 


133 

144 


PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 

Children, Youth and Communities Division 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division 

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division 

Environmental Protection Division 


157 

160 

163 

166 

181 


Insurance Division 


198 


Investieations Division 


205 


Division of Public Charities 


208 


Utilities Division 


213 


REGIONAL OFFICES 


231 


Western Massachusetts 


231 


Central Massachusetts 


237 


Southeastern Massachusetts 


244 



APPOINTMENTS 



Fiscal Year 2005 (7/01/05 - 6/30/06 > 
OFFICII OF TUF, ATTORNF.Y GFNIKAI. 



ATTORNHYGFNHRAI. THOMAS F. RFILLY 
FIRST ASSISTANT AITORNFV GFNFRAL SThPHAMF S. l.OVFLl. 



ANN BACKIL 
MICHFLE I. ADF.LMAN (38) 
JENNIFER A ADRF.ANl 
ALEXANDRA ALLAND 
IRAIDA ALVAREZ (17) 
ALISON LLET ANDELMAN 
BRUCE F ANDERSON 
DEBORAH y\NDERSON (3) 
DAVID B ANDREWS 
JAMES ARGUIN 
FREDERICK D AUGENSTERN 
EVA BADWAY 
CHRISTINE BAILY 
ANNAPURNA BALARRISHNA 
THOMAS BARNICO 
CHRISTOPHER K BARRY- 
SMI LH 

JASON BARSHAK. 
DENISE M BARTON 
R. DAVID BECK 
ANNETTE C BENEDETTO 
LESLIE BENNETT 
MATTHEW QBERGE 
CRISPIN BIRNBAUM (34) 
EDWARD G BOHLEN 
JOHN E EiOWEN 
JULIE BRADY 
MATTHEW T BROCK 
MONICA A BROOKMAN 
TRACEYABROWN(37) 
RANJANA BURKE (35) 
CHRISTOPHER A BUSCAGLIA 
ZOE BUTLER-STARK (IS) 
JOSEPH CALLANAN 
ROMEO CAMBA (26) 
JESSE CAPLAN 
SANDRA CARDONE 
JENNIFER SCARGILL (27) 
ERICBCARRIKER 
JENNIFER CARTEL 
JULIE CHAT TOPADHYAY 
KAJAL CHATTOI'ADHYAY 
NORA CIIOROVER (39) 



JAMES CLARK 

PETER CLARK 

ALEXANDER COCHIS 

RICHARD COLE 

JEFFREY T COLLINS 

JOHN COMPTON 

ROSEMARY CONNOLLY 

MARGRET COOKE (12) 

PATRICIA CORREA 

PIERCE O CRAY 

GEORGIA CRITSLEY 

GLENN CUNHA 

PAMELA MDASHIELL 

LINDA S DELCASTILHO (27) 

SARADES!M0NE(16) 

STEPHEN DICK 

BRIAN DONOVAN (8) 

JOHN DORSE Y (42) 

DENISE S DURAN 

JONATHAN ENGEL( 10) 

APRIL ENGLISH 

BENJAMIN ERICSON 

BARBARAAFAIN(27) 

LISA J FAUIH 

ELLIOTT FERTIK (14) 

ROBERT FISHER 

MARY B FREELEY 

GAIL GABRIEL 

ROSALYN GARBOSE 

MELISSA GAVEGNANO 

SALVAIORE M GIORLANDINO 

(31) 

I. ANDREW GOLDBERG 

LORRAINE GOLDENBERG- 

TARROW 

JULIE GOLDMAN 

MATTHEW GREEN (15) 

BERNARD W GREENE 

JOHN A GROSSMAN 

J(3NATHANGROUX{21) 

RICHARD D GRUNDY 

DAVIDAGUBERMAN(7) 

KELLI GUNAGAN 



DAVIDIIADAS 
DANIEL J HAMMOND 
NANCY E HARPER 
KATHERINE HATCH 
JANICE I lEAl.Y 
MARGARET HEGARFY 
RICHARD HEIDLAGE 
HILARY HERSH MAN 
JOHN R HITT 
STEVEN HOFFMAN 
BART HOLLANDER 
INA HOWARD-HOGAN (9) 
BRIDGET HUFFSTUTLER (6) 
PAMELA HUNT 
MARSHA HUNTER 
CAROL lANCU 
MATTHEWTRELAND 
MARCIA JACKSON (11) 
JOSEPH JANEZIC 
THOMAS M JOHNSON 
JOCELYN JONES 
MARC JONES 
TIMOTHY JONES 
SARAH JOSS 

ROSALIND KABRHEL (35) 
ANNEKACZMAREK(5) 
STEPHANIE KAHN 
JUDYZEPRUN KALMAN 
GLENN S KAPLAN 
JAMIE WKATZ 
SCOTT KATZ ( 1 ) 
HILLARY KAVANAGH (5) 
RONALD KEHOE 
JEAN MARIE KELLEY (40) 
DAVID KERRIGAN 
BRYAN KILL1AN( 17) 
PAMELA KOGUT 
CHARISMA LAM 
SIU TIP LAM 
ROBERT M LANG (41) 
WENDOLYLANGLOIS(4) 
JENNIFER M LAVERTY 
DIANE LAWTON 



APPOINTMENTS 



DANALECCESE 

PETER LEIGH! 

JUDY LEVENSON (27) 

DAVID MLIEBER 

ANITA VMAIETTA 

DAVID MARKS 

LAURA MARLIN 

STEPHEN MARSHALEK 

MARYANNE MARTIN' (8) 

ITNAMATSUOKA 

EM1L1AN0MAZLEN(19) 

COLLEEN MCCARTHY' (18) 

COLLEEN MCCONNELL 

JOSHUA MCGUIRE (24) 

TIMOTHY MCGUIRE 

IAN MCKENNY 

MAURA D MCLAUGHLIN 

PATRICIA MEDEIROS 

PAMELA J MEISTER 

BETH MERACHNIR 

HOWARD RMESHNiCK 

NICHOLAS J MESSURI (36) 

JAMES R MILKEY 

PAUL MOLLOY 

DAVID MONAHAN 

ALICE L MOORE 

CATHRYN NEAVES 

JANIS NOBLE 

EILEEN O'BRIEN 

JAMES H 0-BRIEN 

THOMAS M O'BRIEN 

BRIAN 0"DONNELL( 10) 

JONATHAN OFILOS 

JOHNOT.EARY(22j 

NEIL OLSON (19) 

MARYONEIL 

WILLIAM P O'NEILL 

QUENTIN PALFREY 

CYNTHIA PANAGORE GRIFFIN 

(2) 

EMILY R PARADISE 

WILLIAM L PARDEE 

MARGARET PARKS 

MAITEAPARSI 

ROBERI PAriEN 

MARY A PHILLIPS 

WILLIAM W PORTER 

JASON Ot'HENlN (25) 

ROBERT LQL'INAN 

RANDALL RAVITZ 

SUSANNE REARDON 

KARLEN REED (28) 

DOUGLAS RICE 



.njLIANA D RICE 
CHERYL RIDDLE 
SUSAN RIEDEL (33) 
ROBERT W RITCHIE 
JOSEPH W ROGERS 
DEIRDRE RONEY 
JOSEPH RUCCIO (28) 
PETER SACKS 
ERNEST L SARASON 
SCOTT D SCHAFER 
SETHSCHOFIELD(19) 
KURFSCHVVARTZ 
JEFFREY S SHAPIRO 
MATTHEW SHEA 
SOOKYOUNG SHIN 
GLEN M SHOR (29) 
TINA LSM EATON (30) 
DANIEL!SMULOW(43) 
DONNA SORGl 
JOHANNA SORIS 
AMY SILVER SPECTOR 
FRANCESCA STABILE (23) 
DAVID STANH ILL 
DEBORAH S STEENLAND 
CATHERINE SULLIVAN 
MARK PSUTLIFF 
JAMES SWEENEY 
ROSEMARY TARAN TINO 
PATRICK TARMEY(l) 
DANAH TENCH 
MARC TONASZUCK 
JAMIE TOSCHES( 14) 
BRUCE TRACER 
TOBY UNGER 
TERESA WALSH 
JACQUELINE WELCH (13) 
GWEN WERNER (20) 
JAMES S WHITCOMB 
DORIS H WHITE 
JUDITH WHITING (32) 
BETSY K WIIITTEY 
GEOFFREY W'HY 
JANELWILLOUGHBY 
MEREDITH WILSON (43) 
CHARLES WYZANSKI 
KARLAZARBO 
CATHERINE C ZIEHL 



APPOINTMENTS 



APPOINTMENT DATF 


(I) 7/lS''2()()5 


(2) 705/2005 


(3) 8.1/2005 


(4) 8'8'2005 


(5) S'2'->/2005 


((^) 91 2005 


(7) 9 '2 6 2005 


(8) 103 2005 


(9) 10112005 


(10) 10/17/2005 


(11) 10/31/2005 


(12) 11/28/2005 


(13)12/5/2005 


(14) 1/30006 


(15) 1/9-2006 


(16) 1/12/2006 


(17)2/6/2006 


(18)2/21/2006 


(19)2/27/2006 


(20)4/10/2006 


(21) 4/24/2006 


(22) 5/22/2006 


(23) 6/5/2006 


(24) 6/26/2006 



TERMINATION I^Tp 



(25) 8/5/2005 

(26) 9/16/2005 

(27) 9/23/2005 

(28) 9/30/2005 

(29) 12/9/2005 

(30) 12/16/2005 

(31) 1/13/2006 

(32) 1/27/2006 

(33) 2/17/2006 

(34) 3/3/2006 

(35) 3/17/2006 

(36) 3/31/2006 

(37) 4/7/2006 

(38) 4/21/2006 

(39) 5/5/2006 

(40) 5/19/2006 

(41) 5/26/2006 

(42) 6/2 '2006 
(43)6/23/2006 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU 

General Counsel's Office 

Human Resource Management Office 

External Affairs Office 

Information Technology Divlsion 

Budget Office 

Operations Division 

Communications Office 

Francis X. Bellotti Law Library 



EXF.CUTIVF. RURFAU 



Executive Bureau 

The Execurive Bureau's primary function is to provide the Office with overall administration 
management, policy setting, staff supervision, and employee training. It is also responsible for 

administering technical suppoii to over 450 employees located throughout the (^onunonwcahh. 
Additional!)', the P'xeciuive Bureau performs a number of specialized functions. iiKludiug the 
coordination oi legislative affairs, constituent relations, conH1lunit^' outreach, and all conujiumcations, 
both internal and external. 

The Office of the Attorney General is located in four areas in Ma.ssachusetts. The main office is located 
in Boston with three regional offices in Springfield, Worcester, and New Bedford. The Kxecutive Bureau 
is designed to develop and niaituain the agency's infrastructure, enabling all the Offices oi the Att(jrney 
General to function productively and effectivel)' for the benefit of the Gommonwealths citizens. 

The Office of the First Assistant Attorney General, which oversees all legal matters and includes 
the Office of the Generiil Gounsci, is located in the Executive Bureau. Other offices within the bureau 
include Eiuman Resource Management, Budget, Information Icchnology, Operations, Support Ser\'ices, 
and the Francis X. Bellorti Law Library. 

In recognition of the E.xecutive Bureau's dual responsibilitv to provide leadership on the Offices 
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 Ghief of Staff, Deputy Ghief of Staff, 
and the Deput)^ Chief of Administration and Finance. 

The Ghief of Staff and Deputy Ghief of Staff oversee several key functions of the Executive Bureau, 
including Gommunications, External and Intergovernmental Affairs, Public Information and Constituent 
Services, as well as Scheduling. In addition, the Ghief of Staff is responsible for working directly with 
the bureaus to develop and coordinate the ke)' polia- initiatives and priorit)' issues of the Office, fhe 
Deputy Ghief of 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. I he Deputy 
Ghief of Administration and Finance has responsibility for the management of Himian Resources, 
Operations, Budget, Information Technolog)', and the I.aw Librar\'. 

In Fiscal Year 2006, the Executive Bureau included: Stephanie Lovell, First Assistant Attorney 
General; Stephen Kerrigan, Chief of Staff; Laura Marlin, Deputv^Chief of Staff: Ellen Donaghey, Deputy 
Ghief of Administration and Finance; Dee Barkett; Stephen Bilafer; Kerri Burridge; Diane MacDonaid; 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE 

Labrini Malatantis; Gien Shor; Marie Urciuoli; Adam Webster; and Christine Wilson. 

Smootli operation of the Attorney General's Office also is reliant on the dedicated professionalism 
of the following staff members in the Bellotti Law Librar)' and the Telecommunications Division: Karin 
'i'hurman, Law Librarian; Michael Ball; Catherine Douglas; Susan Lindsey; Raymond Manigault; and 
Denise McCartin. 

GENERAL CQUNSEUS OFFICE 

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

More specifically this office advises on the Rules of Professional Conduct and the State Ethics Law; 
provides legal advice and assistance to the administrative staff within the Executive Bureau; through the 
AG Institute provides and conducts office-wide, in-house training programs for all staff; coordinates 
the appointments of Special /Assistant Attorneys General (S^'WG); reviews and approves legal services 
contracts tor 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 civil amicus briefs for the First Assistant and coordinates bureau 
responses; monitors and reviews NA-^G'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 0(i]cc 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 doctmients and information under 
the public records law and Fair Information Practices Act (FlPA); and investigates open meeting law 
violations by state agencies. 

The General Counsel's Office ended Fiscal Year 2006 with three attorneys, one paralegal and one 
secretary: Deborah Steenland, General Counsel; Judy Zeprun Kalman, Senior Counsel; Lorraine 
Goldenberg-Tarrow, Assistant Attorney General; Eileen Carey, Paralegal; and Jennie Miller; Support 
Staff 



FXECUTiVF BURFAU CRNF.RAl. COL'NSF.l.'S OFFICE 

SICNIi ICANT CASK SUMMAKIKS 

The General Counsel's Office manages all internal personnel matters in conjunaion with the Human 
Resource Management Office. In consultation with the First Assistant Attorney (ieneral, it is responsible 
for union arbitrations and grievances, discriminaiion (.oniplaints, anti disciplinary pr(Keedings up lo 

and iiuluding eniplo\ee teiininations. 

On occasion, the (Ieneral Coimsers Office will provide assistance to other bureaus with respect 
to cases involving litigation. Therefore, sonic tnembers of the staff carry an active caseload of work 
unrelated to the core responsibilities of the (General Counsels Office. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Amicus Briefs Received S 1 

y4A?j/(:j;5 Briefs Sign-ons 26 

NAAC Sign-ons Received 26 

Legal Services Contracts Received 28 

vSAAG Appointments Made 33 

SAAC Appointments Amended 12 

SAAG Appointments Vacated 30 

Public Records Enforcement Appeals Received 12 

Public Records Rec]uests Received 62 

Public Records Trainings Held 2 

Open Meeting Law (Jomplainrs Received 4 

Open Meeting Law Trainings 3 

OCPF Cases Received 22* 

Board of Bar Overseers/Tax Settlements Received 8/ 1 7 

OUI Notices Received 2,6 1 6 



*This total reflects the number of warning letters sent to non-filers. The Office also reviewecf OCPF paperwork and 
pleadings (to be filed in court) and responded to questions by telephone and e-mail. 



EXECl-TIVF. BUREAU H UM AN RESOURCE MAN AG EM ENT OFFICE 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The iVIcmbers of rhe General Counsel's suaff were involved in cross-bureau initiatives, including 
the Diversity Committee, rhe Employee Benefits C^omniittee and die Elder Protection Unit of rhe 
Public Protection Bureau. In addition, meitibers of the staff participated as trainers in the ofhce-vvide 
anti-discrimination and sexual harassment training. 

In keeping with the Attorney General's priority ot ensuring staff has access to the latest information 
and training available, and in Rirtherance of their professional development, the AG Institute provided 
continuing education to legal and nonlegal staff on a variety of topics. E")uring Fiscal Year 2006, the 
AG Institute offered 16 programs and brought in three "Distinguished Eecturers." In addition, dining 
Fiscal Year 2006, the Office adopted a mandatory minlmimi continuing legal education requirement 
for all AAGs of 12 hours per fiscal year. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the staff of the General Counsel's Office provided training to state and local 
government agencies on open meeting law issues and public records lav^' matters. Other staff members 
were active in the Boston and American Bar ^Associations where they functioned in leadership positions 
on various committees. They also ser\-ed as panelists and speakers at NAAG seminars and other legal 
programs offered across the country. Attorney General on matters of poliq^ and participates. 

HUiMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE 

The Human Resource Management Office (FIRM) is responsible for job vacancy announcements, 
the recruitment and hiring of employees, benefits administration for full- and part-time employees, the 
coordination of hiring and placement for legal and collegiate interns, and employee and labor relations. 
During Fiscal Year 2006, staff members included: Diana LaRochelle, Director; Sandra Macdonald, 
Recruitment & Hiring Coordinator; Joyce Delgardo, Employee Benefits Coordinator; Lauren Murray, 
Administrative Coordinator; and Jody Soucie, Administrative Assistant. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY 

The FIRM Office re-issued the Anti-Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Policy in April 2006 to 
all employees, contractors, volunteers and interns. Fhe Office remains committed to the goal of having 



EXF.CUTIVF. BliREALI lU.'MAN RF.SOURCE MANAGFMFN loUK F 

a workplace that is tcspccilul. inclusive aiul tlixcisc, aiul icinforccs that coiniiiitiiKiii on a Lonmiiiing 
basis. 

OFFICE-SPONSORED BAR ASSOCIATION MKMBF.RSHIl'S 

In addition to sponsoring memberships for all attorneys in the Boston Bar Aisociarion or a coiinry 
bar association, assistant attorneys general also were offered the opporiunity to join one of the many 
minority and women's bar associations in Massachusetts. This benefit was again offered during Fiscal 
Year 2006 to further the Offices commitment to enhance attorneys' professional development, and 
to encourage involvement with professional legal organizations comprised of diverse members and 
experience. 

legal.andxqlleciaie.in;i:ern.prqcr^ 

The (-)t-fice of the Attorney General continued its strong commitment to the Legal and Collegiate 
Intern Programs during Fiscal Year 2006. Each winter, the Office participates in the Massachusetts 
Law School (Consortium interview process to interview and select simmier 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 75 law students in the Office, the majority of whom took part in the 
Summer Legal Intern Program. The law students are afforded a unique opportunity to participate in a 
full-time, structured 9-week summer program which is unhanded, 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 Commonvs'ealth. 

The Collegiate Intern Program attracts a large number of applicants throughout the year, but has 
the largest component during the spring and summer months. In Fiscal Year 2006, the FiRM Office 
placed 61 collegiate interns. These interns volunteer at least 1 5 hours per week and arc assigned in all 
five bureaus across the office. The term of their internships varies from student to student, but often 
exceeds nine weeks. 

Additionally, three assistant attorneys general ran clinical programs throughout the \'ear for students 
at area law schools - Fiarvard Law School, Boston College Law School, and the New England School 
of Law. 

PERSONNEL ACTIVITY 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Attorney General's Office hired 33 attorneys and 63 nonlegal staff, for 
a total of 96 new employees. There were 71 staff members who separated from the Office. 



EXECL'Tl VE BUREAU EXTERNAL AFFAI RS OFFICE 



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFICE 



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

In Fiscal Year 2006, Deputy Chief of Staff Laura Marlin oversaw the External Affairs Office, which 
included the following staff members: Malisa Brown, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs; Amanda 
Coulombe; Leali Green; Erika Gully-Santiago; Kenneth Hardy; Drew Cahill; Tony Melius; Alejandro 
Rodriquez; and Tiffany Bennett. 

COM\4UNITY LIAISON 

I'he Commiinit)' Liaison is responsible for constituent services. Lhe position was created ;is a 
resource for citizens to obtain information for either imernal or external assistance through e-mail, 
letters, telephone calls, or ofike visits. In 2006, the Office received approximately 4,750 e-mail requests 
and 2,160 telephone calls. 

OFFICE OF COxMMUNIT^^ PARTNERSEIIPS ___^__ 

Attorney General Reilly created the Office of Community Partnerships to work vv'ith Massachusetts 
mayors, other urban leaders, and local town officials to address issues that relate to our communities, 
particularly as they affect the health and safet}' of our citizens. The Office of Communit)' Partnerships acts 
as a direct liaison between the Office of the Attorney General and the state's 351 cities and towns. 

init:rgovernmental affairs division 

Lhe Intergovernmental Affairs Division is responsible for establishing and implementing the 
Attorney Cieneral's legislative agenda as well as working with other offices throughout state and local 
government. The Intergoverrmiental Affairs Division directs legislative policy, coordinates the filing 
of legislation, and approves written and oral testimony for the office. The division provides external 
liaison services, including apprising legislators and other state and local government offices of issues 
that may impact their communities or the work of their office, as well as 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 OCWcc of the .Attorney General. The Intergovernmental Affiiirs Division advises the 



FXF.CUTIVE BUREAU INFORMATION TF.CiHNOLCXiV l)l\ ISK )\ 

ArtoriicN' (ioncral on matters ol poIio' .uii.1 paiiici[\U(.-s in the overall clcvclopnu-ni and nnpktiR-ntation 
oi ofHcc'-wicic initiatives. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION 

The Attorne)- Clenerars iniormation lechnolog)- (11) Division is responsible- lor the oi)eration and 
maintenance of the ageno's computer network and related technical resources. The Division operates 
local and wide area network communications ec]uipment from the main office in One Ashhurton Place 
providing electronic communication throughout the agency. The wide area network connects the 
Boston offices ar One Ashbinron Place and 100 Cambridge Street to the local area networks installetl 
in the regional offices in Springfield, Worcester and New Bedford. 

The \ I Divisions mission is to mainrain network communications and provide hardware, software 
and end-user assistance for all agency staff in all locations. Fhe Division supports a variety of servers 
hosting applications, e-mail, databases, DNS and firewall services. Its technical staff is responsible for 
the installation and upkeep of all servers, routers and switches and more than 800 peripheral devices 
including desktop PCs, notebook PCis, printeis and scanners. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, IT Division staff included: Paula M. Diu'ant, Director; Ronald Rossetti, 
Network Manager; Thomas Smith, LAN Manager; Christine Heneghan, Notes Database Administrator; 
Visciklia Sarnaraweera, Relational Database Developer; Claudette Clement, Administrative Coordinator; 
Bruce Crosby, Technical Support Specialist; Jean Exantus, Technical Support Specialist and Jack Ngan, 
Technical Support Specialist. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIW.S, EFFORTS AND ACTIVITIES 

The Attorney Generic's IT Division actively seeks to keep pace with current technolog)'. In Fiscal 
Year 2006, the Division continued to progress towards this objective. Over 300 outdated desktop PCs 
and notebook PCs were replaced and a number of new printers were acquired and installed in place of 
outdated models which were imable to support current needs. Color printers were also acquired and 
installed in a number of additional locations. 

In Fiscal Year 2006, IT staff also took parr in the final phase of the office's renovation and 
consolidation project. This activity included closing the Portland Street office and relocating employees 
and equipment to newly-renovated space at One Ashburton Place. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAU BUDGET OEFICE 

Along with these agency-wide efforts, the IT Division worked on a number ot projects including the 
installation of technical resources to equip the Central Artery Cost Recovery Team, aiding the Criminal 
Bureau with the acquisition and implementation of litigation support software and enhancing agency 
scanning equipment and software. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION AND TR.\INING 

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

BUDGET OFFICE 

The Budget Office is responsible for all financial activities and functions in the Office of the Attorney 
General (OAC). During Fiscal Year 2006, the Budget staff processed 10,400 accounts payable (AP) 
documents totaling $17,675,379. Among these totals were 2,380 documents totaling $3,347,417 to 
victims of violent crimes and 1,480 documents totaling $2,323,520 to claimants, who benefited from 
wage recovery settlements or other settlements made with various retailers. 

In early July 2005, shordy after the close of Fiscal Year 2006, the Budget staff moved to temporary 
quarteis in the Salronstall building at 100 Cambridge Street, Boston. It was a difficult time for a 
move, but it was necessary as the final phase of renovations to OAC office space was about to begin. 
After approximately ten months in Saltonstall, Budget moved back to newly renovated space in the 
McCormack building. 

A recurring challenge for Budget is to provide for the varied needs of GAG. Funding in the Main 
Administrative Account increased slightly from Fiscal Year 2005, while all other appropriated accounts 
were level funded in Fiscal Year 2006. 1'here was constant pressure throughout the fiscal year to ensure 
that there was adequate funding to accommodate the Office's activities. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Budget staff continued to adapt and adjust to changes brought on 
by the updated Massachusetts Management Accounting and Reporting System (MMARS) that was 



FXF.CUTIVF BURFALI Or'FRy\TIONS DIVISION 

ini[-'lciiiciitccl .U the stiur oFFiscal Year .'.0(1'^. 'I he Office of rlu- State ( miiptiolki lias Ixcii eoiuimioiislv 
twciiking MMARS rhe past two fiscal years, so that agencies can jhoih riy coiuhiti the ( .oninioinvcalth's 
business. It is imperative that the Budget staff stays current with any changes to MMAKS and all the 
other accounting, finance and payroll s\'stenis. 

The Budget Office included the following staff tncmhcrs: Frank Vellufo, Director; janics (ax-cdon; 
Kerisotellia Ford; Mary Jane C.race; Jeiniiler Haniy; Shauita Hill-Davis; .ind C<ail Sarno. 

OPERAT IONS DIVISION 

The Operations Division offers professional, timely and valuable supplemental services that allows 
the Office of the Attorney Cieneral to effectively carry out its mission. The day-to-tlay business fitnctions 
are supported by the technical and physical ability within the scope of the Operations Division. In 
Fiscal Year 2006, the division continued to be fully engaged in daily facilitv, operational, and support 
matters which resulted in quality and timely assistance to staff. 

In Fiscal Year 2006, the division staff included: Kristine Fiill-Jones, Director; Chris Adams; Kevin 
Nolan; Pasha Polihronidis; and Michael Whelan. Support Services staff included: Nestor Morales, 
Manager; Joseph Barnes; Stephen Cress; l.una Bacon; I'im leBlanc; (ilenn Murtha; Dave Scafati; and 
Harold Taller. 



SIGNIFICANT INITIATI\^S, EFFORTS, AND ACTI\a TIES 

The Operations and Support Services Divisions continued to contribute significant resources 
toward the final phase of the office renovation project at One Ashburton Place. I'his project required 
a collaboratis'e effort from all effected divisions with a.ssisiance from the Information lechnolog)' and 
the Telecommunications Division. Activities related to this project include: the fiiiiil placement of the 
Executive and Government Bureaus to their permanent office space within the McCormack building; 
relocating lUFD. Trial Division, Central Artery and the Budget Office from satellite locations; and the 
final clean-up and close out of the Portland Street office. Operations and Support Services staff moved 
hundreds of active and non-active files, law books, office furniture and equipment with some assistatice 
from outside professional moving services. The Operations Division surplused and disposed hundreds 
of pieces of office furniture and miscellaneous items through the Commonwealths Surplus Property 
program. State agencies, local cities and towns and non-profit organizations were recipients of AGO 
surplus office furniture through the program. 



EXECUTIVE BUREAlf COMMIJNICATIONS OFFICE 

Operations staff also provided multi-media and production support for various cases, training 
sessions, and special events. The creation of complex triiil exliibits, 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 transports many exhibits and equipment to 
courthouses and provides technical assistance during trials and Grand Jiuy hearings. 

Operations and Support Services also played a major role with the technical set-up and coordination 
of several annual events such as the Garden of Peace Ceremony and Consumer Protection Outreach 
events. Operations staff frequently travels to the regional offices to pick-up or deliver important 
documents and provide office furniture modifications. 

hi Fiscal Year 200(3, all but two copiers were upgraded due to lease expiration. The new copiers 
offer advanced technology along with increased efficiency and overall cost savings per copy and on 
supplies. All walk-up copiers are strategically placed throughout the office space lor greater end-user 
accessibility 

Other functions within the scope of Operations and Support Services include agency security, 
building evacuation plans, responding to after hours emergency calls, furniture inventory, vehicle 
maintenance, staff parking, document archiving, press conference and training session set-ups, hand 
deliveries, mail processing and distribution, duplication services, and general physical facility upkeep. 

COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE 

The (-Communications Office coordinates all public communication for the Office of the Attorney 
General ■ primarily through the media and public events organized by the office. The chief responsibilit)^ 
of the Communications Office is to serve as a centralized public voice for the agency. To that end, the 
Communications Director, Press Secretary and Deputy Press Secretaries work with Executive staff and 
Bureau Chiefs to ensure that the Attorney Generals priorities are reflected in dl public statements and 
materials with a uniform message and voice. The communication is accomplished primarily through 
speeches, press releases, advisories, public statements, oped opinion columns, inter\'iews, publications, 
the Attorney Generals Web site (v\'wvc'.ago.state.ma.us), and other public appearances and events. 

To effectively communicate within the agency and with the public, the Communications OflRce 
has implemented policies to handle media inquiries, create publications and brochures, and manage 
content on the Attornev Generals Web site. 



10 



FXF.CUTIVF. BUREAU FRANCIS X. BF.l.l.OTTI LIBRARY 

riic (^onmuinicatioiis C)fhcc staff is: I).ivi<] (Iii.irino, ( oniimuiK.itioiis I )iivLi(»r: Meredith 
BauiiKimi, IVess Secretary; Berh Stone, and lereiKe Burke, Deimty Press Secretaries; f'.rika Ciully- 
Santiago, Press Assistant; and Jen Adams, Web Site Manager. 

WEBSriH 

In existence since December 1999, the Office Web site continued to expand during Fiscal Year 
2006. Development of the Massachusetts Health Care Guide began in May/June 2006. Tiiis projects 
piupose is CO develop a Healthcare Information Portal (named the "Massachusetts I leahh ( ^are C luide"), 
which consumers could use to help guide them through third party Health Care Web sites. In response 
to a need for gas and oil pricing information, a complaint form was added for consumers and retailers. 
Current publications continued to be added to the Web site in Portable Document Format (PDF) and 
Rich Text Format (RTF; for accessibility compliance). The site traffic reports demonstrated berv\'een 
59,000 to 90,000 visitors per month. 

FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI LAW LIBRARY 

The library provides the Office of the Attorney General with the finest possible research faciht)^ and 
supports the research activities of the attorneys and staff The collection includes 2,^^64 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. 

The library is a member of the Boston Regional Library System, facilitating interlibrary loans from 
nonlegal libraries. Included with membership is access to OCl.C, a national bibHographic database. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the library staff included: Karin Thurnian, Director; and Raymond 
Manigault, Library Assistaiu. 



BUSINESS AND LABOR 
PROTECTION BUREAU 

Fair Labor and Business Practices Division 
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND Bl 'SINF.SS PRACTICES DIVISION 

Business and Labor Protection Bureau 



FAIR LABOR & BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

Total Resiitmion: In excess of $3,318,693 

Total Revenue (fines/penalties): $3,932,987 

Total Hotline Calls: In excess of 55,000 

Total Site Visits: 439 
The FI.BP rerurned a record arnounr of wages to workers during die ('alendcr Year 2006 while 
contimiing to address the ever increasing number of inquires the division Helds from its hotline, referrals, 
Web site, and visitors. The hotline received in excess of 65,000 calls in Boston alone. The work of the 
FLBP continued to expand in its satellite offices of Southeastern Miissachusetts (New Bedford; "SEMA"). 
Central Massachusetts (Worcester, "CMAS"), and Western Massachusetts (Springfield: "WM^S"), as 
well as the following quarter-bv-quarter review shows. 



FIRST QUARTER: JANUARY 1 - MARCH 31, 2006 

STATISTICAL OV ERVIEW 

A. Restitution Recovered 

Processed through office - Boston S 184,861 .05 

Payment directly to complainant - Boston S 89,360.58 

Boston Total $274,22 1 .63 

Processed through office - SEMA $ 19,038.69 

Payment directly to complainant -- SFMA $ 77,503.72 

SEMA Total ' $96,542.41 

Processed through office - CMAS $ 7,966.39 

Payment directly to complainant - CMAS $ 103,635.81 

CMAS Total ' $111,602.20 

Processed through office - WMAS $ 29.593.93 

Payment directly to complainant - WMAS $ 20.030.96 

WMAS Total ' $49,624.89 

Processed through Court SO 

TOTAL RESTITUTION RECOVERED: $53 1 ,99 1.13 



15 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTFCTiON BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 



B. Complaints Closed 



Number of Complaints Closed with Restitution Recovered: 

Restitution paid through office - Boston 
Restitution paid through office - SEMA 
Restitution paid tli rough office - CMAS 
Restitution paid through office - WMAS 
Total 

Restitution directly to complainant - Boston 
Restitution directly to complainant - SEiVtA 
Restitution directly to complainant - CMAS 
Restitution directl}' to complainant - WMAS 
Total 



79 


complaints 


31 


complaints 


15 


complaints 


39 


complaints 


164 


complaints 


75 


complaints 


72 


complaints 


22 


complaints 


41 


complaints 


210 


complaints 



COMPLAINTS CLOSED W/RESTnuriON PAID TOIAL: 



374 



Total All Complaints Closed: 

*Boston/CMAS 

SEM\ 

WMAS 



546 complaints 
195 complaints 
169 complaints 



TOTAL COMPLAINTS CLOSED: 



910 



Restitution: 

Total complaints closed w/ restitution paid directly through AGO: 164 

Total complaints closed w/restitution paid directly to complainant: 210 



C. New Complaints 

New complaints received Boston/CMASS* 
New complaints received SEMA 
New complaints received WMAS 



600 complaints 
150 complaints 
165 complaints 



TOTAL NEW COMPLAINTS RECEIVED: 



915- 



*CMAS did not generate statistics for the 1st Quarter. Consequently, this figure 
represents the total number of closed complaints closed throughout the office minus 
the opened complaints reported by WMAS and SEMA. The same holds true for newly 
opened complaints. 

**Represents complaint forms received and cases opened; does not reflect if more than 
one t}^e of complaint per form or if complainant added to master case. 



16 



$ 2,230.00 


# 6 


$ 1,200.00 


# 12 


$ 2,100.00 


# 21 


$ 45,120.00 


# 16 


$ 110,600.64 


# 83 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BURF.AU PAIR iaror anD Bl 'SINF.SS PRACTIC F.S DIVISION 

D. Pending ('omplaints* 

Boston total 345 tomplaints 

SF.MA total 149 toniplaints 

CMAS total 1S() complaints 

WMAS total 76 Loniplaniis 

TOTAL PENDING COMPLAINTS 726 

*Repiesent,s the number of open cases; docs not reflect if multiple complaints/ 
complainants per open case. Cases assigned to inspectors only; does not include bid 
protest cases, personnel records, public records requests, etc. 

Other than Restitution: 

Industrial Homework 

Bid 

Waivers 

Civil Penalties 

Civil Restitution 

TOTAL $161,270.64 #138 

TOTAL RE\^NUE $693,261.77 #512 

E. Other Division Efforts 

1. Prevailing Wage Site Inspections 

Total PW Inspections: 54 

2. Hotline 

In the past quarter, the Boston FLBP Hotline received 12,382 telephone calls. The total 
number of calls answered by the three regional offices was 3,943 for a GR,'\ND TOTAL 
of 16,325. 

The number of calls received in Boston is obtained from a computer program that 
automatically tallies Hotline phone calls as they are received. Ihe Regional Offices tall\' 
their phone calls by hand. 

The monthly breakdown for the calls received is as h)llows: 



17 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTiON BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BLLSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

BOSTON SEMA CMAS WTVIAS 

January 4,452 412 152 669 

February 3,850 673 126 549 

March ' 4<0S0 449 148 76^ 

Totals: 12,382 426 1,534 1,983 

Office Monthly Totals: 

January 5,685 

February 5,198 

March 5,442 

TOTAL HOTLINE CALLS (1/1/2006 - 3/31/2006): 16,325 



Statistical Breakdown by Complaint Category: 

The following number of complaints by r\'pe were received in the office and entered into 
CMS (1/1/2006- 3/31/2006): 



Prevailing wage 124 

Overdue wage* 791 

Total** 915 



* Includes Overdue Wage, Minimum Wage, Vacation, Overtime, Meal Period, Holiday, 
Sunday, Child Labor, Safet}^ and Other Complaints as follows: 

Overdue Wage 564 

Minimum Wage 9 

Vacation 132 

Overtime ^ 

Meal Period 1 1 

Moliday 7 

Sunday 2 

Child Labor 19 

Safety 

TOTAL 791 

**May be more than one type of complaint per individual complaint form/letter. 



RUSINFSS AND LABOR PROTECTION BURRAU FAIR I.AIM )K ANN BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

Statistical Breakdown by Records Request: 

Requests received for tliese categories, \vhi(.li are not handled h\- inspectors: 

Personnel Records C>2C') 1<S [(>)mplaints acceptcil/( Opened in ('MS| 

Public Records Requests 27 [Opened in CMS] 

hiiniigrants 12 [(Opened in C!MS| 

PRA 1 ctters: 

PRA letters Issued: 1 SO [Boston - 45, SEMA -41. WMAS - 64 ] 

Regional oHices: 

CMAS, the number of complaint forms by type that were received and entered into CiMS 
(1/1/2006-3/31/2006): 

Prevailing wage* N/A 

Overdue wage* N/A 

Total* N/A 

SEMA, the number of complaint forms by type that were received and entered into CiMS 
(1/1/2006-3/31/2006): 

Prevailing wage 2 

O ve rd u c wage * * 50 



Total* 52 



WMAS, the number of complaint forms by type that v^'ere received and entered into C^MS 
(1/1/2006-3/31/2006): 

Prevailing wage 10 

O ve rd ue wage ' * 155 



Total* 165 

*Information not provided by CMAS for this quarter. 

* "Includes Overdue Wage, Minimum Wage, Vacation, Overtime, Meal Period, Holiday, 
Sunday, Child Labor, Safety, and Other Complaints. 

Notes about the hodine statistical brealcdown: 

1. A total of 915 new complaints were received by the Office. This represents an increase of 
73 more complaints than received in the corresponding 1st (,^iiarter, 2005. 

2. A total of 910 complaints were closed by the office which represents a decrea.se of 62 from 
the corresponding 1st Quarter, 2005. 



19 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTiON BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

3. The total of hotline calls received for all locations (Boston and the three branch offices) 
resulted in 1,126 fewer calls than were received in the 1st Quarter, 2005. 

a. January: 391 fewer calls received 

b. February: 258 fewer calls received 

c. March: 477 fewer calls received 

i. Boston received 914 fewer calls than in the Isc Quarter, 2005. 
ii. CA'L/VS received 74 fewer calls than received in the 1st Quarter, 2005. 
iii. SE^'IA received 29 more calls than received in the 1st Quarter, 2005. 
iv. WN4AS received 167 fewer calls than received in the Ist Quarter, 2005. 

4. Several CN4S technical difficulties arose during the 1st Quarter, 2006. 

a. There have been delays in time-line entries. Often there have been times when the 
time-line entry does not appeal' within the usual quarter-hour timeframe. We 
continue to work around this obstacle. 

b. In March we experienced problems with CMS case information being lost. The 
problem has since been resolved with the assistance of IT. 

3. Civil Citation Statistical Overview 

Citations Issued: 

Minimum wage records: 4 

Minimum wage violations: 5 

Wage and hour records: 

Wage and hour violations: 7 

Prevailing wage records: 9 

Prevailing wage violations: 7 



Total Citations Issued 

Citations paid: 

Citations appealed: 

I.iens issued: 

Penalties ordered: 
Restitution ordered: 



32 




25 




11 




$ 55,924.00 
$239,768.54 



Total penalty and restitution ordered: $295,692.54 



20 



BUSINESS AND LABOR BROTE-C rU>N Bl R[ AU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS I'RAClLUF.S DIVISION 



Rcvcnuf CA)llci:tcd: 

Prevailing Wnj^e Restitution $ 16,315.91 

Minimum Wage Restirution $ 102,871.20 

Wage and Hour Rcsi if lit ion S ')7.337.4S 



Total Restitution $ 216,524.56 

Prevailing Wage Penalty $ 15,380.00 

Minimum Wtge Penalty $ 8,060.00 

Wage and Mour Penalr\- $ 22,450.00 

Total Penalty $ 45,890.00 

Total Revenue Collected $ 262,414.56 
Penalty fees paid to DOR (for lien releases): $ 2,590.00 



F. Some of this quarter's highlights include: 

• Cuilry pleas in Commonwealth v. Will Work Exhibit, Inc. ($290,000 in restitution, 
penalties and tines), and Commonwealth v. ARC Environmental ($75,000 in restitution, 
fines and penalties) and Commonwealth v. East Coast Staffin g, Inc. ($65,000 in restitution, 
fines, and penalties). 

• Commonwealth v. John Doe [Will Work ExJiibit, Inc.] Bristol County Grand jury 
investigation into allegations Will Work contracted to provide Nth Degree. Inc., with 
labor, and then misappropriated Nth Degrees corurihutions to the New England Teamsters 
Benefit Funds. Nth Degree produced financial records indicating the misappropriated 
funds exceed $214,000 and involve more than 30 employees. The U.S. DOL, Office of 
Inspector General, Office of Labor Racketeering and the U.S. DOL, Employee Benefits 
Security Administration assisted in the investigation. Settlement negotiations resulted in an 
agreement on December 30, 2005, involving the payment of $260,000 to the 34 persons 
involved in the benefit matter, the payment of $10,000 relating to defraying the costs of 
the investigation, a corporate guilty plea to two misdemeanors for the failure to maintain 
records indicating hours worked by employees. Lhe corporation was indicted tor the two 
record keeping charges on February 15. 2006. On March 9, 2006, the corporation was 
arraigned and then pleaded guilc)' to both counts. The court imposed a fine of $8,000 and 
a special cost assessment of $2,000 on each coimt. 1 he total fines and special assessments 



21 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTiON BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BL'SINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

were $20,000. 

• Plea agreement in Commonwealth v. Curran ($320,000 in restitution, fines, and 
penalties). Curran to enter guilt)- plea to one count failing to pay Prevailing Wage and 
one count of failing to file CPR on 5 years of work for HG&E. Total is S380,O00, 
including $50,000 in fines and $30,000 paid directly previously. 

• Agreement in principle in Laidlaw Bus investigation (over $1,000,000 in restitution and 
penalties expected resolution in April 2006). Spoke to Attorney Morsilli a,s foliowup 

to meeting on February 10, 2006. Er agreed to four citations for $60,000 in p>enalties, 
but identified a third PW problem related to transporting kids to school-related events 
where the school may have provided some of the money for transportation. Under a 
DOS determination letter several years back, such trips require the PW even if sponsored 
by such groups as the PTA. Aruicipate preliminary findings of F^R's audit this week. 
Estimated restitution and penalties $1.1M. Anticipiate settlement week of April 9-13, 
2007. 

• Settlement Agreement and civil citations in Lampasona Concrete ($74,000 in restitution 
and penalties). 

• Settlement Agreement in Labor Ready, Inc. investigation ($230,000 in restitution and 
penalties). 

• Grand jury investigation in Commonwealth v. John Doe (Allstate Painting) (possible 
$300,000 in restitution, fines and penalties). 

• Settlement Agreement in T.G.I. Fridays investigation ($100,000 in restitution and 
penalties). 

• Commonwealth v. Pacific Garden Restaurant is pending in Boston Municipal Court 
(defendant has already made fiill restitution of over $20,000 to several employees). 

• Aher favorable appeals court decision in Mill Stores, Inc., investigation, company to pay 
additional restitution (likely in excess of $200,000 for failure to pay Sunday and holiday 
premium). 

• Subnussion of ^Motion for Summary Decision in Premier Caulking investigation ($30,000 
in restitution and penalties). 

• Prevailin g Wa ge inspector s conducted 34 construction site visits. 

22 



BUSINESS AND I ABOR PROTFrTK^N BURF.AU FAIR 1 ABoR AND BUSINESS PRACTICFS DIVISION 

The Bid Unit is .kIcIccI a second attornc)' to its staff. This qiiaii<.r ihi\' haiulkil a total ol 10 hid- 
piotcst licarings, and issued six fornial written decisions. In additional to the ' loiitinc" issues relating 
to advertising bids, con|-ormancc with specifications, contractor suitability, etc., the unit was confronted 
with emerging is.sucs relating to filed sub-bidders and the new DC.'AM pre-qualification process. 

SECOND QUARTER: APRIL 1 -JUNE .30, 2006 

OVERVIEW 

The strong showing of the first quarter continued on into tlie 2nd quarter witii the total restitution 
collected For workers representing a 62% increase over the 2nd quarter of 200S. The number of civil 
citations issued increased 75% over the 1st quarter. Indeed, the amount of restitution obtained by 
FLBP in the first six inotuhs of this year exceeds the total restitution figure for all ol last year (year-to- 
date 2006 = $2,396,048.16; full-year 200S = $2,096,339.48). 

These gains were achieved while the division absorbed the highest number of new wage/hour 
complaints (1,180) of any quarter in the past several years. Despite this the number of ca.ses resolved 
with the pa\'meiu of restitu'^ion increased ?4% over the 1st t]uarter of 2006. 

Increased productivit}' was also the hallmark of the Bid Unit. The trend over the past 18 months 
had been a steady increase on the number of bid protests filed. In the first two quarters of 2005, the 
number of bid protests averaged 17. By the 1st quarter of 2006, that number grew to 21 . In the 2nd 
quarter of 2006, 27 bid protests were filed, an increase of 59% over last )^ear. Of those 27, 21 wetu to 
full hearings, a 100%i increase over the same quarter last year. 

rhe criminal caseload grew as well. There were 13 significant grand jury investigations, up' 18% 
from l;ist quarter. Four cases were resolved by guilty pleas (33% increase), and six cases were filed in 
district court (25%) increase). 

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW 

A. Restitution Recovered 

Processed through office - Boston $ 1 62,087.04 

Payment directly to cotnplainant - Boston $ 87,123.86 

Boston Total $249,210.90 

Processed through office - SEiVL\ S 30,229.48 

Payment directly to complainaiu - SFjMA $ 38, 1 89.35 

SEMA Total $ 68,418.83 



23 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BL'SINESS PRACTICES DiVLSiON 



Processed through office - CMA-S 
Payment directly to complainant - CMAS 
CMAS Total 



24,070.60 

4,718.57 

28,789.17 



Processed through office - WM'\S 
Payment directly to complainant - WMAS 
WMAS Total 



$ 305,895.83 
$ 1,198,006.15 
$ 1,503,901.98 



Processed through Court 



S 13J36.15 



TOTAL RESTIl UTION RECOVERED: 



$ 1,864,057.03 



B. Complaints Closed 



Number of Complaints Closed with Restitution Recovered: 

Restitution paid through office - Boston 
Restitution paid through office - SEMA 
Restitution paid through office - CiVlAS 
Restitution paid through office - WMAS 
Total 

Restitution directly to complainant - Boston 
Restitution directly to complainant - SEiVlA 
Restitution directly to complainant - CIvL^S 
Restitution directly to complainant - WMAS 
Total 



94 


complaints 


31 


complaints 


3 


complaints 


28 


complaints 


156 


complaints 


102 


complaints 


44 


complaints 


8 


complaints 


352 


complaints 


506 


complaints 



COMPLMNTS CLOSED W/RESTITUTION PAID TOTAL: 



662 



Total All Complaints Closed: 

*Boston/CMAS 

SEMA 

WMAS 



482 
218 
159 



compiamts 
complaints 
complaints 



TOTAL COMPLAINTS CLOSED: 



859 



Restitution: 

Total complaints closed w/restitution paid direcdy through AGO: 1 56 

'Ibtal complaints closed w/restitution paid directly to complainant: 506 

Total complaints closed w/restitution: 662 

Total complaints closed w/out restitution: 1 97 



24 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTF.CTION BUREAU FAIR I AIM )K AM) »l ISINF.SS PRACTICES DIVISION 



C. New Com plain IS 

New (.onipl.iiiu.s received Boston/C^MASS* 931 (.omplaints 

New complaiius receised Sir MA K5 cotnphiins 

New complaints received WMAS 164 conipi.niits 

TOTAL NEW COMPLAINTS RLCLIVLD: 1,1 SO' ' 

*CiVL\S did nor generate statistics For the 2nd (Quarter. (Consequently, this figure 
represents the total number of closed complaints closed thioughout the office minus 
the opened complaints reported b)' WMAS and SKMA. The same holds true for newly- 
opened complaints. 

*''Represents complaint forms received and cases opened; does not lefieci if more than 
one nyic of complaint per form or if complainant added to master case. 

D. Pending Complaints* 

Boston total 324 complaints 

SEMA total 182 complaints 

CM/\S total 147 complaints 

WMAS total 81 complaints 

TOTAL PENDING COMPLAINTS 734 

^Represents the number of open Ciises; does not reflect if multiple complaints/ 
complainants per open case. Cases assigned to inspectors only; does not include bid 
protest cases, personnel records, public records requests, etc. 

Other than Restitution: 

Industrial Homework 

Bid 

Waivers 

Civil Penalties 

Civil Restitution 



TOTAL $ 226,268.10 #166 

TOTAL REVTLNUE $2,090,325.13 #882 

E. Other Division Efforts 



$ 


375.00 


# 3 


$ 


2,900.00 


# 29 


$ 


2,850.00 


# 22 


$ 


85,310.00 


a 28 


$ 


134,633.10 


^ 84 



1. Prevailing Wage Site Inspections 

Total PW Inspectiofis: 43 



25 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BL'SINESS PRACTICES DIVLSION 



2. Hotline 

In the past quarter, the Boston FLBP Hotline received 9,784 telephone calls. The total 

number of calls answered by the three regional offices was 3,661 for a GRAND TOTAL 

of 13,445. 

The number of calls received in Boston is obtained from a computer program that 

autornaticaliv tallies hotline phone calls as they are received. The Regional Offices tally 

their phone calls by hand. 

The monthly breakdown for the calls received is as toUows: 





BOSTON 


SEMA 


CMAS 


WTMAS 


April 


2,808 


427 


99 


606 


iMav 


3.274 


336 


129 


671 


June 


3.702 


400 


154 


749 



Toials: 



9,784 



1,163 



382 



2,116 



Office Monthly Totals: 

April 3,940 

May 4,500 

June S,00S 



TOTAL HOTLINE CALLS (4/1/2006 - 6/30/2006): 



13,445 



Statistical Breakdown by Complaint Category: 

The following number of complaints by type were received in the office and entered into 
CMS (4/1/2006 - 6/30/2006): 

Prevailing wage 39 
Overdue wage" 1,141 



TotaP 



1,180 



26 



RUSINFSS AND LABOR PROTF.CTIONJ BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTKF.S DIVISION 



* IikIikIcs Overdue Wage, Miiiimuiu Wage, V'aeation, ()\eriiine, Me<il IVrioil, 1 li)liday, 
Suiulay. Child Labor, Sakry, and Cither Ciornplaiius as lollows: 

Overdue Wi\ge 866 

Kdinimuni Wage 8 

Vacation 177 

Ovcrcime 37 

Meal Period 1 1 

Holiday 7 

Sunday 2 

Child l.ahor 27 

Safety 6 



TOTAL 



1,141 



**May be more than one type oi complaint per individual complaint Form/letter. 

Statistical Breakdown by Records Request: 

Requests received for these categories, which are nor handled bv inspectors: 



Personnel Records (52C) 
Public Records Requests 
Immigrants 



34 [Complaints accepted/Opened in CMS] 

27 [Opened in CMS] 
31 [Opened in CMS] 



PRA Letters: 

PI^ letters Lssued: 



1 84 [Bosion/CMAS - 64, Sh.MA - 68. WMAS - 52] 



Regional offices: 

CMAS, the num[-)er of complaint forms by type that were received and entered into CMS 
(4/1/2006-6/30/2006): 



Prevailing wage 
Overdue wage" 



Total 



31 



SEMA, the number of complaint forms b}' type that were received and entered into CMS 
(4/1/2006-6/30/2006): 

Prevailing wage 2 

C^verdue wage' 98 



Total* 



100 



27 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTFCTiON BUREAU EAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PR.'\CT1CES DIVISION 

"WTVIAS, the number of complaint Forms by t}^pe that were received and entered into CMS 
(4/1/2006-6/30/2006): 

Prevaihng wage 14 

Overdue wage" 1 50 

Total* 164 

* Includes Overdue Wage, Minimum Wage, Vacation, Overtime, Meal Period, Holiday, 
Sunday, Child L.abor, Safety, and Other Complaints. 

Notes about the hotline statistical breakdown: 

1. A total of 1,180 new complaints were received by the Office. This represents an increase of 
263 more complaints than the preceding 1st Quarter, 2006, and 359 more complaints 
than received in the corresponding 2nd Quarter, 2005. 

2. A total of 859 complaints were closed by the office which represents a 5 1 fewer complaints 
closed from the preceding 1st Quarter, 2006. In addition, this represents an increase of 72 
complaints closed from the corresponding 2nd Quarter, 2005. 

3. The total of hotline calls received for all locations (Boston and the three branch offices) 
resulted in 4,417 fewer calls than were received in the 2nd Quarter, 2005. 

a. April: 1 , 1 659 fewer calls received 

b. May: 1,361 fewer calls received 

c. June: 1,397 fewer calls received 

i. Boston received 3,785 fewer calls than in the 2nd Quarter, 2005. 

ii. CMAS received 476 fewer calls than received in the 2nd Quarter, 2005. 

iii. SEMA received 192 more calls than received in the 2nd Quarter, 2005. 

iv. WN'IAS received 36 fewer ctdls than received in the 2nd Quarter, 2005. 

4. Several CMS technical difficulties arose during the 2nd Quarter, 2006. 

a. In June, FLBP discovered that incidents were arising were arising in which 
information was being duplicated in CMS (CMS number and titles). Information 
was also being lost (not returned after entering data). Christine Heneghan was 
notified and informed FLBP that the situation was remedied. 



28 



BUSINFSS AND I AEUm PROTEt TK^NI BLJRFAU FAI[< LABOR AND Bl'SINl.SS I'RAC.TKlt.S DIVISION 

3. Civil Citation Statistical Overview 

Cirarions Issued: 

Minimum wage records: 1 1 

Minimum wage violations: 2 

Wage and hour records: I 

Wage and hour violations: 13 

Prevailing wage records: 22 

Prevailing wage violations: 7 

Total Citations Issued 56 

Citations paid: 41 

Citations appealed: 7 

I.iens issued: 5 

Penalties ordered: $1,1 99,282.4 1 

Restitution ordered: $ 104,661.00 

Total penalty and restitution ordered: $ 1,303,943.41 

Revenue Collected: 

Prevailing Wage Restitution $ 60,408.03 

Minimum Wage Restitution $ 16,894.86 

Wage and Hour Restitution $ 1.104,410.59 

Total Restitution $ 1,181,713.48 

Prevailing Wage Penalty $ 19,450.00 

Minimum Wage Penalty $ 1,600.00 

Wige and Hour Penalty S 64,260.00 

Total Penalty $ 85,310.00 

Total Revenue Collected $ 1,267,023.48 

Penalty fees paid to DOR {for lien releases): $ 972.00 



29 



BLJSINESS AND LABOR PROTFCTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BliSINE.SS PRACTICES DIVISION 

F. Some of this quarter's highlights include: 

• GuiliA' plea in Commonwealth v. Curran resulted in payment of $380,000 in fines and 
restitution. 

• Guilty plea in Commonwealth v. TMI Construction resulted in the payment ot$ 13,736. 15 
in restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Michael Jenkins, TMJ Construction. Agreed disposition on April 13, 
2006, on charges of workers compensation premium evasion and larceny by fiilse pretenses, 
which arose following issuance of three citations for prevailing wage and wage payment 
violations. Corporation entered guilty pleas, and corporate officer admitted to sufficient 
facts for a finding of guilty, continued without a finding for two years; both defendants are 
debarred from public construction for five years. Jenkins ordered to pay restitution totaling 
$13,736.15, representing $4,902 due the insurer, and a combined total of $8,834.15 due 
the four employees named in the citations. 

• Guiky plea in Commonwealth v. ARC, Inc. resulted in fines and restitution ot $75,000. 

• ARC. Peabody asbestos abatement company whose president, Rith Chhim, has admitted 
in signed settlement agreement to intentional violations of prevailing wage and record 
keeping lavv^s during periods from 2002 through June 2004. Company has paid $55,000 in 
restitution to 53 employees and will pay $20,000 in fines. DCOI Reutlinger will call DOS 
to follow up on employees' current addresses. Sent letter to victim informing him of his 
right at defendant's plea on June 6, 2006, to provide Court with oral or written statement 
of violations impact on him. On June 6, 2006, as jointly agreed, Chhim pleaded guilty 
for corporation in Essex Superior Court at arraignment for failing to pay wages to one 
employee. Judge accepted parties' recommendation that corporation pay fine of $5,000 
within 60 days. On June 9, 2006, received agreed-upon penalty payment of $10,000; on 
July 10, 2006, expect to receive final agreed-upon penalty payment of S 10,000. 

Will monitor payment of court fine due by August 10, 2006; will ensure that on or 
befi)re August 1 5, 2006, Certified Public Accountant provides written report to AG of 
arc's compliance with chapters 149 and 151; will ensure that on or before September 
15, 2006, receive ARC compliance plan. 

In related investigations: on June 20, 2006, sent notice of debarment letter to ARC sub-contractor 
Allstate /\sbestos Management regarding its failure to provide certified payrolls, where no 
response to citations. In response to letter sent to .ARC sub-contractor Phoung Environmental 



30 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BURF.Al.) FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

("oiur.Ktor, Inc., ivgaidiii^ iiii[viKliiimlcl>,irmciu for t'.iiliirc to pioviilc p.utdll ncoiJs, Ixtth 
prevailing wage and general, where no response ro eitatituis, reeeivcd penalty (.hecks totaling 
$1,000. 

• Citations issued in l.aidlaw lianspoitation investigation .uid lecovcry of $1,200,000 in 
lesfirufion and penalties. 

• Recovery ol $18,330 in restitution in Commonwealth v. Pacific Gardens . Hniployer has 
paid full restitution $18,330. Court continued case without a finding. The Coniiiionwcalth 
sought guilty finding, April 21, 2006. Employer charged with 14 counts for failing to pay 
wages. Case in BMC. 



THIRD QUARTER: JULY 1 - SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 

OVERVIEW 

At the conclusion of the 3rd Quarter in 2006, the year-to-date revenue exceeded any other full 
calendar year in the history of FLBP since its creation in 1994, with revenue at $2,970,938.67. 

Fi.BP's high producrivic)' has been achieved despite the loss of several Assistant Attorne\'s Ceneral 
and inspectors. For most of this calendar year 2006, Fl.BP has operated with four Assistant Attorneys 
Ceneral doing wage and hour enforcement in the Boston Office, two Assistant Attorneys Ceneral (one 
part-time) in the SEA'IA (New Bedford) Regional Office, and one Assistant Attorne}' Ceneral to cover 
both the WMAS (Springfield) and CMAS (Worcester) Regional offices. Moreover, the Office lost two 
fiill time inspectors (one of whom was replaced) and one part-time inspector. 

FLBP contiimes to expand the caseload of criminal matters, several of which involve expansive grand 
jury investigations. In addition, there are nine cases pending in various district courts. Two cases were 
indicted in the 3rd Quarter, including the principals of the several nursing homes (C!ommonwcalth v. 
Logan Healthcare Management et al) and a mason contractor (Cx)mmonwealth v. Rand Stoneworks, 
Inc.). 

FLE-5P also brought numerous civil enforcement actions against numerous employers and their 
companies. The Office issued 50 civil citations and executed several settlement agreements, the largest 
of which involved a company called Drive O'Rama, d/b/a/ Mill Stores, Inc., a retail store selling various 
products including outdoor furniture and sheds. That company agreed to pay a total of $245,082.63 
in restitution to 630 employees who were owed premium pay for work done on Sundays and Holidays. 
The company also agreed to pav $1 5,000 in civil penalties. 



31 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTFCTiON BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 



STA I ISTi CM . OVE RVI EW 

A. Restitution Recovered 



Processed through office - Boston 
Pa\'menr directly to complainant - Boston 
Boston Total 



$ 83,162.13 
S 58,666.17 
$ 143,828.32 



Processed through office - SEMA 
Payment directly to complainant - SEMA 
SEMA Total 



$ 18,338.26 
$ 36,209.78 
$ 74,548.04 



Processed through office - CMAS 
Payment directly to complainant - CMAS 
CMAS Total 



$ 3,634.06 
$ 61,315.33 
$ 64,949.41 



Processed through office - WMAS 
Payment directly to complainant - NX'^MAS 
>X^AS Total 



27,910.83 
87,866.24 

T5,777.07 



Processed through Court 



$0 



TOTAL RESTITUTION RECOVERED: 



$339,102.84 



B. C 



ompiamts 



Closed 



Number of Complaints Closed with Restitution Recovered: 

Restitution paid through office - Boston 
Restitution paid through office - SEMA 
Restitution paid through office - CM'\S 
Restitution paid through office - WMAS 
Total 

Restitution directly to complainant - Boston 
Restitution directly to complainant - SEN'IA 
Restitution direcdy to complainant - CMAS 
Restitution directly to complainant - WMAS 
Total 



67 


complaints 


23 


complaints 


6 


complaints 


34 


complaints 


130 


complaints 


51 


complaints 


48 


complaints 


41 


complaints 


116 


complaints 


256 


complaints 



COMPLAINTS CLOSED W/RESTITUTION PAID TOTAL: 



386 



32 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 



Totiil All C'oinplaints Closed: 

*Bost(>n/C:MAS 

SEMA 

W'MAS 



4S*) lompl.iims 
1*^') Loinplaiiiis 
IHl coniplainis 



TOTAL COMPLAINTS CLOSED: 



799 



Restitution: 

Total conipiaiius closed w/resticutioii paid directly rhroiigh ACO: 130 

Total complaints closed w/restitution paid directly to complainant: 256 

Total complaints closed w/restitution: 3H6 

Total complaints closed vv/out restitution: 413 



C. New ComplaifUs 

New complaints received Boston/CiVlAS* 
New complaints received SEMA 
New complaints received WMAS 



542 complaints 
167 complaints 
207 complaints 



TOTAL NEW COMPLAIN'IS RECEIVED: 



916** 



*C JVIAS did not generate statistics for the 3rd (Quarter, (.lonsequentty, this figure 
represents the total number of closed complaints closed throughout the office minus 
the opened complaints reported by WMAS and SEMA. The same holds true ior newly 
opened complaints. 

^'Represents complaint forrrts received and cases opened; does not reHect if more than 
one t^jfti of complaint p>er form or if complainant added to master case. 



D. Pending Complaints'* 



Boston total 
SEMA total 
CMAS total 
WMAS total 



478 complaints 

195 complaints 

112 complaints 

106 (.oiuclainis 



TOTAL PENDINC COMPLAINTS 



891 



*Represents the number of open cases; does not reHect if multiple complaints/ 
complainants per open case. Ceases ;issigned to inspectors only; does not include bid 
protest cases, personnel records, public records requests, etc. 



33 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PR.ACTICES DIVISION 



Other than Restitution: 

Indusirial Homework 

Bid 

Waivers 

Civil Penalties 

Civil Resrirurion 



$ 475.00 


# 


2 


$ 2,000.00 


# 


20 


$ 700.00 


# 


7 


$ 39,204.00 


# 


28 


$ 133,408.67 


# 


122 



TOTAL 



175,787.6: 



# 179 



TOTAL REVENUE 



$574,890.51 



# 565 



E. Other Division Efforts 

1. Prevailing Wage Site Inspections 

Total PW Inspections: 63 

2. Hotline 

In the past quairer, die Boston Fl.BP Hodine received 9,434 telephone calls. The total 
nmnber oF calls answered by the three regional offices was 3,696 for a GRiAND TOTAL 
of 13,130. 

The number of calls received in Boston is obtained from a computer program that 
automatically tallies hotline phone calls as rhey are received. The Regional Offices tally 
their phone calls by hand. 

The monthly breakdown for the calls received is as follows: 





BOSTON 


SEMA 


CMAS 


WMAS 


July 


2,992 


407 


140 


561 


August 


3,243 


404 


142 


783 


September 


3T99 


380 


152 


7">7 



Totals: 



9,434 



1,191 



434 



2,071 



Office Monthly Totals: 

July 4,100 

August 4,572 

September 4,458 



TOTAL HOTLINE CALLS (7/1/2006 • 9/30/2006): 



13,130 



34 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 



FAIK I AIU)R AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 



Statistical Breakdown by Cofuplaim C.aiegory: 

The following luiniher ol cdm|ilaints l\\' lypc were retcivecl in the offKe and rnic-riHl inn 
CMS (7/1/2006 -9/30/2006): 

Prevailing wage 71 
OveRlue wage' 845 



TotaP 



916 



* Includes Overdue Wage, Minimum Wage, Vacation, Overtime, Meal Period, Holiday, 
Sunday, Child Labor. Safety, and Other C>oniplaint.s as folhnvs: 

Overdue Wage 878 



Minimum Wage 
Vacation 
Overtime 
Meal Period 
Holiday 
Sunday 
Child Labor 
Safety 



143 
36 

13 

6 

7 

21 

2 



TOTAL 79 1 

'*May be more than one type of complaint per individual cofTiplaint foriTi/letrer. 



Statistical Breakdown by Records Request: 

Requests received for these categories, which are not handled by inspectors: 

[Complaints accepted/Opened in CMS] 



Personnel Records (52C) 15 

Public Records Requests 26 

Immigrants 16 



[Opened in CMS] 
[Opened in CMS] 



PRA Letters: 

PRA letters Issued: 



1 52 [Boston - 44, SEMA - 50, WMAS - 58] 



Regioiuil offices: 

CMAS, the number of complaint forms by t)'pe chat were received and entered into C^MS 
(7/1/2006-9/30/2006): 

Prevailing wage 6 

Overdue wage* 21 



Total 



27 



35 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTiON BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 



SEMA, the number of coniplainr forms by type that were received and entered into CMS 
(7/1/2006-9/30/2006): 

Prevaihng wage 

Overdue wage 48 

Total* 48 

WMAS, the number of complaint forms by type that were received and entered into CMS 
(7/1/2006-9/30/2006): 

Prevaihng wage 13 

Overdue wage 194 



Total* 207 



^includes Overdue Wage, Minimum Wage, Vacation, Overtime, Meal Period, Holiday, 
Sunday, Child Labor, Safet)^^, and Other Complaints. 

Notes about the hotline statistical breakdown: 

1. A total of 916 new complaints were received by the Office. This represents an decrease of 
264 less complaints thaii the preceding 2nd Quarter 2006. Information for the 
corresponding 3rd Quarter 2005 is unavailable, thus a comparison of the two cannot 

be made. 

2. A total of 799 complaints were closed by the Office which represents 60 fewer complaints 
closed from the preceding 2nd Quarter 2006. Information for the corresponding 3/d 
Quarter 2005 is unavailable, thus a comparison of the two cannot be made. 

3. The total of hotline calls received for all locations (Boston and the three branch offices) 
resulted in 315 fewer calls than were received in the 2nd Quarter 2006. Information for 
the corresponding 3rd Quarter 2005 is unavailable, thus a comparison of the two cannot 
be made. 

4. Several CMS technical difficulties arose during the 1st Quarter, 2006. 

a. In September, FLBP discovered incidents were arising in which information was 
not appearing imder AUniversal Case Search@. The Afuzzy Search(£? option was 
utilized to no avail. Christine Heneghan was notified and informed FLBP that the 
situation v^'as remedied. 



36 



BUSINESS AND LABOR ['ROTFxTll^N BURFAU FAIR LABOR AND BL'SINF.SS PRACTICES DIVISION 

3. Civil Citation Statistical Overview 

Citations Issued: 

Miniimini wage records: 14 

Mininiuni wage violations: 2 

Wage and hour records: 1 

Wage and hour violations: 14 

Prevailing wage records: 10 

Prevailing wage violations: 9 

lotal Citations Issued 50 

Citations paid: 44 

Citations appealed: 1 1 

Liens issued: 9 

Penalties ordered: $ 78,011.00 

Restitution ordered: $234,023.05 

Total penalty and restitution ordered: $312,034.05 



Rev 



enue L.oiiectca: 



Prevailing Wage Restitution $ 142,794.41 

Minimum Wage Restitution $ 48,054.48 

Wage and Hour Restitution $ 32,55S.78 



Total Restitution $ 223,404.67 

Prevailing Wage Penally $ 34,125.00 

Minimum Wage Penalty $ 3,690.00 

Wage and Hour Penalty $ 2,876.00 

Total Penalty $ 40,691.00 

Total Revenue Collected $ 264,095.67 

Penalty fees paid to DOR (For lien releases): S 545.00 



37 



BUSINESS AND LABOr< PROTECTiON BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRy\CTlCES DIVISION 



F. Some of" this quarter's highlights include: 

• Drive O'Rama, d.b.a. Mill Stores, Inc. Settlement agreement reached September 26, 
2006, in which employer has agreed to pay $245,082.63 in restitution due 630 employees, 
by November 1, 2006, representing three years back wages, earned during September 17, 
2002 through September 1 7, 2005, and has remitted a $ 1 5,000 pendty payment, to resolve 
outstanding Sunday and 16 Holiday Pay violations. Previously, Appeal Court affirmed 
declaratory judgment in AG's favor, declaring Agift: Shop@ retailer's obligation to pay 
Holiday Pay to nonexempt workers on certain holidays, and that failure to do so violates 
the Wage Payment Law, which resulted in payment of $36,535. 1 3 for Holiday Pay earned 
during 1 999 through Jaimary ! , 2005. Employer has been in compliance with Sunday and 
Holiday Premium Pay laws since September 18, 2005. 

• Commonwealth v. J. Jeffrey Rand and Rand Stoneworks. Inc. Indictments returned 
August 17, 2006, against corporate employer and its officer, charging prevailing wage record 
violations relating to rwo public construction projects, and larceny by false pretenses arising 
from submission of falsified insurance certificates. Arraignment scheduled for October 25, 
2006. 

• Commonwealth v. John Doe [Logan Healthcare Management] Joint investigation between 
FLBP, MFCU, and US DOLs EBSA, into various allegations occurring at employer's five 
nursing home facilities, including Medicaid violations and embezzlement of wage deductions 
intended for employee benefit plans before Norfolk County Grand jury. Pros memo 
submitted September 22, 2006. Final grand jury presentation scheduled for October 13, 
2006, during which it is anticipated that charges will be sought for patient neglect, Medicaid 
fraud, conspiracy, embezzlement from patient needs accounts, and embezzlement from wage 
withholdings intended for 401(kj contributions, and life and disability insurance. 

FOURTH QUARTER: OCTOBER 1 - DECEMBER 31, 2006 

OVF.RV1F.W 

1 he Division closed out the year with another strong c^uarter, collecting over $500,000 in lost vs'ages, 
penalties and fines and setting a record for the 2006 year with the collection of $3,544,500. 



38 



BLISIN'FSS ANT) LABOR PROTFX- HON BURFAU 



FAIR LABOR ANfJ BIJSINT.SS PRACTICES DIVISION 



STATISTICAL OVERVIEW 

A. Restitution Recovered 



Processeil rliroiis^h office - Boston 
Payment directly to complainant - Boston 
Boston Total 



$ 6(),36H.83 
$ 140,442.40 
$ 200,811.23 



Processed through office - SEiVlA 
Pa)'ment directlv to complainant - SF.MA 
SEMA Total 



$ 15,693.64 
$ 56,049.82 
$ 71,743.46 



Processed through office - CMAS 
Payment directly to complainant - CMAS 
CMAS Total 



$ 654.95 

$ 90,192.59 
$ 90,847.54 



Processed through office - WMAS 
Payment directly to complainant - WMAS 
wiviAS Total 



$ 18,973.74 
$ 141,167.59 
$ 160,141.33 



Processed through Court 



SO 



TOTAL RESTITUTION RECOVERED: 



$ 523,543.56 



B. Complaints Closed 



Number of Complaints Closed with Restitution Recovered 

Restitution paid through office - Boston 
Restitution paid through office - SEMA 
Restitution paid through office - CMAS 
Restitution paid through office - WMAS 
Total 

Restitution directly to complainant - Boston 
Restitution directly to complainant - SEIvIlA 
Restitution directh' to complainant - C.^MAS 
Restitution directly to complainant - WMAS 
Total 



82 


complaints 


28 


complaints 


1 


complaints 


30 


complaints 


141 


complaints 


117 


complaints 


45 


complaints 


b 


complaints 


121 


complaints 


289 


complaints 



COMPLAIN IS CLOSED W/RESinunON PAID lOLAL: 



430 



39 



BLLSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTiON BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 



Total All Complaints Closed: 

*Bo.ston/CMAS 

SEMA 

WMAS 



476 complaints 
134 complaints 
198 complaints 



TOTAL COMPLAINTS CLOSED: 



808 



Restitution: 

Total complaints closed w/ restitution paid directly through AGO: 141 

Total complaints closed w/ restitution paid directly to complainant: 289 

Total complaints closed w/restitution: 430 

Total complaints closed vv/out restitution: 371 



C. New Complaints 

New complaints received Boston 
New complaints received CNL\S 
New complaints received SEJVtA 
New complaints received WMAS 



565 complaints 

57 complaints 

167 complaints 

207 complaints 



TOTAL NEW COMPLAINTS RECEIVED: 



967^ 



^Represents complaint Forms received and cases opened; does not reflect if more than 
one t}'pe of complaint per form or if complainant added to master case. 



D. Pending Complaints^ 

Boston total 
SE.VLA, total 
CMAS total 
WMAS total 



43 1 complaints 
172 complaints 
101 complaints 
complaiiits 



11! 



TOTAL PENDING COMPLAINTS 



815 



^Represents the number of open cases; does not reflect if multiple complaints/ 
complainants per open case. Cases assigned to inspectors only; does not include bid 
protest cases, personnel records, public records requests, etc. 



40 



BUSINESS A\'D LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND Bl.'SINESS PRACTICIF.S DIVLSION 



Other than Resiitution: 

Inckisiri.ll Homework 

Bid 

Waivers 

Civil Pciiiiltics 

C'ivil Restinitioii 



$ 


25.00 


n 


1 


$ 


1,200.00 


# 


12 


$ 


2,500.00 


# 


25 


$ 


25,600.00 


# 


21 


$ 


21,641.89 


a 


24 



TOTAL 



% 5(),966.H9 



i: 83 



TOTAL REVENUE 



$ 574,510.45 



# 513 



E, Other Division Efforts 

1. Prevailing Wage Site Inspections 
Total PW' Inspections: 48 

2. Hotline 

In the past quarter, the Boston FLBP HotHne received 9,440 telephone calls. The total 
number of calls ansv^ered by the three regional offices was 2,652 for a GRj'VND rOTAL 
of 13,092. 

The number of calls received in Boston is obtained from a computer program that 
automatically tallies hotline phone calls as they are received. The Regional Offices tally 
their phone calls by hand. 

The monthly breakdown for the calls received is as follows: 





BOSTON 


SEMA 


CMAS 


WMAS 


October 


3,397 


378 


132 


720 


November 


3,261 


363 


129 


706 


December 


2,782 


372 


170 


682 



Totals: 



9,440 



13 



431 



2,108 



Office Monthly Totals: 

October 4,627 

November 4,459 

December 4,000 



TOTAL HOTLINE CALLS (10/1/2006 - 12/31/2006): 



13,092 



41 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTiON BUREAU 



FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRy\CTICES DIVISION 



Statistical Breakdown by Complaint Category: 

The following number of complainis by type were received in rhe ofike and entered inro 
CMS (10/1 /2006 - 1 2/3 1 /2006): 

Prevailing wage 56 

Overdue wage* 91 1 



TotaP 



967 



* Includes Overdue Wage, Minimum Wage, V'acarion, Overtime, Meal Period, Holiday, 
Sunday. Child Labor, Safer)', and Other Complaints as follows: 

Overdue Wage 9 1 1 

Minimum Wage 7 

Vacation 110 

Overtime 35 

Meal Period 21 

Holiday 5 

Sunday 2 

Child Labor 14 

Safety 8 

**May be more than one type of complaint per individual complaint form/letter. 



Statistical Breakdown by Records Request: 

Requests received for these categories, which are not handled by inspectors: 



Personnel Records (32C) 14 

Public Records Rec]uests 30 

Public Records Requests 28 

Ibral Referrals Received 34 

(Immio-rant Referrals) 23 



[Complaints accepted/Opened in CMS] 

[Received] 

[Completed] 

[Opened in CMS] 

[Taken from above total referrals received] 



PRA Letters: 

PRA letters Issued: 



1 83 [Boston/CMAS - 85, SF.MA -21, WMAS - 77] 



Regional offices: 

CMAS, the number of complaint forms by type that were generated as the result of a telephone 
call (10/1/2006- 12/31/2006): 



Prevailing wage 
Overdue wage* 



Tola] 



25 



42 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU t-AIR I AB( )K AM) BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

SEMA, the luimlxr of (.ornphuiit forms hy lypc that were gciicTatcd .is the rcsiih oi\\ 
relephone call (10/1 /2(){)6 - 12/31/20()()): 

Prevailing wage 2 

Overiliie wage SO 

Totar 52 

SEMA, the niin-iber oi complaint forms by type that were received directly in the ofHce and 
entered into CiVlS (10/1/2006 - 12/31/2006): 

Prevailing wage 2 

Overdue wage 45 



TotaP 



WMAS, rhc nuinbcr oi complainr forms by t^pc that were rgenerated as the result of 
telephone call ( 10/1/2006 - 12/31/200(3): ' 

Prevailing wage 13 

Overdue \va?e 1 94 



Totar 207 



WMAS, the number of complaint fonns by wpc that were received in the Office (total 
through Boston and direcdy through WMAS) and entered into CMS ( 10/1/2006 - 
12/31/2(J06): 

Prevailing wage 15 

Overdue wage 187 



Total* 202 



*Includes Overdue Wage, Minimum Wage, Vacation, Overtime, xMeal Period, Holiday, 
Simday, Child Labor, Safety, arul Other C.!omplainfs. 

Notes about the hotline statistical breakdown: 

1 . A total of 967 new complaints were received by the Office. This represents an increase of 
3 I inore complaints than the preceding 3rd Quarter 2006. Information for the 
corresponding 4th Quarter 2005 is unavailable, thus a comparison of the two cannot 

be made. 

2. A tot.il of 808 complaints were closed by the Office which represents 9 more complaints 
closed from the preceding 3rd Quarter 2006. Information for the corresponding 4th 
Quarter 2005 is unavailable, thus a comparison of the two cannot be made. 



43 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACTICES DIVISION 

3. The total of hotline calls received for all locations (Boston and the three branch offices) 
resulted in 5S fewer calls than were received in the 3rd Quarter 2006. Information for 
the corresponding 4th Quarter 2005 is unavailable, thus a comparison of the two cannot 
be made. 

4. Several CMS technical difficulties arose during the 4th Quarter 2006. 

a. In November and December, CMS was completely shut down for a significant 
period of time (over a full week span). When ARelated Cases^ was created, data 
was lost. Also, when ACreate New Matter@ was selected, a dialogue box appeared. 
There were various other obstacles encountered. Information was duplicated and 
lost. Christine Heneghan was notified and informed FLBP that the situations were 
remedied after a lengthy period of downtime. 

3. Civil Citation Statistical Overview 

Citations Issued: 

Minimum wage records: 16 

Minimum wage violations: 2 

Wage and hour records: 1 

Wiige and hour violations: 9 

Prevailing wage records: 1 1 

Prevailing wage violations: 1 1 



Total Citations Issued 50 

Citations paid: 25 

Citations appealed: 3 

Liens issued: 21 

Penalties ordered: $ 59,000.00 

Restitution ordered: $198,247.65 

Total penally and restitution ordered: $257,347.65 

Revenue Collected: 

Prevailing Wage Restitution $ 145,327.32 

Minimum Wage Restitution $ 3,432.78 

Wage and Hour Restitution S 9,189.76 

Total Restitution $ 157,949.86 



44 



BUSINESS AND LABOR rR()TF.t:TU)N BURF.AU FAIR LABOR ANL; Bl.SINKSS PRACnCF.S DIVISION 

Pivvailiiii; \Va^c IVn.iIty $ 24,(»H().0() 

Miniimiiu Wage Penalty $ 1,420. 00 

Wage and Hour Penalry $ 100.00 

Total Penalty $ 25,600.00 

Total Revenue Collected $ 183.5i9.86 

Penalty fees paid to DOR (For lien releases): $ 4,250.00 

F. Some of this quarters highlights include: 

• Steven Bissonnette, Stom Companies, Inc. d/b/a Premier Caulking (December 1 , 2006), 
DALA Decision issued December 1, 2006, in appeal From nine unintentional citations 
totaling $40,699.95. representing $33,789.95 in restitution and S6,910 in penalties, arising 
From employer's underpa\'menr of prevailing wages to eight workers on nine public works 
project, involving both above and below grade waterprooFer/damprooFer work, which 
employer rnisclassihed as Alaborers@ work. DALA reduced restitution to $ 13,267.82 and 
penalties imposed to $2,764, concluding that the Commissioners method h)r determining 
the classifications For masonry and roofing waterproofing work was Aunreasonable. 

• Middlesex. Littleton building contractors prevailing wage records appeared to show a 
discrepancy between the prevailing wage rare and the amount oF health/welFare benefits 
credited against that rate. Reconciliation oF prevailing wage benefits resulted in restitution 
to workers oF $35,000. 

• Commonwealth v. Edward I. Br ooks, Ed war d I . Brooks Painting, Inc. Arraignments held 
on September 29, 2006, PTC November 7, 2006, and C & E held on December 19, 2006, 
in Concord District Court on charges oFnonpayment oFwages, failure to provide pay stubs, 
and Failure to provide workers compensation insurance coverage in matter referred by CBLS, 
in which three immigrant employees are collectively owed approximately $8,000 in wages 
For painting work performed during October 3 through December 3. 2006. 

• Rebecca Matthias, Edward Krell, Craig Swartz, Esq., Mothers Work, Inc. d/b/a 
MiMiMaternit)'. Continuing grand jury investigation oF publicly-traded employers 
company-wide vacation ForFeiture policy, Following noncompliance with citations For Failure 
to pay earned vacation pay due arising From Forfeiture policy requiring advance notice oF 
resignation, and For employers Failure to respond to payroll demand to provide vacation 

45 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

pay records relating to all staff. Employer's subpoena responses indicate 17 employees owed 
approximately $14,000 in unpaid vacation wage. Awaiting employer's self-audit relating 
to Sunday and Holiday Pay. Following review, anticipate considering discussions with 
employer's counsel re resolving. Grand jury vote over on October 17, 2006. 

• EJJA Carpentry / Joel De Almeida. Case involves multiple counts of nonpayment oi wages, 
insurance fraud, DET fraud, larceny by false pretenses over $250. Prepared for presentment 
before Bristol County Grand Jury on December 14, 2006. Prepared questions and DET 
investigator Roger Murphy for testimony. Indictments were finalized. Two witnesses were 
brought to testify before the Grand Jury (Eduardo Cabral and Paul Gordon) and voted 
case over to next Grand Jur)^ Awaiting confirmation on a next date from Phillips. Plan to 
present matter and seek returns on February 14, 2007. Fall River contractor has histor)' 
of exploiting Brazilian immigrant workers in Fall River area. Target also undocumented. 
Flight risk due to pattern of sending funds to Brazil, risk of sentences. Plan to file motion 
for arrest warrant following indictment. 

MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) was established to protect the Massachusetts Medicaid 
program from fraudulent practices. The 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 individuals who abused, neglected, 
or mistreated elderly and disabled residents of the Commonwealth's 525 long-term care facilities, most 
of which have been handed extensively by the Medicaid program. 

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

MFCU included the following staff members during Calendar Year 2006: Nicholas J. Messuri, 
Division Chief (January 2006 - March 2006); Richard Grundy, Division Chief (April 2006 - December 
2006); David Marks, Deput)^ Division Chief; Steve McCarthy, Deputy Division Chief and Chief of 
Investigations; Steve Devlin, Deputy Chief of Investigations; Ann Ackil; Amy Beth Baron; Al Brown; 
Eileen Casey, Julie Chattopadhyay; Peter Clark; John Curley; Bessie Curtis; Sara DeSimone; Susan 



46 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAIt^) I RAUF) CONTROL UNIT 

Farwcll; Richaixl M(.iclLii;c'; Srcvcii Holfinaii; I'imoihx' Johnson; lusiinc- Laniarrc; l.iiula I.aiuirv; I'crcsa 
Ho l.iu; CA)lkrii McC^arthy; Atuhoin' Mcuaililiii; Rol)crt Molvai; RoIkti I'attcii; Kevin Rcatiy; Shirley 
Rokos/.; Mike Russo; Joseph Shea; Christine Soloperto; Nang I ran; Toby Unger; anil Kris Wilhelini. 

SIGNIFICAN I CASH SUMMARIKS 

Consistent with its mission to protect the Medicaid program on a statewide basis, MF(^U made 
extensive use of the Special Grand Jury sitting in Boston, as well as its statutory and regulatory discover)' 
authority, to obtain indictments and convictions and to recover funds for the Medicaid program well 
in excess of MFCUs budget. 

TRAINING AND EDUCATION 

The Massachusetts 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 staffs knowledge regarding administrative 
and procedural operations. 

The MFCUs training directive is consistent with Attorney General Reillys overall commitment to 
enhancing the breadth, quality 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 MFCU staff sta)' abreast of 
investigative and prosecutorial techniques and developments; and allow for the exchange and discussion 
of information and ideologies with colleagues from multi-disciplinary perspectives. 

MFCU staff made numerous presentations on Medicaid fraud prevention and health law to outside 
groups, such as the Healthcare 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. 



47 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID ERAUD CONTROL UNIT 

OUTREACH 

Outreach and education initiatives have served as integral components in maintaining MFCU's 
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 ot issues, including working 
with the Department of Public Health and the Pharmacy Board in an effort to ameliorate prescription 
drug abuse, including Oxycontin. MFCU also worked with the Department of Mental Health in 
connection with patient abuse issues. In addition, staff were involved in a drug diversion task force 
with the Massachusetts State Police and the DEA. MFCUs Director of Investigations continues to 
lead the Northeast Health Law Enforcement Association's 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. 

MFCU staff continued to take advantage of the rich training opportunities available nationwide to 
health care law enforcement personnel, with several new investigators and lawyers attending multi-day 
trainings and conferences. The Massachusetts MFCU Director served as President of the National 
Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units. The Association coordinates multi-state investigations 
and creates and sponsors health care fraud training sessions for Assistant Attorneys General and 
investigators. Staff also continued to attend in-house programs that targeted such areas as improved 
courtroom techniques. 

During this reporting period, Attorney General Tom Reilly's MFCU remained committed to 
aggressively investigating and prosecuting Medicaid provider fraud. The MFCU brought several 
recovery actions utilizing the State's civil Medicaid fraud statutes and reviewed over 450 patient abuse 
and neglect referrals. The Massachusetts MFCU returned $3,643,741.84 to the Medicaid program 
through restitution, fines, and penalties. 



2006 Statistical Analysis: 

Civil Recovery: $3,540,978.14 

Criminal Recovery: $ 102,763.70 

Total Recovery: $3,643,741.84 



48 



BUSINESS AND LABOR I'RtynXTIDN Bl)R[-AU 



MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 



CA)nviction.s: 6 

Opened Formal Cases: 76 

Closed Formal Cases: 42 

Pending Open Formal Ceases: 225 

Indictments: 15 

Individuals: 9 

Corporations: 6 



The following is a highlight of significant case activities during Calendar Year 2006: 

Arthur Cooke 

A Sandwich man pleaded guilty to making false statements to the Massachusetts Medicaid 
program (MassHe;ilth) which caused MassHealrh to pay S70,855 in hciilthcarc claims it was not 
"required to pay. The man also falsely obtained reimbursement from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of 
Massachusetts for prescription drugs including oxycontin which was paid for by MassHealth. 

The Sandwich man pleaded guilty to one count each of violating the Medicaid False Claims 
Act, perjury, and larceny over $250. He was sentenced to two and one half years in the House 
of Correction, suspended for three years with probation and restitution of S70,855 to the 
Medicaid program as a condition of probation. 

Charm Medical Supply 

A Pembroke durable medical equipment company, has paid 575,000 to the Massachusetts 
Medicaid (MiissHealth) program to settle allegations that it was overpaid as a result of erroneous 
billing and documentation. 

The Attorney Generals investigation alleged that the medical supply compan)^ billed M.issHealth 
for services including deliver)' of diapers, cotton tip applicators, alcohol wipes, gloves and other 
medical equipment for which billing could not be justified. 

The Attorney General's MFCU investigation looked into the extent to which the medical supply 
company billed and maintained the appropriate documentation for supplies it delivered from 
October 1999 through August 2003. 

In addition to paying MassHealth $75,000, the medical suppk company has agreed to institute 
a comprehensive compliance and training program. 



Richard Greene & Jeffrey Jampel 

A doctor and a psychologist have agreed to pay a combined $22,914 to settle allegations they 



49 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

improperly billed for medically unnecessary tests. A Cambridge psychologist will pay $ 1 5,048 
and a Brookline doctor will pay $7,866 as part of an agreement to settle the allegations. 

Bruce Golden 

A former dentist who fled the Commonwealth following a Medicaid fraud indictment has 
pleaded guilty. 

The former Brockton dentist pleaded guilt)^ in Brockton Superior Court to charges that he 
committed Medicaid fraud, health insurance fraud, the unlicensed practice of dentistry, and 
larceny over $250. A Superior Court sentenced the dentist to two years in the Plymouth County 
House of Correction, which was suspended for two years. During the period of the suspended 
sentence, he will be on probation. The probation is contingent upon making full payment of 
restitution and fines totaling approximately $32,000 to individuals, private insurance companies 
and the state Medicaid program. 

Peter Bozovic & Bond Shoe 

A Woburn seller of orthopedic shoes, and its president, have been indicted on numerous charges 
that they allegedly billed the state's Medicaid Program for more expensive orthopedic shoes than 
actually provided to Medicaid patients. 

Indictments consisted of 156 counts of filing false Medicaid claims, Larceny over $250, and 
Larceny under $250. 

Richard Rudy 

A former nursing assistant who is charged with abusing an elderly Alzheimer's patient at a 
Swampscott nursing home in 1990 was sentenced to jail time after he pleaded guilty to abusing 
patients at a Lynn nursing home. 

A 50-year-old former nursing assistant pleaded guilty to one count each of patient abuse, and 
assault and battery as well as two counts of failure to appear. The failure to appear charges were 
the result of the subject's long history of defaults on the patient abuse charges over the past 15 
years. A Lynn District Court Judge adopted the MFCU recommendation and sentenced the 
subject to serve 18 months in the Middleton House of Corrections. The former nursing assistant 
will serve one year on the abuse charges and six months for the failure to appear counts. The 
defendant had been returned to Massachusetts three weeks earlier after the Attorney General's 
Office learned he was living in Arizona, had him arrested on the default, and extradited him 
back to Massachusetts. 



50 



BDSINFSS AND I AIU)R PRO! l-C I lt)N BURKAU MEIilCAID FRAUD C:ONTROL UNIT 

Omnicare 

A iiatioiuil plKiim.io- (.onip.iiiy has ai;rcvcl to pay $848,841 lo tlir Massacluiscits iVk-cli(.ai(.l 
Program to settle allegations ot billing inipro[-)rieties. 

The payment, part of a 42-statc, $49.5 million settlement with ( )mnicare, Inc., an institutional 
pharmacy based in Kentucky, resolves claims that the company violated various state and 
Federal statutes and regulations by switching dosage strengths anil forms of certain medications 
commonK' prescribed for Medicaid patients. 

The national pharmacy company, which docs business in 47 states, furnishes pharmacy services 
to Medicaid members who reside in nursing homes and other long-term care flicilities, and 
operates in Massachusetts as ASCO Healthcare, Inc./ Rraintree Neighborcare, North Shore 
Phartnacy Services, Inc., and Value Pharmacy, Inc. 

The settlement follows an investigation into allegations that the company, from 2000 through 
2005, implemented a "therapeutic interchange program," aggressively switching the dosage 
forms of certain drugs prescribed for Medicaid nursing home patients. The investigation, which 
stemmed from whistleblower complaints filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago in 2001 and 
2004, showed that these switches caused the Medicaid programs of the various states to pay the 
pharmacy company substantially more for certain drugs than they otherwise would have. In 
each case, the substitution of the dosage forms resulted in higher payments under the automated 
Medicaid reimbursement system with no corresponding medical benefit. 

Bernadette Stackpole 

A former certified nursing assistant has pleaded guilty and been sentenced for abusing four 
elderly patients in five incidents at a Franklin nursing home. 

A 52-year-old Bellingham woman pleaded guilt)^ to five counts each of assault and battel^' 
and patient abuse. A Norfolk Superior Court Judge sentenced her to a suspended sentence 
with probation and barred her from working with the physically or mentaJly disabled. The 
Commonwealth had requested a sentence of two years in the House of Corrections with six 
months to serve and the balance suspended for five years on each count. 
The former nursing assistant faced the charges after an investigation by the Medicaid Fraud 
Control Unit into abuse that occurred at a skilled nursing and rehabilitation center, where the 
woman was employed as a certified nursing assistant from September 1989 until May 2004. 

The investigation uncovered that in five incidents over several months between Februar)' 2003 
and April 2004, the Nursing Assistant physically and emotionally abused four elderly residents 
with dementia. The investigation further found that in the five separate incidents, the Aide 



51 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

Struck, slapped, improperly touched or verbally abused four patients. 

Tenet Health Care 

Twent}'-two states, including Massachusetts and the federal government reached an agreement 
with a national healthcare company to settle charges it improperly billed outpatient lab services. 
The Massachusetts Medicaid Program has received $14,000 as part of the multi-state settlement, 
which totaled $820,000. 

Thomas Fell, Co. & HearUSA, Inc. 

A national hearing aid dispenser has agreed to repay $352,873 to MassHealth and other state 
agencies after reporting billing errors. 

This settlement requires the company to return overpayments of $3 12,873, together with interest 
of $35,000 and investigative costs of $5,000. As part of the overbilling, small amounts were owed 
to other state agencies including the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind, Massachusetts 
Rehabilitation Commission and the Veteran Services Department. 

Michael R. Brown, M.D. 

A Sandwich physician has been indicted on charges he allegedly illegally prescribed drugs to seven 
of his patients, defrauded the state's Medicaid program, and illegally possessed hydrocodone, a 
highly addictive controlled substance. 

The Mashpee physician who formerly operated a private practice in Sandwich, was indicted by 
a Barnstable County grand jury on 16 counts of violating the Controlled Substances Act and 
10 counts of violating the Medicaid False Claims Act. He was additionally indicted on two 
counts each of possession of a class C substance, hydrocodone, and violating the Medicaid False' 
Claims Act and one count of larceny over $250. 

The board certified physician, who specialized in internal and emergency medicine, practiced 
medicine at his Sandwich office from 1984 until his suspension by the Board of Registration 
in Medicine, in August 2005. The indictments allege that the doctor prescribed OxyContin, 
Roxicodone and other Oxycodone-based medications in bad faith and for no legitimate medical 
purpose. OxyContin is a powerful and highly addictive narcotic used to treat moderate-to-severe 
chronic pain. It is a controlled substance in a categor)' for drugs determined to have a high 
potential for abuse. OxyContin is highly sought after by drug abusers because of its substantial 
street market value of $1 per milligram and because it causes a euphoric high. Ox)KZ!ontin is a 
controlled-rcleasc formulation of oxycodone, intended for continuous pain relief 



52 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID I Ry\UDC:ON I ROL UNIT 

Logan Nursing Homes 

Iiulictiiicnts were rcturnccl in Dcclluini Superior (^oiirt a};.iiiisi the former operators of five 
Massachusetts nursing home facihties.Two brothers from Brniniree .ire eh.irj^ed with patietit 
neglect, Medicaid Fraud, theft of nursing home patients" personal funds, conspiracy to steal 
those funds, aiul with emhe//lement ofemployee wage deductions intemled for funding 40 1 (k) 
retirement contributions, and life and disability insurance premiums. A nei^hew, from Kingston, 
who served as the Administrator for one of the nursing homes, has also been charged with 
conspiracy and with embezzlement of residents' funds. 

These charges follow a three-year investigation conducted by the Medicaid Fraud (Control 
Unit and the Fair Labor and Business Practices Division, both part of the Attorney (Icncral's 
Business and Labor Protection Bureau, along with assistance from the U.S. Department of 
Labors Employee Benefits Security Administration. 

A Norfolk Count}' Grand Jury returned a total of 26 indictments against the three family 
members and the former nursing home facilities. 

King Pharmaceuticals 

Massachusetts received payment of Si. 43 million from a pharmaceutical company to resolve 
allegations that the national drug company incorrectly reported prices to the government on 
several drugs and, as a result, paid millions of dollars less in rebates to government entities, 
including state Medicaid programs. 

The Tennessee-headquartered manufacturer of generic drugs, made the Si .43 million payment 
to the Massachusetts Medicaid Program, under the terms of the settlement, reached in November 
2005. The payment is part of a national civil settlement, which required the company to pay 
$124 million to 49 states, including Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and the federal 
government, to resolve claims of Medicaid rebate fraud. These pa\'ments were double the actual 
losses resulting from the under-reporting. 

Maria Cruz 

A 46-year-old nursing assistant was charged with assault and battery of an elder person as a result 
of an alleged assault of an 86-year-old patient at a skilled nursing facilitA' in North Adover. 
The Lawrence nursing assistant fiiiled to appear for her arraignment on the abuse charges, but 
was later arrested and the case is pending trial. 

Minerva Cruz 

A Springfield resident has been arraigned on numerous charges that she allegedly billed the 



53 



BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT 

Commonwealth's Medicaid Program for care services that were not rendered by a personal care 

attendant. 

A 58-year-old PCA was arraigned on December 13, 2006, in Springfield District Court on a 

total of 31 counts, including medical assistance fraud, larceny over $250, larceny under $250, 

forgery and uttering. 

According to the complaint, the PCA, who is a medicaid recipient, allegedly fraudulently signed 
and submitted timesheets to MassHealth for payment in the name of a former personal care 
attendant (PCA) who no longer worked for her. PCA's provide services to assist elderly and 
disabled patients with daily living needs through a program run under the auspices of Stavros 
Center for Independent Living, Inc. 

From approximately May 31 through October 22, 2005, the PCA allegedly submitted 
timesheets and cashed checks, taking a total of $ 1 ,664.30 from the Commonwealth MassHealth 
program. 



54 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 

Appellate Division 

Corruption, Fraud, and 
Computer Crime Division 

Criminal Justice Policy Division 

Environmental Crimes Strike Force 

FiNANCL\L Investigations Division 

Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division 

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division 

Safe Neighborhood Initiative Di\tsion 

Victim/Witness Assistance Division 

Victim Compensation and Assistance Division 

State Police Detective Division 



CRIMINAl BlirU Al; 



Criminal Bureau 

The Arrorney Generals Criminal Bureau has Four broad niissii)ns: investigate and proseeute violations 
of state criminal law, promote efTective law enforcement and criminal justice, crime prcvtiuion, and 
[Movide assistance to crime victims. 

The Criminal Bureau's staff of experienced Assistant Attorneys (ieneral. State Police detectives, 
Environmental Police officers, and civilian investigators, focus on investigating and prosecuting violarions 
of state criminal law that result in or involve significant economic loss or injury, harm to the environment, 
misconduct by public employees or elected officials, crimes against public agencies, organized crime, large- 
scale drug trafficking, complex criminal conspiracies, consumer fraud, insurance fraud, imemployment 
compensation fraud, and crimes involving computers and other forms of technology. The majority of 
criminal cases prosecuted by the Criminal Bureau result from investigations conducted by the Bureau's 
28 State Police detectives, three Environmental Police officers, and 1 1 civilian investigators. Cases are 
developed through citizen complaints and referrals from other local, state and federal agencies. During 
the fiscal year, the Criminal Bureau received more than 3,100 inquiries, complaints and requests for 
assistance from citizens and other agencies. Additionally, Assistant Attorneys General in the Criminal 
Bureau reviewed 1 15 rendition and extradition requests forwarded to the Bureau by the Executive 
Office of the Governor. 

Assistant Attorneys Generiil assigned to the Criminal Bureau represent the (_^ommon\vealth in 
criminal prosecutions throughout the state, handle proceedings in state and federal courts challenging 
criminal convictions, and represent prosecutors, judges and other state criminal justice employees who 
are sued in the performance of their duties. 

The Criminal Bureau promotes effective law enforcement through its Criminal Justice Policy 
Division. This division reviews crime data and trends, proposes legislation, participates in training 
programs for law enforcement officers and other criminal justice professionals, and maintains working 
relationships with many local, stare 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-entr\' initiatives, domestic violence, juvenile justice and child abuse. 

The Criminal Bureaus 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. Through these partnerships, the division 
helps communities implement crime prevention programs and other initiatives to prevent and deter 

57 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 



involvement in crime, steer those involved in minor criminal otknses into prevention programs, and 
aggressively prosecute those responsible for crimes that severely impact the community's quality of life. 
During Fiscal Year 2006, there were Safe Neighborhood Initiative programs in Taunton, Brockton, 
Orange, and the Dorchester and Grove Hail sections of Boston. Additionally, the Attorney Generals 
Office supported and participated in lederally-recognized "Weed & Seed" partnerships in Lawrence 
and Methuen. 

The fourth primary mission of the Criminal Bureau is to provide support to victims of crime. The 
Bureau's Victim Compensation and Assistance Division provides financial support and social serv'ices 
assistance to crime victims and relatives of homicide victims. The division reaches victims and their 
families through outreach efforts and relationships with police departments, court officials, and social 
service agencies. During Fiscal Year 2006 the division received more than 1 ,300 applications fot financial 
assistance from crime victims and their family members, and distributed more than $3,200,000 to 
crime victims and family members. 

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

The Chief of the Criminal Bureau during Fiscal Year 2006 was Kurt Schwartz. In early 2006, Marcy 
Jackson assumed the position of Deput}' Chief of the Bureau. The Division Chiefs within the Criminal 
Bureau during Fiscal Year 2006 were: Appellate Division, Cathryn Neaves; Corruption, Fraud, and 
C^omputer Crime Division, John A. Grossman; Victim/Witness .Assistance Division, Kathleen Morrissey; 
Special Investigations and Narcotics Division, Eileen O'Brien; Flnviron mental Crimes Strike Force, 
Paul J. Molloy; Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division, Glerm Cunha; Financid Investigations 
Division, Paul Stewart; Criminal Justice Policy Division, James O'Brien; Victim Compensation and 
Assistance Division, Deborah Fogart}^; Safe Neighborhoods Initiative, Ellen Frank; and State Police 
Detective Division, Captain Stephen Matthews. 

The (a-iminal Bureau also had two Bureau Attorneys during Fiscal Year 2006. Assistant Attorney 
General Mary A. Phillips served as the Bureau's Grand Jury Coordinator, and Assistant Attorney 
General Beth Merachnik served as Senior Triiil Counsel for the bureau. Additionally, one Assistant 
Attorney General, Matt Shea, is assigned to the Attorney General's Springfield Office where he receives 
investigations and cases from all of the Criminal Bureau's divisions. 



5^ 



CRIMINAI Bl!RFAU AI'I'F.I.I.A TF DIVISION 

APPELLATE DIVISION 

'I'hc Appc'ILuc 1 )ivisic)n li.uuilo ;i wiiic v;ii it'ty oft riiniii.il. Itcki.il liiilxMs corjuis. st.itc- habeas corpus, 
and other civil cases that impact criminal proset iitions atiJ the criminal justice system. The ilivisions 
caseload includes appeals atul post-conviction matters in eiiminal cases prosecuted at the trial level 
by the Attorney Geiier.il s Criminal Bureau and from convictions of criminal contempt throughout 
the Commonwealth; all habeas corpus petitions filed in federal court that challenge Massachusetts 
convictions, parole surrenders, civil commitments, and renditions; and ap[xals in the lirst ( jrciiit 
Court of Appeals from the denial or granting of habeas corpus relief. The division also engages in civil 
litigation defending juciges, 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, its well as other statutes, court rules, practices, 
and procedures that concern all aspects of the criminal justice system; represent the interests of pro.secutors 
when subpoenaed to testify or provide documents in federal civil cases; supervise agency staff attorneys 
handling litigation involving the Department of Correction, the Parole Board, and the C'ommissioner 
ol Probation; and handle appeals and federal court litigation concerning ilie Parole Board. 

In addition to their c;isevvork, division attorneys provide assistance to other Crimin;il Bureau attorne\s 
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 Divisiort files approximately 50 appellate briels per )ear 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 behiilf of the Attorney General in c.t^es having broad 
impact and importance to the criminal justice system, consistent with the Attorney Generals statutory' 
responsibility as the chief law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth. The division aJNO files in the 
United States District Court approximate!)' 1 20 substantive memoranda of law per \'ear in opposition 
to federal habea.s corpus petitions. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Appellate Division included: Cathryn Weaves, Division Chief; Susanne 
Reardon, Managing Attorney; Eva Badway; Annette Benedetto; Olivia Blanchette; Scort Katz; David 
Lieber; Maura McLaughlin; Jonathan Ofilos; Randall Ravitz; and Daniel Smulow. 



59 



( RI\)IN \l nt lU M AJTFl .'ATI- DiVI.StON 



SIGNIFICAN 1 CASE SUMMARIES 



• Comnioiivveahh v. Ziad Shahin {Af^pcals (xmrt) Appv.il from convi<.fi(Mi tor laricny Dvcr 
S2">0. C )n IiiK ^, 2()(>5, the Appeals t4)urt athrmed the conviction clccemuninj.; that defendant 
rttxivcd ilu- ciicciivc .i^iMantc uU oiuiscl aiul (h.it ihcrt wa» no error in liis sentencing. J he SjC 
picinred further apjx;llare a-view and h.as a-skcd for briclins; tunccrfung a contlict of interest ivsue. 

* T^b ue Sfniley v. Michael Vtaloncv (Iji .st ( jrcuit) Appeal tnut) denial of petiticm (or writ of 
habeas n>rpus in t hJLnj^c to I lampden ( ioiuuy Hist-dcgrcc rruudcr cvinvietion. On Septcni.bcr 
2, 2005. die First Cireuit afrivincvl tlic denial t.thabe=i> relief 

• Julie Pikt v. Barbara Cjuarino {First Cireuit) Our interloeucory apix-a! of the federal district 
voiiris gr<ii;i ol an e' identiatyheaiiuj: in lialxas action thallengij)^ petiiiotier s Franklin CViunty 
second- dej;iee nuirdiri «.,onvi<iion. On Seputnber 26. 2o{}5, die Fii>t ( .ircuilvitclined todecidc 
[he interlociitorv appeal, stnniig that it laikttl jurisdictioii to ilccidc the is^iie presented. 

• Wayne Bl) th Fiealy \ . Luis Spencer (United States District C^ourt and I ir>i larcuit) Federal 
habeas picition from ! 98 1 Ham(Hk'n ( bounty conviction for hrst-dcgrec munier alleging, among 
others, a /^wJi claim. In Decemixr 2003, du di.>frict coiuf idopted the magiMrate judges 
Report tind UecoiTimerulation that the writ ivNiie a.s to petitioner's Hr.iJv cliiin. l)n Jime 2"v 
2006, the First Circuit rever>ed die district court's order j^raniing a writ of habeas corpus. 

• Ct'tupiQ.n.>\ea|th. V. Dav- J d Field (.Appeals Court) Appeal hviin denial of motion for new 
irial a> to lUFD conviciions for larceny. The Appeals (Kurt afhrmed the denial of defendant s 
motion fr>r new trial on October 18, 2005. 

• Comnioiivvealtli \. "Fchran Lewis {Appeal> ( oiui) Appeal from -SIX cocaine trafficking 
conviv.ii(»ns, aliegijij.-. ineffective .rs>istant.e of counsel and insuffuience of the evidence. The 
Appeals (.'oiut alhrmevl defeiidanis ionviciious on Novinilvr 1, 2(>()3. 

• C4MLimuU\vs;.alibjtJ[!hiliiLSli.di^n (Appeals C^ourt) Appeal frt»in SIN oxycoruin/marijuana 
trailickiiificonvictions. alleging iuryinbttuvtion error and insuflicieni evidence of joint venture. 
TIk- .Appeals (^oun affirmed defendants c()nvictir>ns on October S, 200^. 

• Ama»JitU^,h.JliJlp V. Ste phen O'Neill (First Circuit) Appeal from ilenial of federal h.abeas 
pcturon ch.illenging l'/'7 ^u(fr»lk ( oimty convictions for .iggravaied ra(x- and kidn.ipping. 
I he First (ariuii afhrmed the diMtui court's denial of h.tbexs relief on Novttnliet 1. 20(J>. 



60 



:riminal bureau appellate Di\asiON 

• Melissa Jo Cordle v. Barbara Guarino (First Circuit) Appeal from district court's dismissal 
as time barred federal habeas petition challenging petitioner's 1986 Barnstable Count)' first- 
degree murder conviction. On November 2, 2005, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's 
dismissal of the petition as time barred. 

• Commonvyealth v. Benigno Diaz Deleon (Appeals Court) Appeal from denial of motion 
for new trial for SIN conviction for cocaine trafficking. On Januar)' 30, 2006, the Appeals 
Court affirmed the denial of defendant's new trial motion. 

• Commonvyealth v. Thomas Litwinsky (Appeals Court) Appeal from lUFD convictions 
for larceny and attempting to commit a crime alleging that insurance policies do not constitute 
property under the larceny statute and sufficiency of the evidence. On March 10, 2006, the 
Appeals Court affirmed the defendant's convictions. 

• Commonvyealth v. Rlcci DeGaetano (Appeals Court) Appeal from restitution portion of 
sentence on defendant for his guilty plea to lUFD indictments for larceny. On March 2, 2006, 
the Appeals Court upheld defendant's sentencing. 

• In re: TheMatter of Richard Heath (Appeals Court) Appeal from a trial court's imposition 
of monetary sanctions against a witness who failed to appear in court to testify. On January 
10, 2006, the Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's order. 

• The Commissioner of Probation v. Adams (Appeals Court) Probation Department's appeal 
from a district court's order expunging the records of a 209A proceeding. On March 1 0, 2006, 
the Appeals Court affirmed the order of expungement. 

• Commonvyealth v. Victor Guzman (Supreme Judicial Court) Appeal by the Middlesex 
Count)' District Attorney's Office of a trial court order upholding the constitutionaht)' of the 
accord and satisfaction statute. On March 29, 2006, the SJC upheld the constitutionalit)' of 
the accord and satisfaction statute. 

• Edward Lynch v. Edward Ficco (First Circuit) Appeal from the denial of federal habeas 
petition challenging 1995 Ph'mouth Count)' conviction for first-degree murder alleging improper 
malice instruction and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. On Februar\' 1 5, 2006, the First 
Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief 



CRIMINAL BUREAU 



APPFLi. ATF, DIVISION 



• Edward O'Brien v. John Marshall (First Circuit) Appeal from the denial of federal habeas 
petition challenging Middlesex County first-degree murder conviction. On June 27, 2006, the 
First Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas corpus petition. 

• Commonwealth v. Karl Clemmey (Supreme Judicial Court) Commonwealth s appeal from 
Superior Court's dismissal of indictments for violations of the wedands act. On June 30, 2006, 
the SJC reversed the Superior Court's order and reinstated the indicttnents. 

• Commonwealth v. Robert Therrien (Appeals Court) Appeiil from defendant's lUFD arson 
and insurance fraud convictions, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and erroneous malice 
instruction. On June 14, 2006, the Appeals Court affirmed the defendant's convictions. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 





CASES 


CASES 


TOTAL CASES 




OPENED 


DISPOSED 


HANDLED 


Federal Fiabeas 


159 


130 


444 


Federal Civil 


14 


12 


23 


Federal Subpoena 


5 


2 


16 


State Civil 


26 


16 


56 


State Habeas 


12 


4 


26 


Criminal 


41 


28 


79 


c. 211, §3 and Other 








Single Justice Cases 


12 


8 


26 


Other 


3 


7 


18 



TOTAL 



272 



207 



688 



62 



CRIMINAL. BLIREAU C:ORRUPTK)N, FRAUD. AND COMPl 'TF.R CRIMF DIVISION 



OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND IRAININC 



Members oi the Appelhue Division devoted ;i sulistaiuial .uiiouiit of energ)' .ind resources to 
signific.int iiiiriarives, [minings and oiirreach. These cffoirs itu Imied rrec]iieiu aiiendanee at Attorney 
Ceneral's Office and BBA tiainings, as well as the following: 

• Massachusetts District Attorneys Association annual conference 

• Commonwealth Appellate Attorneys Action Project 

• Harvard 1 aw School Clinical Program 

• Massachusetts Taw Review 

• Volunteering at the Mart Boys and Cirls Club 

• Supreme Court Fellow, National Association of Attorney's Cieneral 

• First Year Writing Program at Boston University Law School 

• Career Forimi at New Flngland Law School 

• BBA Law Day in the Schools Program 

• Ames Moor Court Competition, Harvard Law School 

• BBA Public Interest Leaders Program 

CORRUPTION, FRAUD, AND CON4PUTER CRIME DIVISION 

The Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime Division (CFCX^) within the Criminal Bureau 
protects individuals and businesses residing or working in the (Commonwealth by focusing on the 
following: 

(1) Public Corruption: Investigating and prosecuting crimes that compromise the publics 
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, civil rights violations, procuretnent fraud, rax 
fraud, perjury, filing false reports, and accepting unlawful gratuities. 

(2) Economic Crime: Investigating and prosecuting all types ofprivare sector economic and white- 
collar crime, including cases involving fiduciar)' embezzlement, complex financial fraud, and insider 
theft. 



63 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CORRUPTION. FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION 



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

(4) Computer Crime: Increasingly, criminals, including con artists, cybersraikers, hackers, child 
pornographers, and child predators, use computers, the Inteniet and other forms of technology to 
victimize others. In response, the division's specially trained prosecutors and computer forensics specidist 
work with the State Police and financial investigators to investigate, arrest and prosecute cyber criminals, 
whether they try to attack the computer infrastructure, compromise the safety of our children as they 
"surf the net," or defraud consumers and busines.ses. Cases handled by the division have included 
charges of larceny, unauthorized access to computers (hacking), possession and dissemination of child 
pornography, and stalking and hatiissment. 

Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime included the following staff members at year end: John 
Grossman, Chief; Denise Barton; Carolyn Bradshaw; Ina Howard-Hogan; Marc Jones; Jessie Julian; 
Katie LcClerc; Dana Leccese; Molly Parks; and David Swan. A significant number of our cases were also 
handled by the Criminal Bureau's representative in western Mas.sachu.setts, Assistant Attorney General 
Matt Shea, by Senior Trial Counsel Beth Merachnik and by Assistant Attorney Genera! Douglas Rice 
from the Environmental Crimes Strike Force. Our cases, however, were in no way pursued alone; we 
worked as an integrated team with the members of the State Police Detective Unit, and the Victim/ 
Witness Assistance 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 ageiicies. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMxMARIES 

• Aggregate Industries (U.S. District Court) Early in the fiscal year. State Police and financial 
investigators assigned to the Office executed simultaneous .search warrants on three of Aggregate 
Industries' ("Al") locations in ea.stern Ma,s.sachu.setts. AI was the largest supplier of concrete 
to the Ontral Artery/Third Harbor 'Funnel Project ("CA./'F"). After the search warrants, we 
joined forces with federal authorities, and an AAG from the division was made a Special Assistant 
United States Attorney. Six managers from AI have now been indicted for defrauding the CA/T 
out of tens of millions of dollars by re-delivering concrete to the CA/T that had already been 
rejected for being out of .specification. This pro.secution is ongoing. 



64 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CORRUPTION. FRAU'D, AND CiOMPUTKR C.RIMF niVISiON 

• Internet Child Pornography (Various ( iourts) Dunni; the course ol the year, wc cliar^ed 
14 people - six in one thy - with clisseniinatiug antl/or possessing thild pornogr.iph\'. These 
cases were the product of our ongoing relationship with tlic ( j>nHnonweahh's Internet ( jimes 
Against Children Task Force, and many were the result ot tliai groups focus oti peer-to-peer 
tietworks as a relatively new nieatis ot disiiibuiiiig thild pornogiapliN-. 

• Commonwealth v. Joan Pierce, et ai . ( Woicester Su[km ior ( "ourt) Picixe was an employee of 
Carrier Trucking in Fitchhurg. Faking advantage of her access to the systetn that her employer 
used to wire money to truckers around the country, she and 12 conspirators stole over S6()0,()00 
by wiring money out of the campaigns bank account. Joan Pierce pleaded guilty and received 
a sentence of three years in state prison. All of her co-conspirators pleaded guilty, and seven of 
thetn received conmiitted time. 

• Commonvvealth v. Douglas Hennessy (Suffolk Superior Court) Heimessy was an MB' I A 
police officer who was charged with assaulting a prisoner in his custody and then covering up 
his actions. After a jury triciJ, Hennessy was convicted of filing a false report and a violation of 
civil rights with bodily injury. Fie was sentenced to six years of probation and ordered to serve 
the first six months on bouse arrest. 

• Commonwealth v. Al Mondel (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. fames Brien 

(F~ssex Superior Coiut) In luuelated cases, Mondel and Brien were charged with ruiinitig long- 
term cons that victimized multiple people. Mondel preyed on the immigrant conmiunity by 
falsely claiming to (a) be a lawer who (b) could solve their immigration issues. Neither claim 
was true. Fie pled guilty in the middle of trial to multiple counts of larceny over S250 and 
falsely claiming to be an attorney and then defaulted while awaiting sentencing. Fie is currently 
a fugitive. Brien ran a company, "American Sunroom," that collected deposits from multiple 
consumers after promising to build them sunrooms. We have alleged, however, that Brien in 
fact built very few sunrooms, and that in any case, he was not a licensed home improvement 
contractor. He is facing 98 counts of home improvement fraud. 

• Commonwealth v. Patrick Bauer (Suffolk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Iodic Walsh 
(Suffolk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Kinh-Luan Dao (Middlesex Superior Court) In 
unrelated ca.ses, Bauer, Walsh and F)ao were each chaiged with stealing from their employers, 
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Bain Consulting, and Boston Scientific respectively. Each 
pled guilty. Bauer was sentenced to two years in the Flouse of Correction with nine months to 
serve, Walsh received two years in the Flouse of Correction with 15 months to serve, and Dao 
received 18 months in the House of Correction. 



65 



criminalburf.au 



CORRUPTION, FRAUD. AND CO.MPUTFR CRI.ME DIVISION 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2006, CFCC ciiarged 44 individuals and corporations with various crimes, 
including bribery, false written reports, larceny over $250, unauthorized access (computer hacking), 
identity fraud, making false entries in corporate books and dissemination of child pornography. During 
the }'ear, 5 1 people or companies were found guilty or otherwise admitted to sufficient facts in courts 
across the Commonwealth. ' Twenty of these defendants were ordered to serve committed time. 
Additionally, these defendants have been ordered to pay in excess of iil.5 million in restitution. 

The following chart reflects the case referrals received by CFCC during Fiscal Year 2006 and the 
number of those referrals that matured into formal investigations. When a case fell into more than one 
categor)', we have placed it based on the prospective lead charge. 

COMPUTER CRIME 



CASES 


INVESTIGATIONS 


REFFERALS SCREENED 


INITIATED 


.Auction/Internet Fraud (not from 1FCC>) 12 


4 


Child Exploitation 03 


37 


Computer Intrusions/Hacking 19 


3 


Threats/Harassment 6 


2 


Miscellaneous 10 


4 


Assist 3 


N/A 



TOTAL 

ECONOMIC 



153 



CASES 



50 



INVESTIGATIONS 



'Some ol the cases charged this year remain pending; just as some of the cases resolved this year were 
charged previously. 



66 



CRIMINAL BLIRFAl.' 



ClORRl.'PTJON, FRAUD. AND tiOMPl 'TFR CRIMP DIVISION 



CRIME RI-FLRKALS 



SCRI'l.NLl) 



INIIIAII 1) 



Fiduciary And Insider EnibczzlcnK-nt 
and Orhcr larceny 

Consumer Fraud 

'I'hefc of Trade Secrecs or 
Odier Intellectual Property 

Miscellaneous 



39 
70 



TOTAL 



116 



31 



PUBLIC CORRUPTION 



REFERRALS 



CASES 
SCREENED 



INVESTIGATIONS 
INITIATED 



State Employee Corruption 

Municipal Employee Corruption 

Theft from the Commonwealth, 
Cities and I owns 

Tax Fraud 

Miscellaneous 

Crimes against the Commonwealth 

Auditor's Reports and Ethics 
Notifications Reviewed 



16 

35 

10 

5 

8 

9 

184 



6 

7 

5 
2 

1 
1 

N/A 



TOTAL 



267 



22 



CFCC TOTAL for FISCAL YEAR 2006 



536 



103 



67 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CORRUPTION. FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION 



SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The division ha.s historically been very involved in encouraging and coordinating efforts between 
die public and private .sectors to promote internet and computer .security. Fiscal Year 2006 was a little 
dilterent because division members contiruied to play a leadership role within InhaGard Boston, the 
FBI's public/ptivate cybersecurity outreach progtam. 



Without a doubt, however, the highlights of our outreach efforts come as a result of our participation 
in the Internet Crimes Against Children ("ICAC") Task 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 Task Force, and, of 
course, prosecuting cases. This year, we have also added a significant interiiet safety training program 
to our efforts. Our ICAC prosecutor has been joined by an Internet Safety Program Coordinator, and 
during Fiscal Year 2006, they have already made Internet Safety presentations to over 12,000 parents 
and children in schools around the Commonwealth. 

In the area of public corruption, we strive to maintain and renew relationships with other agencies 
working in similar areas and now have regular contact with the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, the Office of the State Auditor, the Inspector General, the State Ethics 
Commission, the Department of F^ducation, and the Public F^mployee Retirement Board. A product of 
this effort is the joint investigation and prosecution of Aggregate Industries that is described above. 

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 horn compuier crime, and a new identity theh bill. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

(TCC devoted a substantial amount ol" energy and resources to formal training and outreach 
efforts, particularly in the area of computer crime. The.se efforts allow us to leverage our relatively 
limited resources to (a) teach people and institutions on hovs' 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. 



68 



CRIMINAL RL;RFAI CRIMINAL JUSTICF POLICY DIVISION 

Among the liit;hlii;lus in this nic.i over the List }xar\vfiv pariitip.iiion in ,i nnnilxT ol law cnforecinciit 
training conFerences focused on computer crime that were sponsored by various entities including the 
ICACTask Force, the American Prosecutors Research Institute, the National Association of Attorneys 
General (NAACi), and trainings provided to the judges of the Boston Municipal (>ourt and to C'lerk- 
Magistrates from around flu- ("ommoinvealtli. 

lb assure that we, ourselves, remain current in the dynamic fieKi olcomputer crime, AA( Is aiiendeti 
a number oi free training programs incliKling NAACi and NAC classes and seminars sponsored hv the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited (.children. 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION 

The Criminal Justice Policy Division (CJPD) was created in Jul)- 2()()2. in conjunction with the 
consolidation of the Community-Based Justice Bureau into the Criminal Bureau. The mission of" 
CJPD is to support the Attorney General s leadership role as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the 
Commonwckilth. Through collaborative relationships with members of the criminal justice communirs', 
CJPD is uniquely positioned to use its knowledge and experience to further decision-making that is in the 
public interest. Towards this end, CJPD s responsibilities fall into five broad categories: ( 1 ) poliq'-biiscd 
appellate briefs, amicus briefs, investigations and prosecutions, and various other special assignments; 
(2) criminal justice legislation; (3) criminal justice education; (4) liaison to extern.il critninal justice and 
law enforcement agencies and organizations; and (5) crime prevention initiatives. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Criminal Justice Policy Division included: James O'Brien, Division 
Chief; Marsha Cohen, jean Fanning; Pamela Himt; Emilv Paradise; and Catherine Sullivan. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

• International Longshoremen's Association/Massport (Suffolk Grand Jury) Investigation 
into wage and benefits fraud by dock workers affiliated with the International Longshoremen's 
Association (ILA), the union which provides labor for loading and unloading cruise and container 
ships coming into the Port of Boston. Allegations included ILA members' children (some one 
or two years old) being added to the pa}'roll, emphn'ees working for other emplo\ees to gain 
hours for benefits, employees working for others to circumvent the Mctster Contract wage tier 
structure and earn a higher pay rate, and employees who did not report to the job site receiving 



69 



CRIMINAL BUREAU CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION 

piay. In Fiscal Year 2006, the investigative team, which inckides a CJPD attorney, received and 
revievv^ed more than 100 boxes of payroll and other business records, elicited substantial testimony 
from witnesses brought before an investigative grand jury, and developed strong evidence of 
wage and payroll fraud. 

• Commonwealth v. Jeffrey Biy (Supreme Judicial C.X)iut and Suffolk Superior Court) Appeal 
of Blys 1995 conviction for the murder of AAC Paul McLaughlin. A CJPD attorney represents 
the Commonwealth. In Fiscal Year 2006, the defendant's briet was filed. The CJPD attorney 
reviewed trial court transcripts and exhibits, researched legal issues, and worked on writing the 
Commonwealths brief The attorney also met with the victim's family to discuss with them the 
appellate process and the issues raised on appeal. The case was scheduled for argument in the 
SJC before the end of Fiscal Year 2006, but, due to scheduling conflicts, the Court postponed 
argument until the fall of 2006. 

• Doe v. Preston (U.S. District Court) Federal civil rights case brought against The Executive 
Office of Health and Human Service and the Department of Youth Services challenging the 
constitutionalit}' of DYS strip search policies in secure facilities. A CJPD attorney serves as 
advisor to the Government Bureau on search and seizure issues, and assisted the Government 
Bureau to help DYS draft new regulations on all of its search issues. Both parties moved for 
summary judgment. The CJPD attorney reviewed case materiiils, draft motions and oppositions, 
and provided substantial strategic and legal advice and assistance. A preparation moot was 
conducted, and oral argument on the summary judgment motions was held in May 2006. 

• Andrew^ V. Department of Youth Services; Commonwealth v. Andrew; and Commonwealth 
v. Eliot E. (Supreme Judicial Court and Eynn Juvenile Court) CJPD continued its involvement 
with several DYS cases involving constitutional and legal challenges to the DYS process for 
extending a juvenile s commitment to DYS beyond his/her 1 8th birthday. In July 2004, the SJC 
issued its decision in Andrew v. DYS concerning whether there is a right to bail or other process 
while awaiting triiil on continued control beyond age 18. 'VC'liile the Court ruled in DYS's favor 
on the issues raised by the ca,se, it expressed concern about some provisions of the statute and 
ordered that copies of the briefs and supplemental filings be sent to the Legislature. During 
Fiscal Year 2006, a CJPD attorney worked with the new DYS general counsel to develop a legal 
strateg}' on the many issues raised by the case, and possible DYS draft legislation. By the end of 
Fiscal Year 2006, some of the issues arose in new litigation and CJPD was consulted by DYS's 
legal department to respond to the developments in these cases, to define the meaning of the 
statutory term "dangerous to the public,'' to find ways to preserve DYS's ability to present expert 
testimony on dangerousness, and to ensure issues were sufficiently preserved for appeal. 

70 



CRIMINAL BURFAi; c;RIMINAI. JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION 

• Twenty-Three Cases Seeking (Compensation lor lirroneons (Convictions (JI'l) .Kiively 
participated in the discussions and drafting tliat led to the creation of the law providing 
compensation for persons erroneously convicted and imprisoned. Since the law was approved 
in December 2004, 23 cases had been filed under this new cause of action by the close of Fiscal 
Year 2006. The Office of the Attorney (!eiiei.irs IVial Division defends these cases on behalf 
of the Commonwealth, with considerable input and a.ssistance from C^JPD. During Fiscal 
Year 2006, a division attorney acted as liaison to the District Attornevs Offices. DOC^ and the 
sherif-fs, Parole Board, and other agencies that have information and records relevant to the 
cases. The attorney also: drafted and reviewed motions; reviewed pleadings, case filings and 
letters; provided considerable strategic assistance, background information and help to the Trial 
Division; and ensured that victim privacy and DA privileges are honored during discovery. The 
cases generall}' have proceeded cjuickly and are at various stages of litigation. In some cases, 
.the Attorney General's Office did not oppose sunmiary judgment to the plaintiff on liability 
and, so far, all recommendations to Administration and Finance for settlement for the statutory 
maximum amount have been approved. Other cases are in discover)- or dispositive motion 
status, with some likely to proceed to trial. CJPD workeci with the (Government Bureau on 
the legal interpretation of the phrase "judicial relief on grounds which tend to establish the 
innocence of the individual," a necessary element of a plaintiffs proof in these cases. Summary 
Judgment motions and memoranda were filed, and oral argument was scheduled in one case 
at the start of Fiscal Year 2007. Throughout Fiscal Year 2006, the 258D "team" continued to 
meet to discuss whether to recommend .settlement or contest liability in these cases, whether to 
move for dismissal or summary judgmeiu on cases where the judicial relief was granted on "legal 
error" grounds rather than innocence, to further discuss the legal requirements and practical 
problems of the procedures and methods for notifying victims of the pendency of the cases, 
and for litigation strateg}^ At the CJPD attorney's suggestion, the Oiminal Bureaus Victim- 
Witness Director assists in the offices dealings with victims and providing assistance to District 
Attorneys Offices that have not assigned advocates in these matters. 

• Victim Cr.ompensation and Assistance Division Appeals One of the divisions attorneys 
serves as legal counsel to the Attorney Generiil's Offices Victim Compensation and Assistance 
Division, handling appeals of compensation denials and all other legal issues that arise in 
connection with administering the law that covers compensation to victims of violent crime 
under G.L. c. 258C. In Fiscal Year 2006, the CJPD attorney handled compensation appeals in 
the following district courts: Ayer, Barnstable, BMC, Brighton, Cambridge, Palmer, C^^uincy, 
and Springfield. 



71 



CRIMINAL. BUREAU CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT INHIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Criminal Justice Legislation CJPD worked to advance the Attorney General's slate of criminal 
justice proposals for the 2005-2006 legislative session, which included: 

• An Act Providing for the Enforcement of Child Abuse Reporting Requirements (strengthening 
the penahies for failing to report child abuse under section 51A of Cd... c. 1 19); 

• An Act to Protect the Computer Infrastructure of the Commonwealth (strengthening the 
penalties in connection with computer hacking under section 37E oi G J.,, c. 266); 

• An Act to Protect Victims of Computer Crimes (allowing law enforcement officers to 
use administrative subpoenas to obtain basic internet subscriber information in the same 
way that administrative subpoenas are currently used to obtain basic telephone subscriber 
iniormation); 

• An Act to Protect Victims of Identity Theft (updating and improving the usehilness ot our 
existing identity theft statute, G.L. c. 266, section 37E): 

• An Act Updating the Massachusetts Wiretap Statute (updating and improving the usefiilness 
of our existing wiretap statute, G.L. c. 272, section 99); 

• An Act Relative to Statewide Grand Jury (permitting the creation of a specially designated 
grand jury with statewide jurisdiction for use in connection with certain investigations); and 

• An Act to Protect Students and Promote School Safety (permitting school officials to obtain 
basic information about criminal cases involving their students). 

In addition to the Attorney General's Offices slate of criminal bills, CJPD also fielped draft, edit, 
and review other legislation affecting the criminal justice system, and made recommendations to the 
Attorney General on supporting or opposing specific pieces of legislation. Legislation of significance to 
CJPD in Fiscal Year 2006 included: anti-gang measures; removing the statute of limitations for certain 
child abuse and sexual abuse crimes; drunk driving bill legislation (Melanie's Law); legislation establishing 
a federal sex offender registry; pre-arrest diversion of mentally ill persons; requiring pain management 
therapy prior to the issuance of oxycontin prescriptions; federal and state methampheiamine legislation 
- sale of precursor substances, including the cold medicine ingredient pseudoephedrine and new crimiiiiil 
penalties for possession with intent to manufacture, as well as manufacture where children are present 
in apartment houses and where responders are present; sentencing guidelines; CORI law amendments; 
mandatory minimum sentencing; re-entry; state law on HIV testing of individuals accused of sexual 
assault crimes; and alternate funding for the K'lunicipal Police Training Committee. From among this 



72 



CRIMINAl BLIRFAU CRIMINAL JIJSTICF POLICY DIVISION 

list othills workc'il on l>y (^l^H during \'\S(.:\\ M'.ir .!()()6. two Jcsciac s\xx i;il iiutiiiori. |-irsi, (Ui March 
30. 2006, Governor Roinncy signed into law. )mniliusanti-gang legislation tii.it iiRluded a total re-write 
of rhe srare sracure criminalizing witness iiitiniid.uion. Years earlier, the Attorney C leneral's ( )ffice had 
identified myriad loophoies in the witness intimidation statute. (jlU) drafted legislation to overhaul 
the law. That legislation was later incorporated into the (Governor's anti-gang pioposols, and became 
the new witness intimidation stature. Moreover, CJPL) also identified other issues in the omnibus bill 
regarding witness protection, and contributed to developing the final latiguage of the bill. I'or example, 
a provision exempting the Witness Protection Board from the stare's Open Meeting Law was added 
ro the witness protection legislation at the divisions suggestion. Second, one of the division's assistant 
attorney general spent considerable time reviewing and evaluating pending federal legislation that would 
establish a federal sex offender registry and require states to provide information to federal authorities. 
establish stare "VC-'eb sites, and enact legislation in a number of areas relating to sex offender registration. 
She consulted with National Association of Attorneys (jcneral (NAAG) criminal law staff, spoke with 
Attorney Generals Offices in other states, and alerted the Executive Office of Public Safety (HOPS), the 
Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) and the Massachusetts District Attorneys A.ssociation (MI)AA) to 
the effects of the pending bill. This review revealed that there were provisions of the proposed federal 
law with which Massachusetts could never comply, due ro rulings by the SJC on state constitutional 
grounds. The proposed penalty for a state's noncompliance with the federal requirements would be a 
10% loss of all Byrne and LEA block grants to the state. The attorney's efforts and discussions with 
legal staff for the U.S. Senate Judiciaiy Committee were instrumental in the final version of the bill 
that passed; a version that will nor automatically penalize stares like Ma.ssachusetts for noncompliance 
because of rulings bv state courts on state constitutional grounds. 

Crime Prevention Initiatives CJPD's primaiy fimcrion is policw not programs, but from linie to 
time it becomes involved in crime prevention initiatives, including: 

• Sportsmanship Alliance of Massachusetts (SAM) Comprised of representatives from all 
of the major professional sports teams in Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Intcrscholastic 
Athletic A.ssociarion (MIAA), Northeastern's Center for the Study of Sporr in Sociery, and 
law enforcemenr, rhe Alliance meets periodically to srrategize on how to reduce sports-related 
violence and promote sportsmanship. A CJPD attorney remained active with rhe group during 
the first half of Fiscal Year 2006, participating in events and topics of discussion that included 
identifs'ing resources the professional teams were willing to commit to promote sportsmanship; 
preparing a job description for a part-time coordinator to advance initiatives; and an MIAA 
Sportsmanship Summit for student-athletes, coaches and athletic directors to learn about and 
promote the ideals of sportsmanship. In the second half of Fiscal Year 2006 there were no SAM 
meetings. 

73 



CRI.N'IINAL Bl'REAU CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY DIVLSION 

• Gun Data Collection A CJPD attorney undertook a project to determine the data that is 
collected on guns used in crimes in the Commonwealth. The project involved conducting 
background research and contacting local police departments in major cities across the state, 
State Police, the Boston Mayors Office and the Bureau ot Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (A IF). 
After discussions with A'FF analysts, the Attorney General's Office completed a Gun Aniilysis 
Data Request form and forwarded it to the ATF, the ultimate repository of firearms data. The 
Attorney General's Office then received, reviewed and anal)'zed data on firearm trace statistics 
- on a statewide and city-by-city basis - collected by the ATF. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Liaison to External Agencies and Organizations CJPD's experienced prosecutors serve as the Attorney 
Generals official designee on a variety of criminal justice committees, agencies, and organizations, and 
have connections to niany additional criminal justice entities. During Fiscal Year 2006, CJPD attorneys 
interacted with the Appellate Bench Bar Committee, Boston Bar Association Criminal Law Section, 
Boston Bar Association Task Force on Improving Efficienc)' in the Courts, Commonwealths Attorneys 
Appellate Action Project, Commonwealth's Criminal Justice Research Group Executive Committee, 
C>riminal History Systems f3oard, Department of Public Health Drug Data-Sharing Committee, 
Department of Public Health Emerging Drug Trends Advisory Group, Elder Abuse Project Steering 
Committee, Equal Justice Partnership, Firearm Licensing Review Board, Governors Advisory Council 
on Alcoholism and Drug Rehabilitation, Governor's Integrated Criminal Justice Planning Council, 
Massachusetts Bar Association Corrections and Sentencing Practice Group, Massachusetts Chiefs of 
Police Association, MD7\A/ Attorney General's Office Joint Criminal Rules Training Working Group, 
MDAA DNA Working Group, MDAA Juvenile Justice Subcommittee, MDAA Sexually Dangerous 
Person Working Group, Massachusetts Sentencing Commission, Massachusetts Statewide University 
and College Coalition on LJnderage and Problem Drinking, Municipal Police Training Committee, 
NAAG Working Group on Sexually Violent Predators, SJC Standing Advisory Committee on Criminal 
Rules, Statewide Child Fatality Review Team, and the Trial Court Criminal Standing Committee of 
the MassC^ourts Project. 

Education and I'raining Another core fiinction of CJPD is to educate and inform on issues of 
importance to the criminal justice community. Fhis is accomplished in three distinct ways: (1) through 
publication of the Criminal Justice News (CJN); (2) through formal educational training; and (3) 
through informal guidance and advice. 



74 



CRIMINAL rl;rfal; c:riminai.justic;f \\)Ik.\ division 

Criminal Justice Ni'wsleiicr In Msc;il Vc.ir ?.{){)(->. ilic- ilivision prodiKcd .i sjkli.iI. Idur-pa^c issue 
oF Criminal Justice News on the Criminal Justice Information System Extranet ((JJIS) - developed 
by the Criminal History Systems Board - and its applications for criminal justice agencies to access 
databases and information. The applications highlighted in the spetial issue included Massachusetts 
Instant Record Check System (MIRCS); a firearms recoitl check svstein; the ( iJlSWeb KMV lor seaidies 
of motor vehicle and driver's license information and license photos; the (^JlSWeb Address Locator 
Service for tracking down unregistered sex offenders and wanted persons; the State Police ID Bulletin 
hjr norifi'ing cities and towns of the release of inmates who served time for certain sex offenses; the 
CJISWeb DOC Inmate Release application to allow access to information and phot«)graphs; and the 
CJlSWeb, which uses Web-based technology to enhance the usability of C^JIS and other databases. 
CJPD staff contributed to all aspects of production, including research, interviewing, writing, design, 
layout, proofreading and editing, and distribution of this issue. The special issue of (^JN is posted on 
the Attornc}' Generars Office and Criminal History Systems Board Web sites. 

Educational Training The four attorneys in CJPD are seasoned prosecutors, two with trial 
backgrounds and two with appellate backgrounds. Fhey are periodically invited to serve as faculr}'/staff 
for formal training programs. Significant Fiscal Year 2006 trainings in which CJPD staff participated 
as facul t}7staff i ncl u ded : 

• MCLE - Effective Appellate Advocacy (August 200S); 

• NAAC -• Trial Advocacy Training (August 1 -5, 2005); 

• New Jersey Attorney Generals Office - closing arguments lecture (January 2006); 

• Attorney General's Jobs for Youth Program - C'ORI laws (Februar)' 2006); 

• N4CLF Annual iVlunicipal Law Conference - (X)RI laws (March 2006); 

• NA.AC; - Trial Advocacy Training ( March 1 3-1 7, 2006); 

• MCLFl - The Rules of Criminal Procedure and Standing Orders (April 2006); 

• AG Institute - Use of Exhibits lecture (April 2006); 

• AG Institute - Opening Statements and Closing Arguments lecture (June 2006); 

• Citizen Schools 8th Grade Academy - Program to help 8th grade students improve writing skills 
and get into the high school of their choice (2005-2006 school year). 

Informal Guidance In addition to the more formal educational training, (TPD attorneys routinely 
receive requests for information and guidance from professionals throughout the criminal justice 



75 



CRIMINAL BUREAU FNVIRONMENTAl. CRIMES STRIKE FORCE 

community. Without giving Formal legal opinions, division members provide objective guidance and 
assistance. A portion of each week is spent providing this service to law enforcement officials and 
others within the criminal justice network. In Fiscal Year 200(5, particular assistance was provided to 
the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association and 13istrict Attorneys Offices, Criminal History 
Systems Board, Municipal Police Training Committee, and DYS. 

ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES STRIKE FORCE 

The Massachusetts Environmental Crimes Strike Force (ECSF) is a unique interagency enforcement 
fool used in the investigation and prosecution of the Commonwealth's environmental enforcement 
efforts. Through 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 
provides the legal, scientific and investigative expertise necessary to identif)" environmental violations, 
evaluate their impact on public safety and the environment, and develop the evidence necessary to 
prosecute environmental ciimes. Among the general categories of environmental crimes the ECSF 
Division investigated and/or prosecuted during Fiscal Year 2006 were the following: illegal treatment 
and disposal of h;izardous 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 identit)'- fraud. In addition, division attorneys often work with 
local police and fire 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 2006 included: Paul J. Molloy, Division 
Chief; Assistant Attorneys General Douglas Rice and Wendoly Langlois; and secretary, Shanita Clarke. 
Additionally, the following three Environmental Police Officers were assigned to the ECSF within the 
Attorney Cjeneral's Office to conduct criminal investigations: Lt. Ciail Larson, Sgt. Chris Baker and 
Sgt. Pat Haley. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

• Commonwealth v. Michael Theriault (Flssex Superior Court) Essex Grand Jury returned 
three indictments for violating the Clean Air Act (failure to notify, failure to contain and illegal 

76 



CRIMINAl BLJRFAi; KNVIRONMKNTAI CRIMPS STRIKF FORCF 

disposal ot aslx'stos) on V/.?.H/()S. The (.Icfciul.uit plculctl ^iiiltv .iiul \v,is scihcikccI to two 
)rars in the House of C>oriccrioii, suspended for two years, and two vears probation. Terms 
of probation included 200 hours of communit}' service anci an order to refrain from anv wf»rk 
involving asbesros. 

• Commonwealth v. Antone ' f'ony ' Roderick T. Roderick (]ot p. pleaded guilty to violating 
the Massachuseirs Clean Air Act (open biniiing of demolition debris) and was oniercd to pay 
a $25,000 fine. Antone Roderick, the company's owner and Presidem, who was also charged 
with violating the Clean Air Act, admitted to sufficient facts and received a continuance without 
a finding for two years. Additionally, Roderick was ordered not to cause, suffer, allow or permit 
the open burning of any combustible material on an)' of his projxrries during the term of his 
probation. 

• Commonwealth v. Da^id Rothstein On September 8, 2005, David Roihstein pleaded guihv 
to two counts of violating the Clean Air Act and one count of violating the Labor and Industries 
Act as the result of the illegal removal of asbestos. Judge James McElroy fined Rothstein $3,000 
($1,000 for Failure to Notify' DEP, $2,500 for failure to use proper containment procedures, 

SI, 500 for failure to provide protective equipment to workers). 

• Commonwealth v. John Sheedy John Sheedy pleaded guilty to three \iolarions of the 
iMassachusetts Clean Air Act and one violation of the labor aiul Industries Act. He was fined 
$7,500. The charges stem from Sheedy's illegal removal of asbestos from a reruai propert)' in 
Chicopee. 

• Commonwealth v. JocelyTi Touissant On October 26, 2005, the defendant admitted 
to sufficient facts for violating the Clean Air Act (illegal removal of asbe.stos). Judge David 
Despofopulos continued the case without a finding for one year and imposed a Si ,500 fine. 

• Commonw^ealth v. Paul Brunell (Worcester Superior Court) Illegal storage and 
transportation of hazardous waste. Brunell was indicted by a Worcester Crand Jury on seven 
counts of violating the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Act and one count of 
violating of the Massachusetts Clean Water y\ct. Arraigned on March 2, 2006. 

• Commonwealth v. Glenn Seaver, d/b/a Central Mass En^^^onmental (Worcester Superior 
Court) A Worcester County Cirand Jury returned two indictments against Glenn Seaver, a 
licensed asbestos abatement contractor, for violating the ("lean Air Act. .Seaver conducted 
uncontained removal of asbestos containing material, resulting in the releiise of carcinogenic fibers, 
contaminating a condominium complex in Worcester and a residence in Westborough. 

77 



CRIMINAL. BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Investigations Opened 20 

Investigations Closed 20 

Indicted in Superior Court 4 

Disposed in Superior Court 2 

Disposed in District Court 5 

District Court Complaints Filed 2 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Environmental Crimes Strike Force opened 20 investigations and 
closed 20 (some of which were opened in the prior fiscal year). There were four individuals indicted in 
Superior Court. District Court complaints were taken out against two individuals and one corporation. 
There were two jury trials that resulted in a conviction in Superior Court. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACriVITIES 

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

Assistant Attorney Cenerals Douglas Rice and Wendoly Langlois participated throughout the year 
in the Attorney Cener;il s Citizen Schools Program. 

Assistant Attorneys Cenend and Environmental Police Officers assigned to the t^ivironmental Strike 
Force participated in training seminars for the Northeast Environmental Enforcement Project. 

FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

I he Financial Investigations Division provides the Criminal Bureau with seven experienced civilian 
investigative professionals who investigate and iissist in the prosecution of white-collar criminal cases. 
These investigations include larceny, identity theft, public corruption, securities fraud, tax fraud and 

78 



CRIMINAL RURFAU FINANCIAL INVF,STICATIONS DIVISION 

;ill orluT whitc-t.ollar fr.iuds, which aiv rckrivcl lo the (.hvisioii. I he iiivestifi.uors hrint; to the division 
many years of experience inxestigating cases in local, state and federal governnient as well as private sector 
venues. Invesrigators assigned to the Financial Investigation Division work as part of the Bureau's team 
approach ro criminal investigative work. Division members become involvetl in matters at the start of 
investigation and work closely throughout \vith ("riniin il Bnieau [irosemtors and also Massachusetts 
State Police assigned to the biu-eau's Criminal Investigation I )i\ isioii. 

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

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

Criminal Bureau investigations involve prolific documentary evidence and require clivision 
investigators to perform extensive examination and analysis of business, personal and financial records 
to document the illegal acrivitie,s of the whire-collar criminal. Additionally, division investigators 
conduct ituerviews of victims, svitnesses and targets, and provide summar)' witness tesiimoii}^ before 
special grand juries and at trial. Further, utilizing computerized technology, investigators are able to 
scan a wide array of informational databases as well as the Internet to track and profile potential subjects 
of criminaJ investigations. 

l"he majority of the division's investigative assignments come from the Bureau's C ioiruprion. Fraud, 
and Computer CritTies Division. I he division works closely with the Chief of the (Corruption. Fraud, 
and Computer Crimes Division during the screening process and then with the assigned assistant 
attorney general when a matter has been accepted for formal investigation. 

Since the division's formation in 1995, it has also performed investigative assignments for the 
Bureau's Environmental Crimes Strike Force, y\ppcllate Division, and Special Investigations and 
Narcotics Division. 

This fiscal year, division personnel included two Certified Fraud F^aminers and five investigators 
with backgrounds from the banking and insurance indu.srries. Members of the division for the year were: 
Paul Stewart, Division Director, Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE); David Baker: Michael Cuarin: Jen 



79 



CRi.VllNAL. BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 



Hollingsvvorth; Jim McFcidden, CFE; Siillyanri Nelligaii; and Amy Szymaniak. hivestigator McFaddeii 
received the Attorney General Robert H. Quinn Award for Excellence at the staff awards ceremony on 
September 27, 2003. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

Division members served as Commonwealth summary witnesses in the grand jury for a number of 
matters indicted during the year. Additionally, division members were scheduled to serve as summary 
witnesses at trial for matters that reached a final disposition as a result of guilt)' pleas. The division 
requesting Financial Investigation Division involvement in each matter was the Corruption, Fraud, and 
Computer Crimes Division and more specific information about each of these matters can be found by 
referring to that division's section in this report. A statistical sunmiar}' of matters investigated by the 
Financial Investigation Division immediately follows the highlighted case listings. 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 HIGHL.IGHTED CASES 
Matter indicted with multiple victims: 

• Commonwealth v. James A. Brien 

This group of indicted matters involved employee embezzlement: 

• Commonwealth v. Holly Piatt 

• Commonwealth v. Mauree n Ferrera 

• Commonwealth v. Kathleen Santoro 

• Commonwealth v. Anthony Gianetti 
This matter involved filing false statements: 

• Commonwealth v. Edgar Shattuck 

I his group of indicted matters involved larceny of clieius' fmids or fiduciaiy embezzlement: 

• Conunonweahh v. Gerard E. Baitista 

• Commonwealth v. Anthony Bott 

80 



CRIMINAI BUREAU FINANCIAI INVF5Tir,ATIONS DIVISION 

This iiulicrcci in.utcr iinoKfd uitciin^a forced Mas.s.Kluisctrs I'cliK.itor's ( A-rtificiic: 
• Commonwealth v. Stephen Lombardi 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
REFERRING SOURCE NUMBER OP CAS FS 

Matters screened and evaluated for investigation 298 

Matters referred by Corruption, Fraud, and 
Computer Crime Division to Financial Investigation 
Division for formal investigation 66 

TOTAL 364 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The division also performs many administrative duties for the Criminal Bureau with respect to 
cars, seized evidence and the spending of forfeited funds. The division is responsible for all bureau 
cars - the assignment, reporting, and maintenance. The division maintains a log of all mone\' seized 
b)' the State Police in association with any arrest, '["he seized money is kept in salets' deposit boxes and 
the contents are inventoried on a quarterly basis by division staff Additionalh', the division prepares 
an accounting of all funds forfeited through the Special Investigations and Narcotics Division, which 
are subsequently disbursed in accordance with the Commonwealths forfeiture laws. The accounting 
system is designed as a management tool for the bureau, not only to retrospectively track spending but 
also to project future needs. 

'Fhe division also works with State Police command to a.ssist with background and warrant checks 
and NCIC inquiries. 

Division itiembers also take a turn in the rotation as dut)' officers. The daily dut)' ofHcer is responsible 
for citizen inquiries for that particular day. 



81 



CRIMINAL, BUREAU FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

The staff is also an integral part ol the bureau's outreach to referral agencies, maintaining contact 
with the BBOs 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 quarterly 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 (BCHA), High Tech Crime Investigators 
Association (H FCIA), Internatioiial Association of Certihed Fraud tlxaminers (ACFF), International 
Association of Financi;tl Crimes Investigators (lAFCI), New England Electronic Crimes Task Force 
(NET), North East Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (NEMLEC), New England Anti-Fraud 
Association (NEAFA) and the International Association of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analysts 
(lALEIA). 

Internally, division members are members of the Attorney CeneraFs Benefits C^ommirtee, Elder Task 
Foice, 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 Citizen Schools Project 
and allowed students to observe them as they work as part of the Safe Neighborhood Initiatives Job 
Shadow Program. 

One member of the division is the Attorney General's liaison with the National White Collar 
C jime Committee {NW3C) and as a direct result of her efforts the Attorney Generals Office hosted 
an NW3C-taugln course entitled White Colhr Crime and Ibtrorisin in October 2005. 

As part ot the Attorney Generiil Institute (AG Institute), division members have prepared and taught 
training sessions to their colleagues, as well cis personnel from outside referral agencies and groups such 
as Arson Investigators Association, Boston Chapter of the International Association of Certified Fraud 
Examiners, Boston Clearing Flouse, Norfolk County Sheriffs Community Outreach Program, Essex 
(bounty F'Ider Abuse Roundtable and the Southeastern Massachusetts Fraud Investigators Association. 
Presentations included: 

• Asset Search Training 

• Financial Investigative Techniques 



82 



CRIMINAI BUREAU FINANC.IAI INVFSTir.ATIONS DIVISION 

B.itik liiforni.itioii: How to Clct I( aiul Wh.it It Iclls Yyoii 
Interview .iiul Recoil Writing Icthniqiics 

Investigating and Preparing an Fldcr I'inancial 1 xploitation ( iasc 
Investigative Resource Sites on the Internet 
Financial Investigation Division Striictvne and Opeiaiion 
During Fiscal Year 2006 division members attended the tollowiim A(i Institute traininus: 

Michael Fatale Fecrure, December 2()0S 

Witness Preparation Training, Ma\' 2006 

Supreme (Joiirr C'ase Review, Ma)- 2006 

Sexual Harassment Fraining, May 2006, June 2006, and July 2006 

Division members attended a number of external training sessions throughout the year 
iding: 

NW3C: Foundations oflntelligence, July 2005 

NW3C: Basic Data Recovery and Anal)sis, July 2005 

NF F: Security Vulnerability and Naming Conventions, July 2005 

HTCLA.: Periodic Training, September 2005 

NFMFFC: Periodic Fraining July 2005 and Jutie 2006 

BCHA: Periodic Meetings, July 2005 co June 2006 (monthly) 

ACFE: Money Faundering, October 2003 

ChoicePoint: Auro'Frack XP Training, October 2005 

lAFEIA: Periodic Training. January 2006 and April 2006 

Mass Bar Association: Trial Courr Training, February 2006 

Slate Fthics C'ommission: 'Fraining, March 2006 

FFETC: Anti-Terrorism Intelligence Awareness draining, March 2006 

ACFE: Fraud Symposium, May 2006 

NW3C^: Cyber investigation, June 2006 

83 



CRIMINAL. BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

The division's intern program seeks to pirovide 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 undergraduate programs throughout New England. 

As a direct result of their volunteer experience with the divisions program, Financial Investigation 
Division interns have accepted jobs with Hewlett Packard Corporation, John Hancock Life Insurance 
Company, Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, and the Office of the Attorney General. 

INSURANCE AND UNEiMPLQYjVIENT FRAUD DIVISION 

The mission of the Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division (lUFD) has been to investigate 
and prosecute those who commit fraud against all types of iivsurers in Massachusetts, and against 
the Commonvv'ealth's unemployment insurance system. lUFD prosecutes these crimes to protect 
Massachusetts businesses, consumers, and taxpayers h'om the higher premiums and taxes that are the 
ultimate result of the fraud. 

lUFD's cases vaiy widely, including workers compensation premium fraud cases, h'aud in auto repair 
businesses, staged motor vehicle accidents, cases involving claimants working while collecting workers 
compensation and unemployment benefits, and health care fraud. lUFD hits given special attention to 
prosecuting cases where individuals have collected workers' compensation and unemployment insurance 
benefits while working jobs. These individuiils are stealing money that should go to people who are truly 
injured or out of work. In addition, lUFD has focused on investigating staged accidents working with 
the Insurance Fraud Bureau Communitv' Insurance Fraud Initiative (CIFI) to combat fraud in select 
communities such as Boston and Lawrence. The UJFD has also worked closely with the Division of 
L'nemploymeru- Assistance (DLlAj this yeai' to combat fraud. I'he DUA has committed resources to 
fight traud by creating an anti-fraud unit. By working closely with the DUA the OAG has investigated, 
charged, and prosecuted over 20 unemployment fraud cases this year. 

lUFD received referrals from a number of sources. One source was the Massachusetts Insurance 
Fraud Bureau (IFB), a non-governmental entity created by the Massachusetts Legislature and funded, 
pursuant to statute, indirectly by the Massachusetts insurance industry. In addition, IDFD received 
referrals Irom the Commonwealth's Human Resources Division, the Division of Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA), the Department of Industrial Accidents, the Workers Compensation Rating and 
Inspection Bureau, the National Insurance Crime Bureau, and the Social Security Administration. 
ILTD also received complaints and referrals from concerned citizens, private attorneys, and court 



84 



CRIMIN'AI BURFAi; INSl'RANi I AM ) t.NRMPl.OYMF.NT FRAUD DIVISION 

personnel. Ihe wide rant;c' ni referrals helped denionstr.iie the II 'IDs efforts in fighting insurance 
fraud throughout the C^oninionwealth. 

lUFD also is a parr of" the Cooperative Disahility investigations (CDI) Uint. (.1)1 is funded hy 
the Social Securin' Administiarion (SSA), and is comprised oFthc SSA's Office of Investigations (C)I) / 
Oflfice of the Inspector (icnera! (OIC), the Massachusetts Disability I determination SeiA'iccs (l)l)S), and 
IL'HO. lUFl) provides ( ID\ with two Attorney Cienerars Office Investigators who conduct surveillance 
and provide the evidence used to prosecute Social Seciirit\- disahilitv-related fraud. Beeause a portion 
of Social Securit}' disability benefits are paid for with state funds, this crime robs the C^omnionwealth's 
taxpayers twice: once as federal taxpayers, and again as state taxpayers. In Fiscal Year 2006, the C^OI 
Unit completed investigations in a total of S3 cases. Social Security Administration savings for this 
time period was $2,262,285, and Non-SSA savings for this time period was $983, ^^20. Ihus, IL'FI) 
contributed to helping recover more than $3,000,000 in taxpayers' monies. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, lUFD staff included: Glenn Cunha, Division Chief; Georgia Critsley. 
Deputy Division Chief; Alexandra AJland; David Andrews; Rose Bapalawis; Julie Brady; Tracy 
Brown; Kajal Chattopadhyay; Ashley Cinelli; John Compton; Pepper Daigler; Brian Delaney; Melissa 
Gavegnano;'rami Kelley; Bryan Knight; Jason Kravetz; Ian McKenny; John 0"Lear\'; VickvScholnick; 
and Francesca Stabile. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE FRAUD 

• Commonwealth v. Anthony Datnaral, Filomena Pontes and Timilty Veig a (SufTolk 
Superior Court) This was a motor vehicle insurance fraud case involving enhanced damages. 
Veiga had his mothers (Pontes) 2001 BMW towed to a body shop with minor damage. Veiga 
asked the body shop owner to "total out" the car. When the owner refused, \eiga had the car 
towed to a shop owned by Damaral, where the car was fiirther damaged to fraudulently inflate 
the insurance. A jury trial resulted in guilty verdicts. 'Umilty Veiga was sentenced to two 
and one-luilf years in the Suffolk County House of Correction committed, followed by three 
years probation and a $5,000 fine. Filomena Pontes was sentenced to two and one-half years 
probation, 100 hours community service and a $2,500 fine. Anthoii}- Damaral was sentenced 
to TWO years probation and a $2,500 fine. 

• Commonwealth v. Adam Matthews and Oscar Vargas (Essex Superior Court) These 
defendants were pait of a motor vehicle insurance fraud riitg that staged accidents and filed 

85 



CRIMINAL BUREAU INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUfJ DIVISION 

fraudulent ciaiins. Matthews pleaded guilty to attempted larceny and was sentenced to one year 
of probation. Vargas pleaded guilt}' to attempted larceny and wiis sentenced to 18 months in 
the House of Correction, suspended for two years and a $ 1,000 fine. 

• Commonwealth v. Michael Moreira (Plymouth vSuperior Court) 1 his defendant was charged 
with motor vehicle insurance fraud for falsely reporting that his car had been stolen. Ultimately, 
the defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to 1 5 months probation, a $ 1 ,000 
fine, $3,559.50 in restitution to Hanover Insurance Company, and 100 hours community 
service. 

• Commonwealth v Guy Prophete (Quincy District Court) Prophete was charged in 
Jime 2002 with motor vehicle insurance h'aud. He fiiiled to appear at his arraignment and a 
warrant issued. The defendant removed the warrant in late 2005 and he pleaded guilty at a 
pre-trial conference and was sentenced to two years probation and ordered to pay $38,889.98 
in restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Joseph Jaiceris (Worcester District Court) This motor vehicle insurance 
fraud case was referred to the Insurance and Unemployment Fraud Division by the Insurance 
Fraud Bureau. Jaiceris fraudulently reported his car stolen after being in a collision while driving 
intoxicated. Jaiceris pled guilt)' and was sentenced to one year probation, a fine of S 1,000 and 
50 hours of comniunity service. 

WORKERS COMPENSATION FRAUD 

• Commonwealth v. Charles Mood (aka Byrd) (Middlesex Superior Court) Byrd assumed 
the identity of Charles Hood to obtain employment and then he filed a workers' compensation 
claim. He lied to insurers about his identity, prior claims, his medical history, and the fact that 
he was sinmltaneously collecting Social Security Disability (SSDI) and unemployment benefits 
while claiming to be totally disabled and receiving temporar)' total workers compensation 
benefits. The defendant pleaded guilt}' to all counts. He was sentenced to two and one-half 
years in the liouse ot Correction, 140 da}'s to serve with the balance suspended for five years. 
He was also ordered to pay full restitutioji as follows: $23,000 to AIM Insurance for workers' 
compensation fraud; $1 ,500 to DUA for the unemployment fraud; and $70,000 to the Social 
Securit}' Administration for the SSDI fraud. 

• Commonwealth v. Scott Taylor (Suffolk Superior Court) The defendant, a former Central 
Artery/Tunnel emplo)'ee, was working while collecting workers' compensation benefits. Taylor 



86 



CRIMINAI BURFAl' INSHRANi K AM ) I AF.MPl.DYMF.NT FRAUD OIVISK^N 

pled guilty to one count o\ workers LoniiH-iis.ition (t.uul .iiul one Louni ot Liicein. He was 
sentenced to two years probation, S2(),()()() restitution anti 100 lioms (.oinnuiintv servKe. 

• Commonwealth v. Allen Sembler (SiiFtolk Superior (j)int) Senihler also was a former 
Cenrrai Artery/ iiinnel employee who was working while collecting workers" compensation 
benefits. After changing his plea to guilty. Judge Margaret Hinkle sentenced Sembler to rwo and 
one-half years in the House of Correction, suspended for three years. The judge also ordered 
restitution oi $95,405 and 100 hours coniiTuinity service. 

• Commonwealth v. Hal Tyre e (Worcester Superior Court) In this workers' compensation 
fraud case, the defendant, Hal Fyrce, was working as an oil deliveryman while receiving total 
temporal")' workers' compensation benefits. He pleaded guilty on June 26, 2006, and was 
sentenced to three years probation and fiill restitution of $29,387.22. 

• Commonwealth v. Timothy Hayes (Essex Superior Oiurt) The defendant was working 
while collecting benefits. Department of Industriiil Accidents (DIA) Judge JoEllen DEsti 
had already ordered Hayes to repay all weekly benefits he had fraudulently collected, .ls well 
as costs and penalties. Hayes pleaded guilt)' to perjury for lying before the DIA and workers 
compensation fraud and was sentenced to one year in the House of Correction with two years 
of probation to follow. 

• Commonwealth v. Thomas Fratantuono (Suffolk Superior Court) Fratantuono detrauded 
both workers' compensation and private disability insurers of approximately $147,000. While 
he suffered legitimate, serious injuries in a car accident, he returned to work as an auto broker 
while still collecting benefits. Fratantuono pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two )'ears 
probation and $55,050 restitution. 

• Commonwealth v. Thompson Huynh (Suffolk Superior Couit) Huynh claimed tempotary 
total disability due to repetitive hand motion injury. He received over $47,000 in workers" 
compensation benefits while working full time at his business, 'Fhompson's Market. Huvnh 
pleaded guilty and Judge Botsford sentenced him to two and one-half years in the House 
of Correction, suspended for 10 years, 150 hours community service and restitution of 
$36,446. 

OTHER TYPES OF INSURANCE FRAUD 

• Commonwealth v. Shane Mambro (Essex Superior Court) This case was referred to 1 LTD 
bv the Insurance Fraud Bureau. The defendant submitted a claim to an insurance company for 



87 



CRI.N'ilNAL Bl 'REAL) INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 

a slip and fall accident when in reality his injuries were sustained while being pursued by police 
atrer committing an assault and battery. His guilty plea resulted in a sentence of two years in 
the House of Correction, suspended for five years on the insurance fraud count, and five years 
probation concurrent on an attempted larceny charge. 

• Commonvyealth v. William Rowan (Quincy District C^ourt) This case was referred to 
lUFD by the Insurance Fraud Bureau. The defendant, an insurance agent, pocketed workers' 
compensation and liability premiums trom clients for several years rather than forwarding the 
premiums to the insurance companies. Rowan pleaded guilty at his arraignment to larceny 
charges. He was sentenced to rwo years in the House of Correction, suspended for three years 
with supervised probation, and ordered to pay restitution of $ 120,000. 

LINEMPLO\ME.NT.CC2MPENMTION.F 

• Commonwealth v. Steven Botelho (Suffolk Superior Court) This case was referred to 
lUFD by the Division of Unemployment Assistance (DUA). The defendant was a fisherman 
who was working while collecting unemployment benefits. Flis guilty plea resulted in three 
years probation and restitution ot $27,978. 

• Commonwealth v. Stephen Doherty and Charise Hardy (Norlolk Superior Court) 1 his 
case iilso was referred to IDFL^ b\' DUA. The defendant was incarcerated while collecting 
unemployment benefits. Charise Flardy aided Doherty by cashing the unemployment checks. 
Both defendants pleaded guilty on April 14, 2006, and were sentenced to three years probation, 
100 hours community service, and restitution of $4,580. 

DUA POST-CQNVICTION CASES CLOSED IN FISCAL \TAR 2006 

The lUFD has a cooperative agreement with the Division of Unemployment Assistance, helping 
ensure that unpaid restitution ordered in prior criminal cases is paid to DUA. One of lUFDs roles in 
collecting these outstanding balances included court appearances at post-conviction restitution status 
hearings. Assistant Attorneys C^eneral were assigned to DUA post- conviction cases on a rotating basis 
tliroughout the year. Fhe 1UFI3 Assistant Attorneys Ceneral represented the Commonwealth's interests 
in these settlement agreenienis, ensuring that the taxpayers' interests were taken into account. 

Six cases were fully closed out in Fiscal Year 2006, after restitution settlements were agreed upon. 



CRIMINAI BURFAU IXM 'RANCK AMMAFMIM.OYMKNT FRAIT) OIVISK^N 

S 1 AI IS riCA[ SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2006, lUFD indicted or charged 34 cases. A ror.il of4S cases were disposed of, 
cither by trial or plea. Of these 48 Ciises, seven defendants were ordered to serve cornmirted time in a 
couiU)' HoLkse of (Correction. Restitution aiul fines in these cases totaled S'-'()S,513. 

STATIS nCAL BREAKDOWN 

REFERRALS RECEIVED 293 

Insurance Fraud Bureau 26 

Other Itisurance Com[xtnies 2 

Division of Unemployment Assistance (DUA) 13 

DUA - Post Conviction 57 

Fair Labor & Business Practices (Attorney Generals Office) 137 

Governors Auto Theft Strike Force (GATSF) 

Health Care Task Force 2 

Letter 4 

Nat'l Insurance Oime Bureau 

Suffolk County District Attorney 

Telephone 39 

WAk-lm 3 

Other AG's Office 1 

Other Federal Agency 1 



89 



CRIMINAL. BUREAU 



INSURANCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FRAUD DIVISION 



Other Police Agency 



Other State Agency 


6 


INVES IKjATIONS OPENED 


70 


DIJA 


L^ 


DUA - Post Conviction 


57 


Fair Labor & Business Practices (Attorney General's Office) 


8 


CATSF 


1 


IFB 


16 


Letter 





NICB 


1 


Suffolk County DA 


1 


Telephone 


1 


Walk-In 





Other AC sOfike 


1 


Other Federal Agency 


1 


Other Insurance Company 


13 


Other Police Agency 


2 


Other State Agency 


4 


Other: IFB Post-Conviction 





investigations Closed without Prosecution 


60 


Cases Charged 


34 



90 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SI'FCIAI INVF.STICATIONS AND NARCOTIC-.S DIVISION 



Cases nispdSLci of 62 

Cases Disposed, with Cx)minitteci I'ri.soii 1 iine 7 

RESTITUTION and FINES RECOVERED $908,735 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

lUFD Division Chief Glenn Cimha gave several speeches to ouiside groups. The first was a lecture 
for Massachusetts Risk Managers regarding developing a criminal case ar the first sign of fraud. AAC 
Cunha served on the faculty at New England School of Law's Trial Advocaq- Training. AA.Ci (^unha 
also presented information at the AG Institute program on the "New Massachusetts ( jiminal Rules 
of Procedure for Prosecutors." Additionally, AAG Cunha presented at the Insurance Fraud Bureau's 
Annual Conference, where he spoke to invesrigarors from across the stare about the new insurance 
laws as well as investigating and prosecuting criminal cases when fraud is first suspected b\' an insurer. 
Two other lUFD Aiisistant Attorneys General, Kajal Chattopadh)'ay and David Andrews, also gave 
presentations at the IFB Annual Conference on sentencing issues as well as obtaining statements from 
targets of investigations. AAG's Alexandra /'Vlland, Melissa Gavegnano, Georgia Oitsley, Investigator 
Pepper Daigler and Support Staff Vicky Scolnick volunteered with the Citizen Schools' Flighth Grade 
Academy Program. Investigators Byron Knight, Rose Bagalawis and Support Staff Ashley Cinelli were 
volunteer tutors with the Paul McLaughlin Center's Elementary school students. 

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

The Special Investigations and Narcotics (SI&fN) Division coordinates and prosecutes a variety 
of complex, multi-jurisdictional criminal cases. The division also proactively investigates traditional 
criminal enterprises — including so-called organized crime families ami large-scale drug trafficking 
organizations — as well ;is non-traditiouiil criminal organizations such as street gangs and armed robber)' 
rings. A priority of the division is to identif}- and prosecute individuals and groups involved in the 
illegal sale or possession of firearms. Sl&N prosecutors are also responsible for providing assistance in 
the drafting of legislation pertaining to electronic surveillance, racketeering and corruption, narcotics, 
and firearms. Division members are encouraged to participate in the conception and implementation 
of communit}' education and outreach programs. 



91 



CRI.VllNAl. BUREAU SPF.CiAl. INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

The SI&N Division, through its Asset Forfeiture Unit, initiates and pursues civil and crirnind 
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 forfeiture laws. 

Among the general categories of crimes the Sl&N Division investigated and/or prosecuted during 
Fiscal Year 2006 were 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, larceny of a motor vehicle, gaming, extortion, loan sharking, 
and firearms offenses. 

Attorneys, State Police officers and investigators a.ssigned to the Sl&N division also continued to work 
with and provide technical, legal, and other forms of investigative support and assistance to federal, state 
and local law enforcement agencies. These agencies included the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Federal Bureau of 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 included investigations of large-scale drug distribution 
and money humdering organizations, organized larceny rings, and armed career criniinals. 

iMernbers of the division for all or part of Fiscal Year 2006 included: Eileen O'Brien, Division 
Chief; Jennifer Adreani; Trade Fernandes; Robert Fisher; Hillary Kavanagh; Margaret Hegarty; and 
Cheryl OConnell. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

• Angelesco Wiretap — Commonwealth v. William Angelesco ; Commonvvealth v. 
Gene Giangrande ; Commonwealth v. William O'Connell (Middlesex Superior Court); 
Commonwealth v. Gregory McLaughlin (Suffolk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Scott 
McDermott (Middlesex Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Thomas Ryan (Suffolk Superior 
(Jourt) 1 his wiretap investigation began on November 2, 2005, focusing on illegal gaming. 
Quickly the wiretap revealed that the main target and several of his associates were also involved 
in extortion, firearms, and drugs. After significant monitoring and surveillance, the wire came 
down on February 2, 2006. State Police executed a number of search warrants in the Greater 
Boston area, which resulted in the seizure of a .38 special revolver, a .22 caliber automatic pistol, 



92 



CRIMINAI RlIRFAi; SPFCIAI INVKSTIGATIONS AND NARC-()TIC\S DIVISION 

a .22 caliber single ai^tioii revolver, a .4S calitK-r rcvoKer. aiul a ..>H talilui rcsolver. Also sci/cd as 
a result oi the execution of search warrants was assorted gaming related devices and documents. 
and over $160,000 in U.S. (aurency. Hollowing a protracted grant! jury investigation, six 
detendanrs were indicretl in .Suffolk and Middlesex (bounties. William Angclesco is charged 
with lour couius of extortion by threat ol injury, assault and h.uter\' lo collect a loan, ass.iult 
and battery with a dangerous weapon, usury, two coimts of threats to conuiiit a crime, and one 
count of conspiracy. All of the cases are currently pending. 

• Three-Month W'lrctap hivestigation — Co mmonwealth v. J erem y Katz; Commonwealth v. 
Joshua Katz ; Commonweahh v. Robert McCotmick ; C ommonwealth v. Andrew McCormick ; 
Commonwealth v. Kory Arquette ; Commonweahh v. Thomas Caialoni (Middlesex and 
Norfolk Superior Courts) Beginning in the summer of 2004, Massachu.setis State Police assigned 
to the Attorney Ceneral's Office began an investigation of a group responsible for distributing 
large quantities of h}'droponic marijuana in the greater Boston and Providence areas. Following 
a wiretap investigation in Canada, the Stare Police began working with agents from Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to investigate the local distributors. Ihc targets of the 
investigation were skilled at counrer-siu-\'eillance techniques and were particularly sophisticated 
in their use of cutting-edge communications technology. UhimateK', the State Police in the 
Attorney Ceneral's Office, with the assistance of ICE, conducted a wiretap investigation between 
November 2004 and January 2005, targeting the two people at the head of this organization: 
Jeremy Katz and Robert McCormick. Over the course of a three-month investigation. SI&N 
applied for and obtained 14 wiretap warrants covering four commiuiications devices. In addition. 
State Police and federal agents installed and monitored a Clobal Positioning Satellite (CPS) 
device on one target's car and installed and monitored a telephone pole mounted surveillance 
camera outside the home of another target. The investigation concluded on Januar\' 22, 2005, 
with the execution often search warrants in Burlington, Sharon and W;ilpole and 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 handgim. Police arrested five defendants in Massachusetts and Rhode 
Island authorities arrested two additional defendants in Rliode Island. Six defendants stand 
charged with narcotics offenses in Middlesex and Norfolk Counties. 

• Commonwealth v. George Dabrolet; Commonwealth v. Ryan Hennessy (Norfolk 
Superior Court) State Police identified a house in Holbrook and a target selling O.xA-conrin 
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 iOC 80s), Percocet pills. 



93 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPF.CIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

Other narcotics, and $65,000 in cash. They arrested Hennessey and another male, George 
Dabroiet of Weymouth. Both defendants were indicted for trafficking in Opium Derivatives. 
The defendants are awaiting trial in October. 

• Commonwealth v. Domenic Baldassari ; Commonwealth v. Patrick MaGee (Middlesex- 
Superior Court) Followi/ig an investigation b}' the State Police and the Drug Enforcement 
Agency, the two above identified defendants made several sales of 100 Oxycontin pills to an 
undercover ofhcer 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. 

• Commonwealth v. I'imothy NX^iite ; Commonwealth v. Robert Crisafulli (Norfolk Superior 
Court) On January 27, 2003, Sergeant Timothy NX'^hite of the Massachusetts State Police was 
arrested at his home at 65 Southworth Court, in Stoughton, Massachusetts, after he allegedly 
assaulted his wife, Maura White, with his service weapon — a .40 caliber Sig Saur handgun. 
At the time of his arrest, Sgt. WTiite was assigned to the Narcotics Inspection Unit (NIU) of 
the Massachusetts State Police. Subsequent investigation revealed approximately 13 kilograms 
of cocaine and other narcotics as missing from the NIU storage facility in Fiamingham. After 
interviewing witnesses and search warrant executions, Sgt. Wliite 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 from the bunker. An acquaintance of the \X^Tiites named Robert 
Crisafulli allegedly sold multiple ounce quantities of cocaine for White from October through 
December 2002. On February 28, 2003, troopers searched a storage bin in Hyde Park rented by 
Crisafulli and discovered approximately 700 grams of cocaine. These cases came to the Attorney 
GeneraPs Office, specifically to the SI&N Division, upon requests frojii the Massachusetts State 
Police and the Norfolk Counrv' District Attorneys Office. Alter 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 majorit}' of the drug charges and following a second protracted jury 
trial in June, White was convicted in earlyjuly of trafficking in excess of 200 grams of cocaine; 
larceny over $250 and conspiracy to violate the narcotics statute. He was sentenced to 15 years 
to 15 years and one day in state prison. 

• Rizzo Wiretap — Commonwealth v. Ajithony Rizzo (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior 
Courts); Commonwealth v. Paolo Tizzano : Commonwealth v. Pasquale Regnetta (Suffolk 
Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Richard Moretto (Suffolk and xVIiddlesex Superior 
Cx)urts); Commonwealth v. William Meehan (Suffolk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. 
Andrew Arinello ; Commonwealth v. Dean Rosati (Suffolk and Middlesex Superior Courts); 

94 



CRIMINAL BUREAi; s|-| ( lAl IN\ Is I l( iACIONS AND NARCC HKS DIVISION 

Commonwealth v. L ouiii Carpinto (Suffolk Superior Court); Commonwealth v. Wilbe rto 
Pag an (Middlesex Superior C^ourt); Commonw ealth v. Norgc Olivero; Commonwealth v. Franl^ 
Coscarelli (Middlesex Superior Courr). On December 19, ?A){)2, over 130 state, federal and 
local police officers executed 17 search warrntus at locations in the North Knd and rhroughotir 
Clreater j-^oston lollowing Sl^N's investigation into the trniiinal activities of I. a (>)sa Nostra. 
Police seized 13 gutts, explosive devices, hundreds of percocers, trafficking quantities of cocaine 
and marijuana, and approximately $132,000 in drug money. The IS-monrh investigation, 
dubbed (3peration Neighbor-Hoods, involved the electronic surveillance of seven telephones 
and the placement of a bugging device and GPS tracking systein in a targets vehicle, faghteen 
individuals were arrested or charged, including the primary target. Anthony Riz/.o, an alleged 
made mafia solider. As a resiih of the concerted efforts of the State Police and Assistant Attorney 
Generals in the SI&N Division, all bur two defendatus, both of whom are in default, pleaded 
guilty and were sentenced to varying terms of incarceration. 

• Operation Columbia Gold Wiretap — Commonwealth v. Mario Reyes (Middlesex and 
Suffolk Superior Coiuts); Commonwealth v. iVIonica Reyes (Middlesex and Suffolk Superior 
Courts); Commonwealth v. James Abreus (Suffolk Superior CJoiur); C ommonwealth v. Faber 
Atdana ; Commonwealth v. Gilberto Cruz (Middlesex Supei ior Court); Commonwealth v. Jose 
Rivera (Suffolk Supierior Court); Commonwealth v. William Torres (Middlesex and Suffolk 
Superior Courts); Comm onwealth v. Carlos Parra (Suffolk Superior Court). This DEA Task 
Force investigation of an international drug distribution organization revealed that the principals 
of the organization regularly obtained and distribtited 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. The initial target, Monica Re\'es, sold over 
100 grams of heroin to an undercover trooper on several occasions, and approximately one 
kilogram of heroin was interdicted from Costa Rica based on the information from the wiretap. 
Additionally, the New York Office of the DFA initiated a wiretap investigation based on the 
intelligence from this case, which led to the seizure of approximateh' one and one-half 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 approximateh' 700 grams of cocaine 
to the Boston area from New York, nine search warrants were executed and approximately 300 
grams of additional cocaine were seized. All but two defendants have been sentenced or pleaded 
guilty. The remaining defendants are scheduled for trials in the fall of 2006. 



95 



CRIMINAL BUREAU .SPF.CIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. James A. Nolan (Suffolk Superior Courr) 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 \4obile Operations (MC^P) team 
members and State Police Officers assigned to the Attorney Cenerafs Drug Unit. The bullet 
struck the officer in his side and lodged itself into his tactical vest. A Supierior Court judge 
had previously issued the warrant — v^'hich authorized a search of the residence for marijuana, 
firearms, and ammunition — to troopers assigned to the Attorney General's Office. A search 
of the defendants apartment uncovered one loaded H & K .45 caliber handgun, a spent .45 
caliber shell casing, several rounds of loose ammunition, a bullet proof vest, several ounces of 
marijuana packaged for distribution, a digital scale, approximately $1,565 in U.S. currency, 
and personal papers in the defendants 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 K'lurdcr in violation of c. 265, § 18(b), Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon 
in violation of c. 265, § 15A(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 ot 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. Following a jur)^ trial in March 2006, the jury convicted the defendant of the firearms 
and possession of marijuana charges and the defendant was sentenced to one year in the House 
of C'orrection and probation. Following a second trial in June 2006, the jury convicted the 
defendant of Assauh with Intent to Kill, Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and Assault 
and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. Nolan was sentenced on June 28, 2006, to lour to five 
years in states prison. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

At any given time, the division generally has close to 100 cases pending in various courts throughoui 
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 2006 is set forth below. 



96 



CF^IMINAl RDRFALJ SPFC.IAl INVEST ICAIIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

CEN IIRAI, 1 N r ORM A HON 

RIony Arrests 21 

Criminal Cases Iniriarod 23 (3 I \f.nili Ri-inovaN) 

Cases Disposed 43 

From July 1, 2()()S. through June 30, 2006. State Police assigned to the SlikK Division made 
approximately 2 1 felony arrests. Prosecutors in the division in turn successfully disposed of 42 pending 
cases in the Massachusetts Superior and District Courts, while initiating approximately 23 new cases in 
those same courts. Six of the 43 convictions were attained h}' means of guilty verdicts following jury trials 
in Superior Courts in Suffolk, Essex, Norfolk and Middlesex Counties. Of the number of drug cases 
investigated by the division in Fiscal Year 2006, an increasing percentage of these involved two controlled 
substances rapidly growing in popularit)' among young adults: Oxycodone, a highly addictive painkiller 
(the active ingredient in pharmaceutical C^xyContin), and MethylcnedioxT-N-Meth\'lamphetamine 
(MDMA), otherwise known as the 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 quantities oi these drugs. 

FIREARMS 

Guns Seized or Purchased 6 

Individuals Charged with Firearms Offenses 13 

From July 1, 2005. through June 30, 2006, State Police assigned to the SI&N Division seized six 
firearms, including a Smith and Wesson .38 Special Revolver, a .22 caliber Automatic Iver Johnson Pistol, 
a .22 caliber FIF- Single Action Revolver, a .45 caliber Interarms Astra Revolver, and a 5S caliber Smith 
and Wesson Revolver. Based upon these seizures, prosecutors in the division charged 13 individuals 
with several firearms offenses including armed career criminal violations. 

ASSET FORFEITURE 

Civil Forfeiture Cases Initiated 4 

Cjvil Forfeiture Cases Disposed 3 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Asset Forfeiture I'nit initiated foin- new ci\il forfeiture actions (not 
including forfeitures pursued by means of criminal motions) and concluded three actions involving 



97 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SPFXIAl, INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

money, cars, and jewelry. By way of example, the unit commenced civil actions against cars and money 
that were used to facilitate the distribution of narcotics or were purchased with the proceeds of the 
distribution of narcotics following the Katz Wiretap. The unit is also initiating civil fofeiture actions 
on additional money seized following the Angelesco Wiretap. 

^)CTRETAP$ 

Wiretap Warrants Applied For 20 

Wiretap Warrants Received 20 

Devices Tapped 6 

One-part}' Consent Warrants Applied For 6 

One-party Conseru Warrams Received 6 

A significaiu tool that the division utilized to penetrate and dismantle complex illegal enterprises 
during Fiscal Year 2006 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 Blood warrants, to intercept and record criminal conversations with unsuspecting 
targets. Additionally, from July of 2005 through June of 2006, the Sl&N Division executed 20 court- 
authorized wiretap warrants (excluding one-paiiy consent / Blood warrants). These warrants authorized 
law enforcement officers to intercept, monitor, and record criminal communications occurring over 
six cellular telephones. These electronic surveillance measures, coupled with traditional investigative 
techniques, have proven invaluable in securing the convictions of individuals with ties to a variet)' 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. 

POST-TRIAL MOTIONS 

Post-trial Motions Filed by Defendants 10 

Post-trial Motions Disposed 9 

In addition to prosecuting pending criminal cases, Assistant Attorneys (general in the SI&N 
Division responded to 10 post-trial motions. These motions, filed by convicted felons, sought guilty 



98 



CRIMINAl lURl All SPUCIAL INVESTKiATIONS AND NARCOTICS DIVISION 

pica withdrawal, new trials and sciitciKiiig apjuals. ( )| the iiumlxr of post-inal nioiions disposed all 
were denied. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVI 1 IFS 

Assistant Attorneys General assigned to SI&N l)i\ision continue to [uovide service and .Lssistancc 
both in and out of the Office that exceed the scope of traditional prosecutorial responsibilirics. Some 
of these extracurricular contributions include: service on the Youth Violence Task Force; the (Citizens 
School Coniniunity Outreach Program, which allows students an opportunity to participate in a mock 
trial as prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys; the Springfield Task Force addressing inner-city drug 
and gun problems; and MCTE, a multi-agency panel on Loan Forgiveness and Assistance Program 
for Public Employees. One assistant attorney general was a presenter at an Attorney Gcnerafs Office 
Program held at a Holyoke Senior Center and one current and two past assistant attorneys general were 
recognized by the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force for their contribution to an 
internarion;il drug investigation and prosecution, which generated with a state wiretap in 2001. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, attorneys in the SI&N Division were also required to act as point persons 
for the office on a variety of topics that require specialized knowledge in certain areas ol law. For 
instance, prosecutors in the division provided advice and assistance to attorneys and police officers 
across the state in rendition matters. In addition, an assistant attorney general fields all public record 
inquiries directed to the division. Prosecutors also served as the divisions intern coordinators, who in 
that capacity supervise and monitor the progress of law student interns assigned to the division. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Members of the division attended trainings during Fiscal Year 2006, both inside and outside the 
Office, in an effort to keep abreast with current issues and important trends in the law. These trainings 
encompassed a variety of topics including ethics, anti-discrimination, computer forensics, international 
investigative issues, and trial advocac)' techniques. Some of the trainings attended included: Grand 
Jury Practice; AGI Witness Preparation; and AG Supreme Court Review. 



99 



CRIMINAL BUREAU .SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INMTIATIVE DIVISION 

SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

The first Safe Neighborhood Iniriative (SNJ) partnership was established in Dorchester in February 
1993 by the Office ot the Attorney GeneraK tlie Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, the Mayors 
Office of the City of Boston, and the Boston Pohce Department. Based on the premise that no single 
entit)" alone can solve all problems faced by a community, the SNI provides a framework tor community 
residents and sei-vice providers to work collaboratively with law enforcement and government agencies 
to identif}' and address priority public safety and qualit)'-of-life issues in a community or neighborhood. 
The SNI model has been replicated in a number of communities across the Commonwealth, each using 
a somevs'hat different approach. Some are law-enf-brcement-d riven while others are community-driven, 
but all are organized around the three core principles: coordinated law enforcement; neighborhood 
revitalization; and prevention, intervention, and treatment. During Fiscal Year 2006, the Office of the 
Attorney General participated in active SNI partnerships in Taunton, Brockton (which was integrated 
with the Campello Weed & Seed Site during this fiscal year), Orange, and in the Grove Hall and 
Dorchester neighborhoods of Boston. Additionally, the Office ol the Attorney General supported and 
participated in federally-recognized Weed & Seed partnerships in Lawrence and Methuen. At the reqtiest 
of the new Mayor of New Bedford, and upon invitation of the Bristol County District Attorney, the 
Attorney Generafs Office began discussions at the end of this fiscal year with members of the communirj' 
about implementing community prosecution in New Bedford. In addition to maintaining these various 
on-going partnerships, the SNI Division engaged in a number of innovative communif\'-based activities 
to prevent crime and promote public salet)', some of which are described in the sections below. 

At tlie begimiing of Fiscal Year 2006, division staff ittcluded: Division Director Fallen Frank; A.ssistant 
Attorneys Gener;il Linda DelCasrilho, Denise Duran, Katherine Hatch, and Joseph Janezic; and program 
coordinators Jennifer Grigoraitis and Amanda Halpern. There was transition among the staff this year 
as Linda DelCastilho and Amanda Halpern left the Attorney General's Office and Assistant Attorneys 
General Anne Kaczmarek and Matthew Green and program coordinator Jennifer Fyson joined the 
staff At the end of the fiscal year, the hiring process was underway for two additional prosecutors, one 
each for the Dorchester and Grove H<ill SNIs, a community prosecutor for the Orange SNI, and a 
communit}' prosecutor to fill a new position in New E^edford. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 



Cx>nimunity prosecution is critical to the coordinated law enforcement component of the SNI rtiodel. 
As a result of the close and ongoing work with community partners, the Assistant Attorneys General 



100 



CRIMINAL RllRFAi; SAFF. NFICHBoRHOOD INITIATIVF DIVISUIN 

assigiu-d to rhc SNl establish loks Ihn'oikI those oliiidiiioiKil prosecutors. I lu-v [MrtiLipatc- m rtmilar 
coninninir\' meetings and special events, and serve as valiiaMe resources tor law enforcement, residents, 
and local service provicicrs. As a result oftlieir direct commimity involvement, the .Si\l prosecutors have 
greater insight into issues of iiTiportance to the community and help determine how resources from the 
Attorne)' ( ieneraKs CXhce, local district attorne\s offices, and other agencies are hest uiili/ed to address 
those concerns. The superior court assistant arrorneys general tor the Dorchester and (irove Hall SNIs 
prosecute major felonies consisting primarily of .serious drug offenses, large-scale drug seizures, armed 
robberies and assaults, armed career criminals, firearm offenses, and in some instances homicides. The 
district court assistant attorneys general for the Grove Hall and Lawrence/Methuen partnerships prosecute 
primariK' narcotics and firearms cases. The district court pro.secutor for the (irove Hall SNI handled 
primarih' narcotics cases and violent crimes ocxurring in the target area. Since Februarv. he took over 
the role as team leader for the District .-Attorney's Gun Prosecution Task Force formed to expedite the 
resolution of firearms cases primarily from the Roxbury, Dorchester, and central divisions of the Boston 
Municipal Court. The district court pro.secutor for Brockton prosecutes primarily narcotics, and violent 
crime occurring in the Brockton SNI/Campcllo Weed & .Seed target area. In addition to the most 
.serious and violent cases, the SNl a.ssistant attorneys general also pro.secute "quality-of-life" causes (e.g., 
prostitution, di.sorderIy conduct, trespassing) deemed priorities by the police and community residents. 
Surtimaries below are examples of typiciil cases handled by SNI prosecutors on a daily basis. 

• Commonwealth v . Cuilina n; C omm onwealth v. Fennelly (Lawrence District C<jurt) On 
September 20, 2005, the defendant Cuilinan admitted to sufficient facts to Possession of Class A 
Substance (heroin) charge relative to an arrest that had occurred on April 4, 2005. On that da)', 
Lawrence Police conducted an undercover reverse sting in which officers posed as drug dealers. 
At 1 0:25 a.m., defendant Cuilinan purchased two bags of heroin from an imdercover officer for 
$20 and was charged with Possession of Class A Substance (heroin). Upon admitting to sufficient 
facts, the court continued the case without a finding for 18 months. The defendant was ordered 
to submit to a drug evaluation and screens and to stay away from 50 Bradh)rd Street. The Judge 
imposed a Duquette alternative sentence ol six months in the House of (Correction. 



On November 1 0, 2005, the defendant Fennelly admitted to sufficient facts for a Po.s,session 
of (Jlass A Substance (heroin) charge relative to everus that also took place on April 4, 2005. At 
10:45 a.m., the defendant Fennelly purchased 10 bags of heroin from ,\n undercover officer for 
$50. LJpon admitting to sufficient facts, the defendants case was continued without a finding 
for 18 months. The defendant was ordered to continue in the treatment he had already begun 
and to enter a sober hou.se. 



101 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. Lindsey and Smit h (Suffolk Sup)erior Court) On September 13>2005, 
at 11:15 p.m., in the Dorchester SNI target area, a man was attacked and beaten by a group 
of men and transported to the hospital by EMS. The attack was also witnessed by the victims 
girlfriend. The victim identified Lindsey and Smith as two of the attackers. Based upon this 
report, police obtained arrest warrants lor both suspects, brothers who resided at the same 
location. 

On September 23, 2005, members of the Boston Police Department's Youth Violence 
Strike Force conducted a warrant sweep at an apartment in the Dorchester SNI target area that 
was home to the suspects. As officers entered the apartment they observed a digital scale and a 
small amount of marijuana in the living room. Officers continued their search of the apartment 
for the suspects. Officers entered a bedroom at the end of the hallway and found the suspect 
Smith. Several plastic bags, the corners of which appeared to be cut off, were found on top of a 
television. Other plastic bags were found along side the bed. Officers placed Smith under arrest 
for the assault thai took place on September 13. 

Officers again proceeded to the third bedroom and found an unlocked strong box containing 
a Tecli-9 machine pistol, two large capacity magazines, and also a laser sight. There was also a 
large bag of ammunition. Upon this discovery, the apartment was frozen for a search vs'arraru. 
After issuance of the search warrant, officers went back to the apartment. The following items 
were among those found: a number of firearms, some loaded; numerous rounds of a variet)' of 
ammunition; loaded magazines; a ballistic laser sight; thousands of dollars in cash; digital scales; 
baggies containing marijuana residue; baggies containing cocaine residue. 

Enhancement penalties were added to each defendant's firearms charges. On June 5, 2006, 
at the motions stage, both defendants pleaded guilty. As a level II Armed Career Criminal, 
defendant Lindsey faced a 10-year minimum mandatory sentence. He pled guilty to being a 
Level I Armed Career Criminal and a prison sentence of three years to three years and one day 
was imposed. Havmg never served time in jail previously, defendant Smith was sentenced to 
1 8 months in the Llouse of Correction with two years probation on and after. All the money- 
was seized and was forfeited. 

• Commonwealth v. Green (Suffolk Superior Court) On June 1 1, 2004, at approximately 
3: 1 p.m., four police officers conducted an investigation in Ceylon Park in the area of Intervale 
and Magnolia Streets which had been a hotspot for shots-fired calls in previous weeks. Upon 
entering the park, two officers observed two men standing at the top of a stairwell at the top of 
the hill by Magnolia Street. As two of the officers approached the rsvo men, the men quickly 



102 



CRIMINAl BURFALJ 



SAH.NIK.HHOKHOODINITIATIVF DIVISION 



vvalkcJ aw.n'. I he two offkcrs r.kliootl ihc oiIkt olfitcis .iiul .ulvistd ih.it two men were hc.iclctl 
in their diiecrioii. The officers observed the two men change tlirection and start running down 
the hill toward the main parr of the park. One ofHeer observed one of the men (the defendant 
in this case) tuake a motion to his waist area and then swing his arm our to his side as if tossing 
something. One officer saw the suspect change direciion again running back up the hill and 
over a fence to Magnolia Street. 1 he suspect was ordered to the groimd by another officer and 
placed in handcuffs. A firearm was recovered in the area where the suspect had made the tossing 
motion from his waist area. The firearm was a fully loaded ..58 caliber titan revolver. 

After trial on November 14, 2003, a jury found the defendant guilty and he wa.s sentenced 
ro 10 years to 10 years and one day in state prison. This ilefcndant is a well-known MK" gang- 
member, convicted drug dealer, and a significant "impact player" in the drove Hall SNl target 
area. This was rhe second time the defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm in Cevlon 
Park. 

• Commonwealth v. Scroggi ns (Suffolk Superior Court) On December 1 1, 2005, at 8:00 
p.m., officers responded ro Columbia Road and Quincy Sneer in Dorchester for a report of a 

person shot. As officers frotn Boston Police Areas B-2 and C-1 1 were responding, information 
was updated over the police radio rhat rite .shooter, a black male wearing red and black, was 
running from the area. Within miimtes, officers observed rhe defendant in this case firting the 
description of the suspect, running in the area where the shooting occurred. Officers asked the 
defendant to stop running and when he refused, the police chased him for a short distance. As 
officers closed in on rhe suspect, rhey observed him reaching towards his waisr, remove from 
his person then ross a gun into an adjacent yard. Officers foimd a silver-colored .22-caliber 
handgun under a parked car in tlie adjacent vard. The gun vvas in the lock-back position and 
had a spent shell casing left in the chamber. 

Although rhe defendant did not have an aduir record, he had a lengthy juvenile record 
(particulady for violence) and so the Commonwealth elected to pursue the Level I Armed Career 
Criminal enhancement wirh its minimum mandatory sentence. On June 6, 2006. the defendant 
pleaded guilt)' to the following charges and was sentenceti on each respectively: Pos.session of a 
Firearm (ACC-1), three years to three years and one day in state prison; Assault and Barter}' with 
a Dangerous Weapon, two years probation from and after the state prison sentence; Possession 
of Ammunition, guilty-filed. 

• Commonwealth v. Bradley (Brockton District Court) On March 5, 2006, members of 
the Brockton Police Departments Narcotics Unit were conducting undercover buys in the area 



103 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INMTIATIVE DIVISION 

of North Main Street in the Brockton SNI/W-'eed & Seed target area. When an undercover 
detective was approached by the defendant in this case, he told the defendant he was looking 
for a 'nventy" of crack cocaine. The defendant told him he could "hook him up' at which time 
the detective gave the defendant a marked $20 bill whereupon the defendant gave the detective 
for one rock of crack cocaine. Ihe defendant was then picked up by other officers who found 
the marked $20 bill on his person. The defendant was charged with Distribution of a Class B 
Substance in a School Zone. On June 19, 2006, the defendant pleaded guilty to Distribution 
of Class B Substance and on that charge was sentenced to one year in the House of Correction. 
The school zone charge was dismissed over the Commonwealth's objection after the court found 
that the building in question was a daycare center, not a school. 

SIGNIFICANT INH lATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

BROCKTON SN'l 

Under the leadership of the District Attorney's OflEice and with the full participation of the Attorney 
Ceneral's Ofihce, the Brockton SNI Advisory Council was integrated v^'ith the Campello Weed & Seed 
Site and continued to meet monthly to discuss communit}' concerns primarily related to crime and 
public safety. With rhe departure of the SNI community liaison part way through the last fiscal year, the 
Attorney Ceneral's Office and the Plymouth County District Attorneys Office deemed that placement 
of an SNI assistant attorney general in Brockton District Court would be the most advantageous 
resource to the Brockton SNI. In January a new SNI assistant attorney genera! comniunity prosecutor 
was assigned to Brockton District Court. 

DORCHESTER SNI 

The Dorchester SNI Advisory Council continued to meet the fourth Tuesday evening of each month 
to identif)' and address the most pressing public safety and quality-of-life issues including many that 
have consistently plagued the comjiiunity (e.g., youth violence, tiuancy, and a lack of job and training 
opportunities). Ihe Boston Police Department and other law enforcement partners focused primarily 
on "impact players" and qualit}'-of-life issues, while service providers focused on providing after-school 
programming offering recreational, educational, and job training programs. 

In order to bolster the capacity of communit)' agencies to address these issues, the Attorne)' Ceneral's 
Office allocated $2 1 4,908 of its Fiscal Year 2006 budget to 1 1 community-based agencies and the Boston 
Police Department for crime prevention initiatives in the SNI target area. An additional $5,000 from 
the Attorney Ceneral's Office's budget was allocated to provide funding to new Dorchester SNI partner 



104 



CRIMINAL RL'RFAi; ^AI h NM( . I IIU )KH( n )|) INITIATIVF, DIVISION 



agcncit'S serving the target area through a C()in|viitive RM* pn.cess. ( )ii hehallOt the I )«)ri.hesier SNI, 
rhe Arroruey (ieiieral's ( )triee apphecl Tor ,iiul was avv.mletl hy the |-.xeeutive ( )tlite of I'uMr S.ifety, 
the fourth and Hnal )'ear oFcoiuiiuiatioii tuiuiitig tor Doiehester WniiU atul family iVojett. Als(. on 
hehalf of Dorchester SNI partners, the Atiorne\- C ieiuial s Office appHed for and wa.s awarded federal 
juvenile Justice atul Oehnquency i^evention Act funding through the Kxetutivc Office of Puhhc Safety 
for the Dorchester Youth Development ( 'oHahorative. Both projects are descrihed in more detail at the 
end of this section. 

The SNI Division, with assistance from the Diversity Comrtiitree, planned and hosted a job-shadow 
day for teens from the Teen Center at St. Peter's, an SNI partner agency. Eighteen teens from the SNI 
target area spent a school vacation day at the Attorney (leneral's Office shadowing and interacting with 
staff representing diverse functions (inclutling the State Police) and from all five bureaus. 

The Dorchester SNI Assistant Attorne\' Cetteral worked on the most serious cases (e.g., shootings, 
home invasions, armed robber\% drug cases) arising out of the target area bound for superior court. 
She handled the prosecution of these cases and also worked closely with the officers of Boston Police 
Department, Area C- 1 1 (particularly the Drug Control Unit), advising them on legal issues throughout 

the investigation and charging phases of cases. 

CRQVE.jKALLS.Ni 

In October 2005, the Grove Hall Safe Neighborhood Initiative began its ninth \'ear as an officially 
recognized Weed & Seed Site as designated by the Department of justice, Executive Office for Weed 
& Seed. At that time, the Department of Justice, through the Attorney Generals Office, awarded 
S225,000 to the Citove Hall SNI/Bc^ston Weed &: Seed Site to support its activities centered on the 
four core Weed & Seed principles: (1) Law Enforcement; (2) Community Policing; (3) Neighborhood 
Restoration; and (4) Prevention, Intervention, and Treatment. The Attorney General provides in-kind 
grants administration and management for the Weed & Seed funds and sub-contracts all federal hinding 
to the Boston Police Department and communin'-based agencies serving the target area. 

This year, as in every year, the Citove Hall SNI/Boston Weed & Seed Site held seven Coordinating 
Council meetings and five cotiimunit}' meetings that were attended b\' do/ens of commimiry residents in 
addition to representatives from law en foi cement and prosecution, city and local government agencies, 
district court, ser\Mce providers, and fiiith-based organizations. Additionally, the Grove Hall SNI iissistani 
attorneys general and the detective unit for Area B-2 reinstituted monthh' meetings to review cases and 
share intelligence. The Grove Hall (and Dorchester) SNI assistant attorneys general also participated in 
the bi-weekly Boston Regional Intelligence Center meetings at Boston Police Department. 



105 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

ORANGE SNI 

The Orange SNI is a collaboration ol the Attorney General's Office and the Northwestern District 
Attorney's OFfice, with the Ibwn ot Orange, the Orange Police Department, community residents, 
educators, government agencies, and service providers. The Orange SNI Advisory Council met the 
third Tuesday of each month and continued working to address priority public salety and quality-of- 
life issues. 

The Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Orange District Court prosecuted criminal cases 
occurring in the Town of Orange and offenses committed by Orange residents in other towns in the 
courts jurisdiction. Her caseload primarily involved offenses including domestic violence and other 
assaults, breaking and entering, and substance abuse involving both alcohol and narcotics. She was 
frequently involved in probation surrenders and dangerousness hearings when appropriate. In addition, 
the community prosecutor participated in all Orange SNI Advisoiy Council meetings. 

TAUNTON SNI 

The Taunton SNI continued to focus on law enforcement, prevention, and neighborhood restoration 
through the activities of its sub-coimnittees and collateral activities (i.e.. Criminal Justice, Treatment 
and Prevention, Education, Neighborhood, Crisis Intervention Team, and a Comrnunit}' Crisis Spiritual 
Care Response Team). The City of Taunton plays the primary leadership role for the Tiunton SNI. 
SNI Division staff participate in monthly advisory council meetings and provide technical assistance 
to partner agencies as needed. In March 2006, the Taunton SNI celebrated 10 years of collaboration. 
During Fiscal Year 2006, the Taunton SNI continued its focus on public safety concerns at the Fairfax 
Gardens housing development (i.e., violence, drugs, lack of youth programming). SNI Jobs for Youth 
funds were used to employ one Taimton }'ourh at the Boys & Girls Club and two at the FairEix Gardens 
Community Center. 

On May 23, 2006, the Attorney General's Office in conjunction with the Bristol Count)' District 
Attorney's Office and the City of Taunton conducted a free count}'-wide educational program for 
seniors and service providers. The two and a half hour program held at the Taunton (Joimcil on Aging 
focused on topics related to fraud prevention. Seventy-eight area seniors and seven staff attended the 
program that was held at the Taunton Council on Aging. This program was one in a series of outreach 
programs and conferences co-sponsored by the Children, Youth and Community Division of the 
Attorney General's Office's Public Protection Bureau. The SNI Division was instrumental in bringing 
the program to launton and connecting the Attorney General's Office program planners with our 
'Taunton SNI community partners who helped plan and participated in the program. 



106 



CRIMINAI BLIRFAU SAH NFK ,1 1H( )RH( )()[) INITIA'T IV^ DIVISION 

LA WRENCE AND METHU EN WEED & SE ED SITES 

SNI staff represented rhe Atnuiiey General on the steering committees of both the 1 awrcnce .uicl 
Methuen Weed 6v' Seed sites, e.ich in irs fifth and final year as an officially recognized Weed and Seed sitt- 
as designated hs' the I'.S. Department of Iiisiite, ( oinmuint} ( apacitv Development Office. Moieover, 
the Attorney (Teneial's 0\}\ce Mii-iports the I awieiice and Miihiicn WVeti ^r Sceil cffoits through the 
[Movision of the Lawrence/Methnen Arlingtt)n Safe NeighborhootI bntiative Coinmunitv Prosecutor 
as described in the "Grants" section later in this report. 

SNIIOBSI-ORYOIJIH 

One of the major SNI Division efforts aitned at prevention and intervention is SNI lobs tor \outh. 
The program, which started in 1996, has grown from emplo\'ing 23 \'()iith in five commumties iti that 
year to employing more than 90 young people in 12 communities throughout the state in Fiscal Year 
2006. All jobs for Youth sites facilitate job placements for the youth during the school year, job skills 
development training (e.g., mock interviews, resume writing) as well as a variety of enrichment activities 
and commimity service projects. Fach site is described briefly below. 

• Boston: Fourteen \'Outh primarih' from Grove Hall and Dorchester SN! target areas svere 
employed through the Gity of Bostons Genters for Youth and Families. Fhe goal is to provide 
employment, hands-on training, safe-havens and adult support. Partnering with local businesses 
and agencies, Boston Genters for Youth and Families placed young people in a variet}' of positions, 
enabling them to learn skills related to entreprenein-ship, leadership, and civic responsibility. 
Placements included local communit)' centers, private businesses, and neighborhood social 
services agencies. 

• Brockton: The Old Golony YMCA just completed its tenth year as an SNT Jobs for Yout+i 
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. Fhe programs goal is to provide job 
opportunities, educational trainings, and recreational activities. This year the three teens, ages 
15 to 16, worked as program and fitness assistants at YMC^A facilities. 

• Chelsea: I'his \'eai marked the Git)' of Chelsea's tenth N'ear as an SNI Jobs for Youth site. 
This fiscal year, the program provided employment for four teens at the Chelsea Public Library 
and one at Chelsea Community Gable Television. The teetis also received training on resume 
writing and interviewing skills and planned a year-end group activin' with their families and 
supervisors. 



107 



CRIMINAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

• Holyoke: Holvoke's SNI Jobs for Youth program was administered by the leen Resource 
Project, which ser\'es youth from low-income neighborhoods, particularly in downtown Holyoke. 
The program promotes literacy skills, education, and responsible work behavior. Over the course 
of the )'ear five teens, ages 1 5 to 17, worked as youth readers and child care assistants at a local 
family shelter. In addition to readiiig to the children, the teens provided on-site homework help 
and computer assistance. 

• Methuen: Five teens, ages 15 to 16, participated in the Methuen SNI 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 in and for the Weed 
& Seed Site. The teens provided after-school homework assistance and activities for younger 
children at the safe haven and the teens also received more than 40 hours of computer and job 
skills training. 

• Lawrence: The Lawrence SNI Jobs for Youth was administered by Lawrence Community 
Works, Inc. Eight youth, ages 16 to 20, served as assistant instructors in dance, computer, 
music, and drama at the Movement Cit}' aher-school program. Youth staff attended weekly 
staff meetings and are involved in event planning and curriculum development. The teens also 
organized and hosted a year-end block party for more than 250 attendees. 

• Lynn: Lynn's program was administered by the City of Lyim's Office of Economic and 
Community Development and served disadvantaged and at-risk youth. During this fiscal year, 
the program employed nine teens who worked in various positions at after-school programs 
and communit}' arts programs. All teens took part in a four-week job-training program at the 
beginning of the year. 

• New Bedford: Eighteen at-risk and out-of-school New Bedford youth, ages 17 to 20, 
received CED classes, job skills training, and job placement assistance through the Universit)' 
ot Massachusetts/Dartmouth Division of Continuing Education. The goal of the program is to 
provide training and support lor youth to gain employment and to continue their education. 
Job placements were made in a variety of local businesses. 

• Orange: The Orange SNI Jobs for Youth program was developed through a collaboration 
among the 'Ibwn of Orange, the Franklin/Hampshire Career Center, the Department of Social 
Services, and several community organizations. Fhe Career Center managed the program and 
placed DSS-involved youth residing in the Town of Orange at worksites in town agencies and 
local non-profits. Program participanrs also participated in weekly job training and academic 



108 



CRIMINAl rURPAl- SAFF. NH<,HrU)RH(H>r> INIHATIVF t)IVISI()N 

support sessions. In this fiscal \v;ir, six \c)iitli p.irtici[>;itc-d in the piogr.un. 

• Springfield: The Sprint;ticld SNl jolis for ^outh program is .uhiiinistervd through ihc 
Caring I leahh Cx-ntcr and serves youtli From low income tamihes. I'he proj;iam provides youth 
with opportunities to increase their employabihty, self-estectn, and knowledge and skills in the 
area of health promotion. Four teens, ages 15 to 19. were emploved as Youth Health Liaisons 
during this fiseal year. They participated in delivering health education information, mcluding 
violence prevention, to other \'outh at local eommuint\' centers. As [)eer liealth educators. ihe\ 
also staffed the Health Center's Teen Health (Clinic. Because this program is based m a health- 
care facility, teens are exposed to a wide variety of health care and allied professions. 

• Taunton: Six neens, ages 16 to 17, were placed through the Taunton Departtneiu of Human 
Services during this fi.scal year. The youth were assigned to various agencies, including the Boys 
& Cirls Club of Taunton, the Cit\' ol launtons law Department, the Taunton Department 
of Human Services, and the Community Center at the Fairfiix Cardeirs housing development. 
The program's goal is to provide employment and educational opportunities to youth to build 
skills and future emplo}'ment capabilit)'. 

• Worcester: The Worcester SNl Jobs for Youth program is run by Tride Productions, Inc., 
which seeks to empower at-risk youth in the Worcester area through the development of skills 
with the use of media and technology. A total of 30 teens, ages 14 to 17, from all six Worcester 
high schools, developed and produced all aspects of a cable access television show highlighting 
local youth-focused events. 

On Februar)' 7, 2006, the SNl T^ivision hosted a meeting in Worcester for all Jobs for Youth program 
site coordinators. The purpose of the event was to review program administration requirements and 
provide an opportunity for coordinators froin across the Cotnmonwealth to network and learn about 
one anothers programs. Based on a request from coordinators the previous )'ear, Assistant Attorney 
Ceneral Pain Hunt provided meeting attendees with an inforniiil overview of CORI statutes relevant 
to those that employ and advocate for youth. 

On May 1 1 , 2006, approximately 100 youth, progratn coordinators, and employers from 1 I ot the 
1 2 SNl Jobs for Youth sites attended a recognition event at the Attorney CicneraTs Office. In addition to 
their achievements being recogni/x-d by the Attorney ( General, the purpose of the event was to provide 
program participants the opportunity to meet and talk with teetis from other sites about issues related 
to work and their experietices as youth. Certificates of completion were awarded to each participant. 



109 



CRIMINAL BURF.AU SAFE NBKiHBORHOOD INITIATIVE DIVISION 

GRANT S 

• Dorchester SNI Youth and Family Project: Fiscal Year 2006 marked the fourth and rinal 
year of the Dorchester Youth and Family Project which complemented the ongoing efforts of 
the Dorchester SNI by providing hinding for prevention and intervention services lor diverse 
youth in the SNI target area. 1 he Attorney General's Oflke was awarded Byrne Memorial 
Grant funding through the Executive Ofhce of Public Safety in the amount of $83,323.55. All 
funds were sub-granucd to five Dorchester SNI community partners to support programming 
to coordinate enrichment and recreational activities for youth. Byrne handing also supported 
training for police academy recruits on issues related to child witnesses to violence and expanded 
therapeutic resources for adolescent witnesses to violence. The sub-grantees contributed the 
required 75% hard-cash matching hmds for this project. 

• Lawrence/ Methuen Arlington Safe Neighborhood Initiative Community Prosecutor: Since 
r^ecember 2003, with a Byrne Memorial Grant through the Executive Office of Public Safety, an 
Assistant Attorney General has been assigned to the Essex County District Attorneys Office in 
the Lawrence District Court to provide a community prosecution component to the Lawrence 
and N'lethuen Weed St Seed initiatives. Fhe SNI community prosecutor maintains a caseload 
consisting primarily of narcotics, firearms, and priority quality-of-life offenses arising from the 
Weed &: Seed target area — the Arlington neighborhood that spans the cities of Lawrence and 
Methuen. The community prosecutor continued to improve coordination and communication 
between law enforcement and the community through regular participation in numerous public 
safety and community meetings and events in both cities and in the region (e.g., MAN, Inc., 
meetings in Methuen, the North Shore regional law enforcement "gang" meetings, etc.). 'Fhe 
Attorney General's Office was awarded $14,997.62 for the project this \'ear and contributed 
the required 75% hard-cash matching funds. This fiscal year was the fourth and final year of 
Byrne funding for this project. 

• Dorchester Youth Development Collaborative: On behalf of five Dorchester SNI 
partner agencies, the SNI Division applied for and was awarded $100,589 in Juvenile Justice 
Delinquency Act Prevention grant funds from the Executive Office of Public Safety to implement 
the Dorchester Youth LX'velopment Collaborative. The project seeks to reduce and prevent 
delinquency through after school and summer programming for 250 youth, ages 6 to 17, 
residing in the Dorchester SNI target area. Services included academic tutoring, recreational 
activities, cotmseling, and life skills workshops, with a focus on specific populations of youth. 
In June, the Attorney General's Office was invited to apply for a second )'ear of funding. 

• Supporting the Boston Re-Entry Initiative: The Attorney Getieral s Office cominued our 



110 



CRIMIXAI Bl'Rl Al. SAFF NFK.HIM )I<| ic n )l) INITIATIVF. OIVISION 



coinmitiiKiii to rc-ctury .is first cl(.'m(iiisii,itt\l Uv our .Klmiiiisti.iiioii ot (out vcits of Hymc 
Funding for the SNI ( oiiiimmity Rc-Eiury Pilot Project which ended in Fiscal Year 2()0S. In 
Fiscal Year 2000. the Atronicx- C.cneials Office dedicated S2S.0()0 from its own budget to the 
Bostdii RcKiUry Initiative (iUvi) of the Boston Police Dep.irtinent .ind the .Suffolk (j)unty 
.Sheriff '.s nepartinent. Ihese much-needed funds helped the BKI p.i\' for the inetitonni; and 
case man.igenieiit cotnponenis which are sc» vital to the BRI. 



OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND FRAININC 



The philosoph)- oi the .*sNI is piedicated oti law enforcement partnei ing with communits' stakeholders 
to enh.ince public safet\' and qualit\ -ol-life for neighborhoods. As sudu all .SNI staff regularlv p.ntiLipaie 
in fonnal 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 a.ssistance and training — both 
formal and inh)rmal to other law cnhircerneiu and commimity partneis. Manv of the SNI Divisions 
oufieach, education, and training activities are described in the previous sections of this leport; three 
that are not, are described below. 

• Abandoned Housing Initiative: The Abandoned Housing Initiative is a cross-buieau 
initiative coordinated by program staff from the SNI Division with legal staff from the 
Government Bureaus Trial Division and investigators from the Public Protection Bureau's 
Investigations Division. The initiative is one strategy and resource of the Attorney Cicneral's 
Office originaJly developed in respon.se to concerns expressed by SNI commimity residents 
many years ago to the Attorney General's Office regarding public safety and health risks posed 
by dilapidated abandoned residential properties in otherwise viable neighborhootls. 1 he 
purpose of the initiative is to assist cities and towns in ridding their neighborhoods of blighted 
residential properties by utilizing the receivership provisions of the state sanitary code to effect 
the rehabilitation of these properties. In most instances, communications from the Arrorney 
(lenerals Office have resulted in individuals taking voluntary action to bring properties into 
compliance with sanitary codes. In a few instances, the Atiorne)' ( ieneral's ( )ffice has petitionetl 
the court to appoint receivers. 

The initiative continued its successful efforts in Fiscal Year 2006. On July 13, 2005, the 
Attorney General and Mayor Menino of Boston held an event at 20 Claybourne Street in 
the Four Corners neighborhood located in the Dorchester SNI target area. Ihe purpose of 
the event was to recognize the collaboration that resulted in the successful rehabilit.ition .md 



HI 



CR1.N4INAL BUREAU SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD INiTiATlVE DIVISION 

occupiancy of a rvvo-Family house at this address. The property had stood vacant tor a nuniber 
of years. In the summer of 2003, neighbors were worried about the safety of their children and 
quality of their neighborhood. The city of Boston referred the property' to the project. The 
Attorney General's Office exhausted every avenue to find anyone with a claim of ownership for 
the property however no one came forward. Upon petition of the Attorney Generals Office, 
the court appointed a receiver who was a builder and housing advocate. He rebuilt the house 
renting the two apartments to tamilies on housing assistance subsidies. The first floor was made 
accessible for the tenant whose two children had special needs. 

The Abandoned Housing Initiative, with the City of Holyoke, co-sponsored a seminar in 
Hoiyoke for local landlords. The purpose of the seminar was to convey landlords' rights and 
responsibilities and to encourage upkeep of property in compliance with health and safety codes. 
At the close of this fiscal year, plans were underway for a similar seminar in New Bedford to 
take place in the fiill. 

• McLaughlin Center Partnership: With Byrne funding obtained in Fiscal Year 2001, the 
SNI Division implemented The YES Project which established a formal partnership between the 
Attorney General's Office and the Colonel Daniel .Vlarr Boys and Girls Club/Paul R. McLaughlin 
Youth Center in Dorchester. Attorney General's Office staff tutored children, taught classes, 
and provided training on a variety of topics for both staff and children. Although funding for 
The YES Project ceased in Fiscal Year 2004, the SNI Division has continued to facilitate a 
connection between the Attorney General's Office and the McLaughlin Center. During Fiscal 
Year 2006, twelve Attorney General's Office staff volunteered as weekly tutors or pre-school 
readers. Attorney General's Office staff donated more than 400 toys to the Center's holiday toy 
drive. The McLaughlin Center was named lor Assistant Attorney General Paul R. McLaughlin, 
who vv^as gunned down in 1995 by a detendant he was about to bring to trial. The Office's 
continued commitment to volunteerism at the youth center that bears his name is a testament 
to Paul McLaughlin's memory. 

• Citizen Schools: Seventeen Attorney General's Office staff members volunteered for the 
2005-2006 school year C-itizen Schools Eighth Grade Academy, which pairs at-risk eighth-grade 
students from Boston with an adult coach/mentor to improve the student's writing skills and 
help them better prepare for high school. Eighth Grade Academy programs are held at several 
law firms throughout Boston. Volunteers and students met every other week for two hours to 
work on a variet}' of essays, which culminated in the publication of a magazine filled with the 
students' writing. An SNi programs coordinator and another C'riminal Bureau staff member 
co-facilitated the Attorney General's Office's involvement in this program. 

112 



CRIMINAL BURFAU VICTIM/WITNFSS ASSISTANCK DIVISION 

VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

The Victim/Witness Assistance Division ( "VWAn") was cicvclo|x\l ro meet the following g«)als: ( I ) 
to provide crisis assessment and intervetition tocriitie victims rind witnesses to fat iliiaie their emotional, 
psychological, physical and HnaiKia! recovery iVotn victimization; (2) to reilucc the level of secondary 
victimization associated with victims' and witnesses' involvement in the ciiminil 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 (C;.I.. 
c. 2S8B). Victim/Witness Advocates provide victim advocacy, witness managemeni and tonsuhation 
to the following divisions in the Criminal Bureau: (I) Appeals; (2) Corruption, Fraud, and (>)m[iuier 
Crime; (3) Criminal Justice Policy; (4) Ettvironrnenral Crimes Strike Force; (5) Financial Investigations; 
(6) Insurance and Unemployment Fraud; (7) Special Investigations and Narcotics; (8) the State Police 
Detective Unit; and (*■)) the Victim Compensation and /'Vssistance Division. 

Victim/Witness Advocates are occasionally assigned to proseciuions in other bureaus of the Office 
when the prosecutor identifies the need for victim/witness services. Ihe nature ol these causes 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 
typically involve cases of violent crime. The Victim/Witness Assistance Division, in an effort to build 
community partnerships and to address victim issues identified as mandated priorities of Attorney 
Ceneral Tom Reilly, participates in a number of initiatives relating to children, safety in our schools, 
elders, fraud, health care, high tech and computer crime, domestic violence and sexual assault, diversity, 
criminal justice policy and curative legislation. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, VWAD was staffed b\' Director Kath\- Morrisse\' .md \'ictim/ Witness 
Advocate Elizabeth DiMarzio. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

Six cases of particular note illustrate a significant commitment by Attorne) Ceneral Tom Reilly to 
the delivery of victim/witness assistance services. 

CORRUPTION, FRAUD. AND COMPUTER CRIME DIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. Ai Mondel (Middlesex Superior Court) On November 7, 2005, a jury- 
waived trial began before judge Paul Chernoff. On November 9, after testimon\- had begun. 



113 



CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

the defendant changed his mind and tended a guilty plea. The defendant pleaded guilty to 
12 counts oF Unauthorized Practice of Law and 12 counts ot Larceny by False Pretenses. The 
judge accepted his plea and sentencing was continued to December 28, 2005. 

The defendant was nor a licensed attorney and, over the course of four years, represented 
himself as an attorney and falsely assured immigrants that he could assist them in obtaining 
green cards, work permits, and political asyliuii. He operated the International Institute for 
African Caribbeans, Inc. He had offices in Somerville, Cambridge and Lowell. When Mondel 
met with the victims, he represented himself as an attorney and demanded payment from them 
stating he needed it to obtain necessary documentation forms from the INS. Payment was given 
to Mondel with the understanding that he would assist the victims. Mondel never followed 
through with his promises and did not return the victims' calls; attempts to ineer with him were 
unsuccessRd. Mondel defrauded several thousand dollars from his victims. 

Kathy Morrissey and Elizabeth DiMarzio were both assigned to the Mondel case to provide 
victim advocacy to 17 victims. \Mctim/witness services included: crisis counseling due to the 
sensitivity and vulnerabilit}' of victims; coordinating trial preparation meetings; sitting in on the 
interviews; notification of case status to victims as well as courtesy contact to respective attorneys; 
court accompaniiTient as well as securing a safe waitijig area; and advising the victims of their 
rights under the Victim Bill of Rights (c. 258B). In addition, they handled travel arrangements 
and coordinating interpreter services for both trial preparation sessions and court testimony. 
Elizabeth DiMarzio also assisted in providing translation at interviews lor the Portuguese- 
speaking victims. 

On December 28, 2005, the defendant did not appear for sentencing. Judge Chernoff 
ordered a default warram. Several victims appeared at this hearing to address the court and to 
present Victim Impact Statements. 

• Commonwealth v. Neil Cola (Suffolk Supierior Court) On L^ecember 21, 200^, the 
defendant, Neil Cola, a now-disbarred attorney, pleaded guilty before Judge Carol B;dl to three 
coimts of Larceny Over $250 and five counts of Failure to File Tax Returns. Judge Ball sentenced 
him to two years in the House of Correction with 15 months to serve to be followed by five 
years of probation. As part of his sentence, Cola must also file tax returns and pay restitution 
in the amount of $87,000. 71ie larceny charges resulted from the defendant's stealing funds 
from three elderly women and/or their estates. The Client Security Board made all but one 
victim whole. 



114 



CRIMINlAl BURFAU VKTIM/WITNFSS ASSISTANCF. DIVISION 

Di\ision st.itt piovklcJ hoth victim iuKocRv .i\n\ wiiiicss tiKiiiagciiictii on tlif ( 'ol.i case. 
Services included: ongoing notiHc.uion of case si.uiis to the victims, tlieii respective attortiev.s. 
iind witnesses; assistance with completing victim impact statements; court accompaniment; 
consultation with the C.iient Seciuity i^oard; and crisis counseling with one victim after .i lien 
was placed on the title to her mothers house .is a lesuli oCilic lU-rciulani's actions. 

• Commonwealth v. Sean Galvez (SulTolk Superior ( "ouri) ( )n Mav 26, 2()(K). the delendant. 
Sean Galvez, pleaded guilty to 10 counts ofldeiuity hraud, 10 counts oll'tiauthori/ed Access, 
and one count of Larceny by Single Scheme before Judge (^arol Ball. The defendant was 
sentenced to two and one-halt years in the House of Correction, suspended for three vcars. 
The defendant was also ordered: to perform 200 hours of community service; to maintain full- 
time school and/or employment: to piovide a DNA sample; aiul to pa\- a $90 Victim Witness 
Assessment Fee. 

The defendant gained access to over 40 eBay accoiuns, changed the victims' passwords and 
obtained credit card information. The defendant used the credit card information to make 
personal purchases. After several inquiries to eBay by the victims claiming they were having 
difficult)' obtaining their information, eBay reset their passwords atui the customers discovered 
that there were unauthorized transactions made using their credit card information, (jalvez 
was found to have made purchases totalitig over S32,000 in gift certificates; S8,000 of the 
merchandise was purchased on Halhcom. 

Elizabeth DiMarzio was assigned to the Galvez case to provide victim advocac\- to the 
victims of Identity Fraud. Victim/Witness services included: ongoing notification of c;Lse status; 
assistance with completing victim impact statements; and advising the victims of their rights 
under the Victim Bill of Rights (c. 258B). 

• Conunonvvealth v. Douglas Hennessey (Suffolk Superior Court) On May 22, 2006, a 
jury found the defendant, an MBTA police officer, guilty of one count <if Filing a False Report 
and one count of Violation of Civil Rights with Bodily Injury. The delendant was indicted for 
beating an intoxicated person he had placed in protective custody at the Forest Hills station. 

On May 3 1 , 2006, the defendant was setitenced before jutlge Stephen Neel to four years of 
probation (first year on house arrest). The defendant was ordered not to serve as a police officer or 
security officer. Ihe defendant was further ordered to perform 1 00 hours of commimity service 
and to attend anger management classes for filing a fiilse report. Additionally, the defendant 



US 



CRIMINAL Bl'RF,AU VICTIM/WITN'ESS ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

vs'as sentenced ro two years of probation for the Violation of Civil Rights with Bodily Injury- 
charge. 

Elizabeth DiMarzio was assigned to the Hennessey case to provide victim advocacy to the 
assault victim. Victim sen'ices included: notification of the case status; assistance with the 
victim impact statement; and advising the victim ot his rights under the Victim Bill of Rights (c. 
258B). Additionally, Elizabeth provided witness management. Witness managemeni services 
included: coordinating trial preparation meetings and sitting in on inrerviev^'s with witnesses. 
Elizabeth consulted with the prosecution team on a daily basis to address witness issues and 
updated witnesses on call. 

MEDICAID FR.UTD CCONTROL UNIT 

• Commonwealth v. Bernadette Stackpole (Norfolk. Superior Court) On February 7, 
2006, the defendant, Bernadette Stackpole, pleaded guilt)' to five counts of Assault and Battery 
and five counts of Patient Abuse before Judge Charles Grabau. On February 21, 2006, Judge 
Crabau sentenced the defendant to six months in the House of Correction on the five Assault 
and Battery charges to be suspended for five years with probation. The defendant also received 
two years in the House of Correction for the Patient Abuse charges to be suspended for five years 
with probation. The defendant was barred from working in any facility treating individuals of 
any age with mental or physical disabilities. Both sentences will be served concurrently. 

The Stackpole case was a particularly egregious example of patient abuse. The defendant 
was a former certified nursing assistant at the Franklin Skilled Nursing Fiome and Rehabilitation 
Cen.ter. The victims were Alzheimer's and dementia patients under her care: a 75-year-old man, 
a 77-year-old man, an 86-year-old man and a then- 105-year-old woman. Fhe woman, now 
106 years old, is the sole surviving victim. The defendant, allegedly, twisted the men's testicles, 
hit at least one man over the head with a hairbrush so hard he bled, and aggressively picked 
the 105-year-old woman up off a bed by her ankles, prompting her to cry out she was going to 
die. 

Kathy Morrissey provided cross-bureau coverage; specifically, victim advocacy and witness 
management on this case. Fhe victijiis' family members were consulted at length about the 
status of the investigation and prosecution and their thoughts and feelings in completing victim 
impact statements. Court accompaniment was provided to family members who chose to attend 
the sentencing hearing. 



CRIMINAL. BDRFAL; VK. I IM/\XII NKSS ASS|srAN(> f)IVISI()\ 

SPHCIAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NARCOTICS IJIVISION 

• Commonwealth v. James Nolan (Suftolk Su|K'ri()r (^ouri) ( )ii Iuir- 19, 2006, tlu- ri-iri.il 
otjaines Nolan began before Judge Patrick Brady. The defendant was found guilty on June 27. 
2006, of Assault with Intent to Kill, Assault and Battery with a I )angerous Weapon, and Assault 
and Battery on a Police (Officer. ( )n June 28, 2006, Judge Brady sentenced the defendant on 
As.saulr with Intent to Kill to four to five years, committed. MCI ('edar Junction; on the A-ssault 
and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon to four lo five years MCM Odar Junction, Lottimitted. 
concurrent with the Assault with Intent to Kill; and on the Assault and Battery on a Police 
Officer, to two and one-half years in the House of Correction, suspended for two years with 
drug treatment and an order to refrain from drug use and to maintain employment. (In a 
separate jury trial in Suffolk Superior Coiur, on \4arch 24, 2006, the defendant was convicted 
of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition, and Possession of a 
Class D Substance. On April 7, 2006, the defendant was senteticed to one year in the House 
of Correction and one year concurrent, and two years of probation, from and alter.) 

The defendant, James A. Nolan, was arrested on February 11, 2004, after shooting a 
Boston Police Officer during the execution of a search warrant at the defendant's apartment. 
1 he Boston Police Departments Entry Team was assisting the Attornc)' (ienerals State Police 
Detective Unit in a high-risk einry. On April 7, 2004, the defendant was arraigned in Suffolk 
Superior Court on the following charges: (1) Possession of a Dangerous Weapon; (2) Assault 
and Battery on a Public Servant; (3) Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon; (4) Armed 
Assault with Intent to Murder; (3) Possession of a Dangerous Weapon; and (6) Possession with 
Intent ro Distribute Class D Substance in School/Park Zone. 

Kathy Morrissey was assigned to the Nolan case in September 2004, to provide victim 
advocacy assistance to the Boston Police OlTicer who was the victim of the shooting. Kathy 
Morrissey also provided witness services and court accompaniment to the victim and witne.sses 
at both trials and worked v^'ith the victim as he completed a victim impa«.t statement. She also 
worked with a number of key witnesses placed on call during both trials, including the attending 
physician from the Emergeno' Department at Boston Medical Center and a host of witne.sses 
from the Boston Police Department and the Massachusetts State Police. 



117 



CRIMINAL BL'REAU VICTIM/WITNTSS ASSISTANCE DIVISION 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2006, die Victim/Witness Assistance Division provided sen.'ices to a high volume 
of victims and witnesses. Victim advocaq' and witness management ser\'ices were provided by the 
division on 27 cases across the Conimonwealth. (This total includes two cases — White and Nolan 
— each of which involved two lengthy trials.) The case breakdown is as follows: 

REFERRAL SOURCE NUMBER OF CASES 

Appeals Division 5 

Corruption, Fraud, and Computer Crime Division 15 

Special Investigations and Narcotics Division 3 

Medicaid Fraud Control Unit 1 

Oiminal Justice Policy Division 2 

Conflict Cases 1 

TOTAL 27 

SIGNIFICANT INITLATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

I'he 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 2006, the division engaged in nimierous outreach efforts, participated in 
community activities, and attended training classes inside and outside of the Office of the Attotney 
General, including: 



CRIMINAI RLIRFAl.' Mi I IMt ()MI4\S,VII( )N AM) ASSISTANCF DIVISION 

• ArrtnJcdbiMn()nthl\ inctiiiigs«)f tlK-Viaiiiiuul Witness A>sisi.niCLB().irtlcliaircill)v Attorney 
Cicncral loni RcilK", 

• Attended Statewide V'ictiiu/W'iincss DireLtcws iiKvtint; sponsoied In tin- M.is.sathiisttis Distiitt 
Attorneys Association; 

• Served as the Attorney Ckneral Liaison at hi-niontlily meetings oFtlic Boston Area Sexual Assault 
Coalition at Massachusetts Cieneral Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical ("enter; 

• Attended the Annual Victim ixighrs Conference in April 20()(\ sponsored by the Massachn.setts 
Office for Victim Assistance, the Victim and Witness Assistance Board, Attornev ( icncral Tom 
Reilly, and the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association. I'lie tlivision diretior served xs a 
gieeter at the opening ceremony; 

• Attended 1 5 educational training seminars across the Commonwealth relating to victim/witness 

issues; 

• Attended die Fourdi Annual Victim Witness Advocate Conference sponsored b\' the Massachirsctts 
District Attorneys Association and the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance; 

• Attended Employers Against Domestic Violence (EADV) busine.ss meetings as an Artorncy 
General Liaison. EADV is a non-profit membership organization uniting Massachusetts 
Employers with experts in the field of domestic and workplace violence prevention; 

• Represented the Attorney General at a Stare Llouse hearing sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, 
Bisexual and I'ransgender commimity to address issues oi domestic violence and housing 
resources for GLBT domestic violence sinvivors; and 

• Consulted with the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance as a member of the Victim Rights 
Law Project Working (iroup to propose amendments to enhance the Victim Bill of Rights (G.L. 

c. 258B). 

VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

The Victim Compensation and Assistance Division provides financial compensation, relerrals and 
other assistance to victims of violent crimes. Most significantly, it assists eligible victims and their 
families in paying for out-of-pocket medical expenses, lost wages, and fijneral expenses, as well as mental 
health counseling and other crime-related expenses. Since 1994, the division has assiuned legal and 
administrative responsibility for receiving, investigating and making determinations on all compensation 
claims in accordance with the requirements of G.L. c. 258C. Previously, compensation claims were 
determined through a litigation-based process in the district courts. In addition, in 2002, the Office 

119 



CRIMINAL. BL'RF.AL; VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

of the Attorney Genetiil assumed responsibility tor payment ol: claims, taking over that responsibility 
from the State Treasurers Office. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the division continued to have staff turnover, but was fully staffed at 
the end of the fiscal year. Division staff included: Deborah Fogarty, Director; Sandra Clark, Deputy 
Director; Robert Black; F.lizaberh Desmond; Megan Foster; Flrica Johnson; Fim Miranda; Gadyflor 
Nicoias-St.Clair; Annie Price; Christopher Shen; and Tracy Wetterlow. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

CLAIM INFORMATION TOTAL # CLAIMS 

New ("laims Received 1 ,323 

New Claims Opened 1,158 

Supplemental Claims Op^ened 986 

Administrative Review 88 

Decision Affirmed 58 

Modified or Reversed 25 

Late File 3 

Pending Decision 2 

Judicial Review 7 

Homicide Claims 230 

Domestic Violence 169 

DUI/MVH-DUI 51 

In Fiscal Year 2006, the Victim Compensation and Assistance Division received 1 ,323 new claims. 
This represents an increase from the 1,247 new claims received in Fiscal Year 2005. During Fiscal Year 

120 



CRIMlNiAl Bl'RFAl,' VICTIM COMI'hNSAI ION AND ASSiSTANCiF. DIVISION 

2006 the division received 230 homicide (.l.iiins, lepreseiuiiig an inere.ise over ihe 210 el. inns received 
in Fiscal Year 200S. This figure includes 11 homicides related to domestic violence. Ihe division 
received 16^) claims for other domestic violence related crimes that include assault, stalking, sexu.U 
assault and kitlnapping. This ropreseius a decrease Irom the 1K7 domestic violence related claims in 
Fiscal Year 200'^. The division contiiuied to work on claims suhmitied 1>\ f'amil\ memhers ofvioims 
of the September 1 1, 2001, attacks and awarded S6,S0O on three claims in Fiscal Year 2006. 

RXPENDITURES 

During this fiscal year, the total compensation awarded to victims was $3,260,90 1.10. Approximately 
S2.1 million came from stare funds, and the remainder from federal funds. I'his represents an increase 
in awards of approximately 3% over Fiscal Year 2004 awards. Fhis is the eleveiuh consecutive \'ear in 
which the division had adequate fiuiding to support expenditures. 

PROGRAM EVALUATION 

An applicant survey is sent to each claimant with award letters. The division received 459 completed 
sinve\'s from claimants. The surveys were overwhelmingly positive, with approximately 88% of 
claimants agreeing or strongly agreeing that the application was easy to complete, the letters were easy 
to understand, they were treated resp'jectfully by division staflf, their phone calls were returned promptly, 
and they were satisfied with rhe amount of time ir took ro process their claim. 



SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

The Victim Compensation Division applied for and was awarded an atuiual grant for Federal Fiscal 
Year 2006 from the Department of Justice through Victims of Crime Act Funds t VOCA) in the amount 
of $1,141,000. 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 $1,312,000. 

Federal Fiscal Year 2005 was a competitive grant year for Department of Justice Violence Against 
Women Act (VAWA) Iimding through the Executive Office of Public Safety The division had received a 
VAWA grant in Federal Fisc.il Year 2002 to fund a Specialized Investigator/Advocate position to provide 
specialized services to domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking victims who seek compensation 
ser\-ices. The division received a continuation grant in federal Fiscd Year 2003, and in federal Fiscal Year 
2004 received an 1 1% reduction in the continuation grant. The division had submitted an application 
on June 30, 2005, for a Federal Fiscal Year 2005 grant ro continue the Specialized Investigator/Advocate 
program but did nor receive an award. I'niike the fust grant cycle where Victim C\>mpensafion was 
a separate purpose area, the division had to apply for funding under the Victun Services purpose area 

121 



CRIMINAL BUREAU VICTIM COMPENSATION AND ASSISTANCE DIVISION 

where rhere was incense compeTirion for reduced VAWA funds. The VAWA funds had paid a portion 
of the salary of the SpeciaUzed Investigator Advocate position staffed by EHzabeth Desmond. When 
the division was not awarded the grant, the Office continued to fund this position. 

FEDERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 

The division submitted its annual (.Certification Report, Annual Performance Report, and all 
Quarterh' Financial Reports to the Deparinient of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime for the Victims 
of Crime Act. Quarterly reports were submitted through September 30, 2003, to the Executive Office 
of Public Safety for the grant under the Violence Against Women Act. Accounting problems were 
resolved and quarterly financial reports were submitted with the VAWA performance reports. The 2004 
Annual Progress Report for the Violence Against Women Act grant was submitted on September 23, 
2005, and the 2005 Annual Progress Report was submitted on Febrtjar)' I, 2006. 

AUTOMATION 

Victim Compensation staff continued to work with the Genoa Group in Colorado to trouble shoot 
problems with the victim compensation software (CCVC). The CCVC Software license and annual 
support contract was renewed for Fiscal Year 2006. Overall the division is pleased with the ease and 
efficiency'- of the compensation sofrware. 

DIVISION MATERIALS 

Using funding available from the VOCA grant, the division reprinted the 'palm' cards that contain 
information about the Victim Compensation program. The cards include division contact information 
as v.'e!l as the Domestic Violence Safelink 24-Hour Hotline number. The division routinely includes 
the palm cards in the materials distributed during trainings, and provide them to police officers to give 
to victims at first response. 

Ilie division created a new PowerPoint presentation for large group presentations, and distributes 
copies ot the presentation at all training opportunities. 



OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Outreach and training about the compensation program and its benefits stalled in Fiscal Year 2006 
with the departure of the Advocate/Outreach Coordinator in October 2003. However, staft" continued 
to provide outreach to service providers and to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking, 
and collaborated with the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance to do a presentation for the Boston 



122 



CRIMINAL BUREAl' VICTIM ( OMI'LNSAI l( )N AND ASMS TANClt DIVISION 

Police Ac.ulciin'. Now Atlvoc.itc/C )iitiv.Kh C ".()()n.lin.U()i Annie I'l ice li.is clone si^nitic.int outreach sinee 
joining the Division in May 2()()6. Victim ("ompeiisation training was proviileil to: 

• Administiatoisof VOCIA Fiincled Program and 1 )riink I )riving Prtist liind programs sponsored 
by the Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance; 

• Northeastern University Domestic Violence I. aw (!linic and South ("oast legal Services in 
Brockton; 

• Norfolk, Essex and Suffolk District Attorneys' Offices, Norfolk (!hild Advocacy Center, and 
SAFEPLAN domestic violence advocates; 

• Northeast and Southeast Legislative Breakfiists sponsored by the Massachusetts Office for Victim 
Assistance; 

• New Hope, Women's Place, Finex House, Voices of Violence, South Shore Women's Center, 
YMCA of Lawrence, Trauma Intervention Center, Wiyside Family Services, Communit)- 
Healthlink, Dianna DeVanna Center; 

• Asian Tisk Force on Domestic Violence, Peace Institute in Boston, Boston Public Health 
Commission. 

Division staff also represented the Attorney General at a number of committee meetings throughout 
Fiscal Year 2006. These included: 

Executive Office of Public Safety VAWA Advisory Committee; 

Norfolk DA's Childreii's Advocacy Center Advisory Board; 

MO'VA "Victim Witness Assistance Board; 

State "Victim Assistance Academy (SVAA) Steering Committee; 

Employers Against Domestic Violence; 

MOVA Victim Rights Planning Committee; 

911 Communities of Care; 

Boston Area Sexual Assault Coalition. 

Division staff participated on the Attorney General's Office Diversity Committee and in the tutoring 
program at the Paul McLaughlin Youth Center. 

In addition, staff attended the National Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards annual 
conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico and the regioiKil conference in Savannah, Georgia, the MDAA/ 



123 



CRIMINAL. BI.IREAU STATE POLICE DETECTIVE EJiIVlSION 

MOVA Annual Advocate Conference, AG Insrirute presentations, and MOVA regional trainings in 
Plymouth and Andover. The division also held an in-service training on Mental Health Issues with 
DMH Assistant Commissioner of Forensic Ndental Health Robert Kinscherff 

STATE POLICE DETECTIVE DIVISION 

The State Police has a division of experienced detectives assigned to the Attorney Generals Criminal 
Bureau. At the end of Fiscal Year 2006, the division was comprised of 28 State Police officers. Five 
of these officers were assigned to the .Attorney Generafs Springfield Office, while the remaining 23 
officers were located in Boston. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the commanding officer of the State Police Detective Division was Captain 
Stephen Matthews. Lieutenant Francis Matthews served as the Executive Officer, and Stacey Glynn 
provided support to the division. 

The State Police Detective Division is comprised of three units: the ^Tiite Collar Crime Unit; the 
Drug Unit; and the Springfield Unit. 

WmiECOLMROIMEUNIJ 

The ^-liite Collar Crime Unit has two troopers that focus solely on computer crime: Stephen 
Fennessey and Matthew Murphy. These troopers have received specialized training in computer torensics 
and investigations and, with a civilian computer forensics investigator assigned to the Corruption, Fraud, 
and Computer Crime Division, maintain a state-of-the-art computer forensics lab in the Criminal 
Bureau. Ihey also work closely with the stale's Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force 
and with a number ol local, regional and federal computer crimes investigators and task forces. 

Cases investigated b}' the NX'liire Collar Crime Unit during Fiscal Year 2006 involved a wide array 
of allegations including larceny, briber}', credit card fraud, securities fraud, bid rigging, false claims 
against the Commonwealth, procurement fraud, identity theft, home improvement contractor fraud, 
failure to obtain a professional license, perjury, possession of child pornography, dissemination of child 
pornography, and unauthorized access to a computer. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the White Collar Crime Unit was supervised by Lieutenant Dermot Quinn 
and included: Sergeant Kevin Kiley and Troopers Michael Ahern; Michael Farley; Stephen Fennessy; 
Christopher Foglietra; Michael Krupwich; Katrina Mazzie; Elvin Morales; John Morris; Matthew 
iMurphy; Carla Pivero; and Mark Walsh. This unit works closely with the Criminal Bureaus civilian 
investigators and A,ssistanr Attorneys General, particularly those assigned to the Corruption, Fraud, and 

124 



CRIMINAL BURFAU STATF. Pdl ICF DFTF.CnVF DIVISION 

Computer Crime and the liisur.iiKc .ukI DiKiuplcn iiunt It.hkI Divisions. Irooptrs .issii^ntd in the 
WTiitc C!ollar C^ime Unit often work closely with lo(..il, si.itc .iiul teder.il law eiiforeemeni oHkers and 
investigators in other agencies such as the Federal Bureau ofinvcsrigation, the 1-cderal Department of 
I abor, the Federal Department of Transportation, the United States j'ostal Service, the Secret Service, 
the State Auditor's OHue, the State Inspetioi Cenerals Oflice, and the Siate Division of" I'rotessional 
licensure. 

DRUG UNIT 

The Stare Police Drug Unit focuses on proactive investigations of ongoing criminal enterprises and 
organizations such as drug trafficking networks and traditional and non-traditional organized crime 
operations. The unit relies heavily on undercover operations as well as physical and electronic surveillance 
and information provided by cooperating defendants and informatus. Prosecutions resulting from the 
units investigations most often include charges of drug trafficking, drug distribution, firearms offenses, 
extortion, loansharking, and gaming. 

Troopers assigned to the State Police Drug Unit v(,'ork closely with many local, regional, state and 
federal law enforcement units and agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Agency; the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, Ijiimigration and Customs Enforcement, State Police Detective linits assigned to the 
Commonwealth's District Attorneys' Oi^fices, and sheriffs' departments. 

The State Police Drug Unit maintains a state-of-the-art wiretap room that is equipped with CALEA 
compliant computer based monitoring equipment purchased through a grant. The wiretap facility is 
equipped to simultaneously monitor eight telephones or other electronic devices. This faciliry is one 
of only rwo such electronic surveillance fiicilities available to local and state law enforcement officers 
in Massachusetts. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the State Police Drug Unit w;is supervised b\^ Lieutenant Richard Prior 
and included: Troopers Timothy Babbin; Paul Bulman; Brian Connors: Joseph King; Brian O'Riordan; 
Michael Smith; and Michael Szymanski. This unit works closely with the five Assistant Attorneys 
Ceneral assigned to the Special hivestigations and Narcotics Division in the Criminal Bureau. 

SPRINGFIELD UNIT 

The Springfield Unit handles the majority of the Crimituil Bureau's investigations in the western 
part of Massachusetts, including investigations of corruption b)' public officials and emplo\ees, crimes 
against the government, economic crime, consimier crime, drug trafficking, child pornography, and 
organized crime. As needed, 'Lroopers assigned to the Boston Office a.ssist the Springfield Unit in its 
investigations. 



125 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 

Administrative Law Division 
Trial Division 



GOVFRNMF.NT BURFAl," 



GOVERNMENI BuREAU 

The Cunxrnnunr Bureau provides rcprcscntatioii for the ( :oinmonwi..ilih ami its agencies and officials 
ill all types ofcivil litigation, and forempioyees of the ( \)innionwcalih with ropcxt to certain civil claims 
nude against them resulting from the performance of their iluiies. The Bureau also provides general 
advice and consultation to othcials with respect to legal issues arising in (.onncLtion with their official 
functions, particularly in instances where such advance consultation may serve to prevent unnecessary 
litigation. As in previous years, the Bureau in Fiscal Year 2006 continued its efforts to (.Icvclop and 
maintain close working relatioriships with agency counsel and to provide them with inff)rmation and 
advice on matters of broad common interest. 

The (iovernment Bureau consists of an Administrative Law Division and a Trial Division. During 
Fiscal Year 2006, two attorneys were assigned permanently to work in both the Administrative 1 aw 
and Trial Divisions. In addition, a number of particularly complex and significant cases were handled 
by teams drawn from both divisions. Both divisions initiated affirmative litigation on behalf of state 
agencies and the CA)mmonwealth and submitted briefs :unicijs cuiIm- in cases presenting issues of law 
affecting the Commo/nvealth's interests. 

The Administrative I.aw Division defends suits concerning the legalitA' of govermiiental operations, 
particularly 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 revievv' of proposed statewide initiative and referendum questions under 
amendment article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution to determine whether such questions are of 
the t\ pe that may lawfully appear on the ballot. 

The Trial Division defends suits seeking damages or other relief for alleged wrongful acts of 
government officials or employees, particularly torts, real estate matters, contract-related disputes, 
employment disputes, civil rights violations, and environmental damage claims. The Irial Division 
also reviews certain contracts, leases, bonds and various conveyancing documents submitted b)^ state 
agencies for approval as to form. Also, the Trial Division reviews and issues approvals on behalf of 
the Office with respect to all pre-litigation settlements for S2,S00 or more of wn claims against the 
Commonweiilth or its agencies, as required by statute. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Government Bureau included the following staff members: David 
Kerrigan, Chief; Jason Barshak; Sherrie Costa; and Peter Sacks. Staff members assigned to particular 
divisions within the Government Bureau are listed below. 

129 



GOVFRN'M ENT BUREAU 



AFFIR^L^TIVE LITIGATION 

Both the Administrarive Law Division and the Trial Division initiate affirmative Htigation on behalf 
of the Commonwealth, when such litigation is in the pubHc 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 2006 to protect the public interest and the interests of its state agency clients. 
Numerous matters were favorably resolved without formal litigation; highlights of some of the cases in 
actual litigation were as follows: 

• Commonwealth v. Dolphin Forwarding, Inc. and Mary M. White (Superior Court) The 
Atroiney General continues to press a suit on behalf of the state Department of Education against 
a storage company and its owner for iillowing $1.6 million of food owned by the Department 
and local school districts to become contaminated. The United States Department of Agriculture 
donated the food to the Department for school lunch programs. 

• Attorney General v. Pakachoag Acres Day Care Center, Inc., et al . (Superior Court) This 
action on behall of the Department ol Early F^ducarion and C^are sought to recover amounts 
allegedly wrongfully obtained through prohibited related party tiansactions and accoiuuing 
practices, asset transfers or other financial dealings. In a pending settlement in which there was no 
admission or finding of liability by or against any party, among other things, the Commonwealth 
will receive over time $688,000 and changes in corporate governance tor Pakachoag. 

• Regan & Commonweahh v. United States (LLS. District Court) The Commonwealth 
previously intervened in this case to seek a refinrd of Medicare taxes paid to the federal 
government in 1999 to 2002 with respect to about 500 employees of the Sheriffs' offices vs'ho* 
became state employees when various county governments were abolished. The Commonwealth 
asserted that the employees qualify for an exception to the Medicare tax. About $3 million is 
at issue, half ol which would be relunded to the employees, and half to the Commonwealth. 
In Fiscal Year 2006, the Commonwealth prevailed on liability, and the parries are verifying the 
exact refiind amounts so that a fin.il judgment may enter. The Commonwealth is pursuing, 
through administrative procedures, additional refunds for subsequent years. 

• Attorney General v. CGI (Superior Court) This action on behalf of the Department 
ol Mental Retardation is brought against a former DMR vendor of residenti.il support and 
job training services. The complaint alleges that the vendor omitted material information 
from financial disclosures and used state funding for non-reimbursable expenses and personal 
expenses. 



130 



GOVERNMENT RUREAf 



• Attorney General v. New England Hu man Service. Inc .. f/k/a Riverside Schools (Superior 

Court) This ;Ktit)ii on hchaU of the 1 )tpartiiicnt of Soci.il Scrvicfs is Wrought against .i lortncr 
DSS vendor providing residential services. The complaint alleges that the vendor omitted 
material information from financial disclosures and used state fimding for non-reimhursahlc 
expenses and personal expenses. The OlTice obtained an attachment of SHOO, 000 of the 
defeiulant's assets towards satisfying anv judgmeiu. 

• Attorney General v. Second Chance Body Armor. Inc. and Toyobo. Inc. (Superior (Jourt) 
The Commonwealth sued Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. for manufiiauring and selling more 
than 3,000 defective bullet proof vests, under a statewide contract, to various state and local law 
enforcement personnel. The Commonwealth also sued Toyobo, the Japanese manufacturer of 
the bullet proof fiber (/yton). After the (Commonwealth sued in 2003, several other states and 
the federal government brought similar suits, resulting ultimately in Second Chance riling for 
Chapter 7 liquidation in the bankruptcy court in Michigan. The Commonwealth filed a $ 1 .5 
million claim for its losses in the bankruptcy court. With respect to Toyobo, the (Commonwealth 
and several other states negotiated an agreement under which Toyobo accepted jurisdiction in 
an (Oklahoma state court class action and created a $29 million fimd to benefit police officers 
who purchased Second Chance vests. Iti exchange, the (Commonwealth agreed to dismis.s its 
claim without prejudice. The Attorney (Jeneral, in cooperation with local police chiefs, notified 
Massachusetts law enforcement personnel of their eligibility to recover either cash or a voucher 
for a replacement vest through the fund established by Toyobo, and in Fiscal Year 2006, local 
and some state law enforcement personnel or agencies in the (Commonwealth have received 
approximately $\ million in cash or vest vouchers. 

• Commonwealth v. Roxbury Charter High Public School (Appeals (Court) Ihe 
Commonwealth filed this action to enforce a decision of the state Board of Education revoking 
the schools charter due to the school's lack of financial viabilit)', intractable organizational and 
managerial problems, and repeated violations of state and federal law and the terms of its charter. 
The Superior ("Coiur affirmed the Board s decision, the school appealed, and the case is awaiting 
argutiienr in the Appeals (Court. 

• Director of Office of Campaign and Political Finance v. Wilkerson (Superior Court) 
The complaint alleges that the defendant (a state senator) and her campaign committee and 
treasurer violated state campaign finance laws during 2000 and 2001 by failing to report 
contributions and expenditures, failing to document any legitimate campaign-related purpose for 
reiinbursements from the comtnittee to the defendant and a family member and for payments 



131 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU 



to numerous consultants, failing to report certain PAC contributions, and accepting illegal 
corporate contributions. The case is in discovery. 

ABANDONED HOUSING PROTECT 

Government Bureau attorneys also litigated cases through the Attorney General's Abandoned 
Housing Project. The project is designed to assist communit)' groups in choosing and appointing their 
own people to take over abandoned houses that, due to the absentee owners' indifference, have created 
a health, safety and crime hazard for the community. The Attorney General assists the community 
groups by petitioning the appropriate court for an order permitting the communit}'^ 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. In conjunction with regional offices and with the Safe Neighborhood 
Initiative Division, the program has worked in Fiscal Year 2006 to expand its outreach to communities 
including Holyoke, Gardner, New Bedford, and Springfield. 

The project also focused its efforts on presenting communities with new and additional tools, 
such as nuisance actions and landlord seminars, to battle distressed properties. For example, in March 
2006, the project conducted a training in Holyoke to educate and focus local officials and landlords on 
enforcement options to address drug and public safet}^ issues in apartment buildings. 

CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL COST RECOVERY PROGRAM 

On Februar)' 1, 2005, the Cost Recovery Program for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project was 
transferred from the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to the Office of the Attorney General. The 
program is staffed by Assistant Attorneys General, engineers, support staff, outside counsel and consulting 
engineers. The program aims to recover monies paid on the project to contractors for extra work 
and delays caused by design errors and omissions and construction mismanagement. After receiving 
referrals from a variet}' of sources, the program conducts fact-finding including gathering documents 
and information and meeting with the project's section design consultants as well as Bechtel/Parsons 
Brinckerhoft, the project's construction manager. After fact finding is conducted, the program determines 
whether an issue has merit or should be closed. Of the referrals received, over 200 were found to be the 
responsibility of a section design consultant and/or Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff Over 100 issues had 
already been converted to litigation against section design consultants in the Suffolk Superior Court 
Business Litigation session before the Office assumed responsibility for the program in eady 2005. All 
issues where responsibilit)' was determined during fact-finding were the subject of setdement discussions 
and a mediation that resulted in an agreement in principle to settle the claims, pending negotiations of 
appropriate releases. Events occurring in eady Fiscal Year 2007 resulted in the settlement discussions 
being discontinued. 



132 



GOVFRNMF.NT BURFAi; 



ADMINISIRATIVF I AW DIVISION 



ADMINISTR/VnVE LAW DIVISION 



The Adminisnarivc l.;\w I )ivisi()ii h;is tdur princip.il functions: ( 1 ) m defend hwsuirs against stare 
ollkiiils and at;cnt ies concerning the validii)' ofstaruies and regulations and the legahry of governmental 
o[HTations, particular!)- those seeking injunctive or deLJaratory 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 2006, significant events occurred in each of these areas, as set forth below. 

The Administrative Law Division included the following staff members: William Porter, Division 
Chief; Iraida Alvarez; James Arguin; Luna Bacon; Christine Baily; Annapurna Balakrishna; Dena 
Barisano; Thomas Barnico; Romeo Camba; Jennifer Cartee; Judith Cassino; Julie Collins; Pierce Cray; 
Elliot Fertik; Julie Goldman; L")avid Guherman; David Hadas; Daniel Hammond; John llitt; Ronald 
Kehoe; Diana l.eeman; Quinnette Littleton; Bernadette Lovell; Maryannc Martin; Pauline OBrien; 
Neil Olson; William Porter; Robert Quinan; Susan Riedel; Juliana Rice; Deirdre Roney; Sookvoung 
Shin; Amy Specter; and Jane Willoughby. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 



Highlights of some of the most significant cases handled by the Administrative Law Division in 
Fiscal Year 2006, grouped b\' subject matter, are as follows: 

L\Nr.) USE AND EN\aRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

• GPT-Act on , LLC v. Department of Environmental Protection (Appeals Court) The court 
affirmed DEP's order requiring the owner of an apartment complex situated on two adjacent 
parcels to obtain a groundwater discharge permit for its septic systems. The court held that 
DEP reasonably construed its regulation to measure the apartment complex's sewage discharge 
in the aggregate, rather than separately for each parcel, in determining that the discharge volume 
was high enough to trigger the permitting requirement. 

• Middleborough v. Housing Appeals Committee (Appeals Court) The court held that the 
New England Fund of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston can be the source of 'subsidized 
housing' within the meaning of G.L. c. 40B, the 'anti-snob-zoning" law, and that affordable 
housing projects subsidized by the New England Fund fall within the scope of chapter 40B and 
have the benefit of its protections. 

133 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

• Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Romney (U.S. District Court) An environmental 
advocacy group seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commonwealth, the MBTA, 
and the Massachusetts Turnpike Authorit)' under the federal Clean Air Act to compel the 
construction of certain specified mass transit projects in the Greater Boston area. The court 
has dismissed two of the 20 claims against the Commonwealth and the case has moved into 
the discovery phase. 

• Ten Residents of Boston v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, et al. (Superior Court) 
The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their challenge under the 
Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) to a transfer of state land in connection 
with Boston University's planned BioSquare biosafery research ficilit)'. 'S^'liile finding that the 
Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) had not complied with MEPA's requirements 
by transferring the land prior to completion of the environment^ reporting process, the court 
held that the consideration of any remedy should be deferred until after the court had reviewed 
the substantive adequacy of Boston University's environmental reporting. 

EDUCATION 

• Town of Holden v. 'VC'achusett Regional School District Committee (Supreme Judicial 
Court) The court held that the Conmiissioner of Education has the authority- to approve or 
disapprove amendments to regional school district agreements generally and that he properly 
exercised his authorit)" in declining to approve the proposed amendment to the Wachusett 
agreement. The amendment would have required payment by a single town in the regional 
district of almost all of the additional assessment above the minimum required regional 
contribution. 

• School Committee of Hudson, et al. v. Board of Education, et al. (Middlesex Superior 
Court) The court held that local school committees could not bring an action to challenge the 
Board of Education's grant of a charter to the Advanced Math and Science Academy. The court 
agreed that the Board's administrative action was not an adjudicatory proceeding reviewable 
under CL. c. 30A; the decision to grant the charter was not the outcome of a quasi-judicial 
proceeding and certiorari relief was therefore unavailable; and the plaintiffs were challenging 
only the process by which a single charter application was granted, not a consistently repeated 
practice as would be required for declaratory relief Plaintiffs have appealed. 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

• Massachusetts General Hospital v. Commissioner of Division of Medical Assistance 

(Appeals Court) Reversing the Superior Court, the court held that MassHealths standard for 



134 



GOVERNMENT BURFAi; ADMINISTRATIVE i.AVt' DIVISION 

(.ktcTminint; wlKtlur an inp.iiiciu .iclmission was 'iiK-dicalU lK•LC•.ssar^^'" and tluis clii;il>lc lor 
rciniburscnicnt iiikIci" Medicaid, was not inipcrinissibU' vague as applied to ilirvc riKiulxrs who 
received inparieiu services at MCil 1. 

• Health Care For All v. Romney (U.S. District Cloiiri) Following a bench tri.il in this section 
1983 action challenging the C.'oniiTionvveaith's administration oi its Medicaid dental program, 
the court held that, with respect [o children, the C'ommonwealtli has violatetl sections of the 
Medicaid Act that require prom[n provision of services, adet]iiate notice, and treatment at 
reasonable interveils and that these violations resulted, in part, from insufficient reimbursement 
to dental providers. The court ordered the parties to develop a joint remedial program and 
judgment for later submission. 

• Bianconi v. EOHHS (U.S. District Court) Plaintiffs challenged Medicaid eligibility 
regulations that rec]uire the deeming of the income of a person seeking nursing home care 
to his or her spouse in the community (the effect of which can be to limit the amount of 
assets the community spouse can retain). Plaintiffs argued that deeming of social security or 
veterans' benefits violates the anti-alienation provisions of the federal statutes governing those 
programs. The court granted summary judgtnent for the C \)mmonwealth. concluding rliat the 
mere attribution of income in the Medicaid scheme does ttot offend the federal anti-alienation 
provisions. 

• Rosie D. et al. v. R omney et al. (U.S. District Court) Following a six-week bench 
triiil that ended in June 2005. the court found in fovor of the plaintiff class, ruling that the 
Commonwealths Medicaid program, Massliealth, fails to prt)vide mentally ill and emotionally 
disturbed Medicaid-eligible children with medically necessary services such as assessments, 
case management, and in-home behavioral supports required by Medicaid s F.arly and Periodic 
Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment ("EPSDT") provision. The court did not enter judgment, 
but ordered further proceedings to develop a remedial order. 

• Drug Assist Health Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Shoppers Drug v. Board of Registration in 
Pharmacy, et al. (U.S. District Court) The court reversed a decision of a bankruptcy judge that 
had enjoined the Board of Registration in Pharmacy from enforcing a license-revocation order 
against the debtor. The court held that the Board's revocation order was within the "police or 
regulatory power" exception to the Bankruptcy Codes automatic-sta\- provision, and that the 
injunction was otherwise not supported by the bankruptcy judges general equitable powers. 



135 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

• Lima v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Sup)erior Court) The court denied 
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in an action challenging administration of 
the MassHealth Limited program, which provides eligible aliens with coverage for emergency 
medical services. The court held chat, consistent with the Legislatures directive in C.L. c. 1 1 8E, 
§ 16D(5), K4assHealths existing claims-processing system properly maximized the amount of 
federal reimbursement that the Commonwealth receives in connection with providing coverage 
for emergency services to alien members. In addition, the court held that plaintiffs have no 
constitutional or statutory right to notice or a hearing when MassHealth denies a provider's 
claim for payment in connection with sennces provided to the member but not covered by 
MassHealth Limited. 

• Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) The 
court granted judgment for the Commonwealth in this challenge to emergeiic)' and permanent 
regulations by the Department of Public Health governing "service zone planning" for local 
emergency medical services (EMS). The court held that plaintiffs (public firefighters) lacked 
standing to assert their claims, which were brought under a statute intended to benefit the 
recipients of EMS services, rather than the providers of such services. The court also held 
that the regulations, which are aimed at ensuring efficient provision of EMS services, are not 
arbitrary and capricious, and the court declined to examine other motives that allegedly led to 
the regulations. 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 

• Cote-Whitacre V. Department of Public Health; 7own Clerk of Provincetown v. Attorney 
General (Supreme fudicial Court) The court affirmed the denial of plaintiffs' motions for 
preliminary injunctions against enforcement of a state law prohibiting marriage in Massachusetts 
of out-of-state couples whose marriage would be void or prohibited by law if contracted in 
their home state. The court also ordered judgment for the Commonwealth as to the plaintiff 
same-sex couples who reside in (.Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and V'ermont, because 
same-sex marriage is prohibited iji those states. As to the New York and Rhode Island plaintiffs, 
the court remanded their cases for a determination whether same-sex marriage is prohibited by 
law in those states. 

• In re Ang ela (Supreme Judiciiil Court) The court held that an adjudicated "child in need 
of services" ("CLIINS") has a due-process right to periodic judicial review of any dispositional 
orders that result in out-of-honie placement. Such review would involve an evidenriaiy hearing 
at which the |'>etiiioner must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the purposes of 



136 



COVFRNMF.NT RURFAIJ AHMINISTRATIVF. I AW DIVISION 

rhc original (lis[n)siti()nal orJcr haw noi lucii nici aiui that fxtciuling ihc dispositional oitlcr 
is rcasoiiahh' likcK' to achieve those [nirposes. 

• Adoption of Serena (Appeals (^oiirt) In alhrmint; iIk temiinatioii ol a mothers parental 
rights, the court held thai a clinical ps\vhologisi was properly allowed to lesiilN' ahont the mother's 
cornmunicarions made during a psychological evaluation. I he com t held that the psvchologisr 
gave adequate warning (under Commonwealth v. Lamb ) that the mother's communications 
would nor be privileged, and that the mother knowingK' and voluntarilv waived the statiitf)rv 
privilege that would otherwise apply to such communications. 

• Adoption of Yale (Appeals Court) The court vacated the trial coiuts termination of the 
mother's parental rights regarding her third child, where the trial court's decision rested primarily 
on evidence of rhe mother's unfitness to parent her two older children, the mothers personal 
situation had substantially changed since lier first two children were born, and the third child 
was born drug-free. 

EMPLOVTvlENT 

• Bleich V. Maitnonides School (Supreme Judicial C^ourc) 7"he court upheld a determination 
by the Division of Unemployment Assistatice that the Maimonides School was exempt from 
payment of stare unemployment taxes. The court held that the school, which was founded to 
instruct students in the teachings of Orthodox Judaism and derives substantial support from 
area synagogues and other Jewish organizations, satisfied the two-part test in Cj.L. c. 151A, 
§ 6(r) for exemption of religious organizations from the unemployment tax. 

• Andrews v. Civil Service Commission and Department of Revenue (Supreme Judicial 
Court) The court affirmed the Civil Service (>Mnmission's tiecision to uphold the layoff, for 
budgetary reasons, of the plaintiff, a disabled veteran, along with all other employees in his 
job title. The court held that a statutory' preference fi)r disabled veterans did not require that 
persons holding provisional appointments in the job title above plaintiff "s be laid off before 
him. 

• DeRoche v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and >Xakefield Municipal 
Gas and Light Dept . (Supreme Judicial Court) In this action imder C.L. c. ISIB for a^c 
discrimination in employment, the court held that that statute, by "necessar\- implication," 
waives a public employer's sovereign immunit}' to the MCAD's award of pre-judgment interest 
on a back pay award. The court also upheld post-judgment interest for the period after the 
Superior Court's affirmance, under C.L. c. 30A, of the MCADs decision. The court also ruled 



137 



GOVERNMENT BL'REAU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

rhat the Superior Courc coutd award acrorneys' fees for an employee's success in a c. 30A acrion 
challenging an MCAD decision. The Attorney General filed an ,i/77/c-u5 brief in support of the 
public employers position on the first two issues. 

• Allen of Michigan, Inc. v. Deputy Director of Division of Employment and Training , 

et al. (Appeals Court) The court reversed a DET determination granting unemployment 
benefits to a nurse formerly employed by an employer that provides in-home nursing services 
to terminally ill patients and their families. The court held that the nurse, by failing to visit 
a dying patient despite the instructions of her superior, committed a "knowing violation of a 
reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy of the employer," thereby disqualifying her 
from unemployment benefits. 

• Goncalves v. City of Boston et al . (Appeals Court) The court upheld the state Human 
Resource Divisions application of G.L. c. 31, § 58A, to exclude candidates from the eligible 
list for appointment to the position ol Boston Police Officer if they had reached the age of 32 
at the lime they took the civil service examination. 

• Town of Bellingham v. Local 207 1, Intern. Ass'n of Firefighters (Appe;ils Court) The court 
accepted the argument of the amicus state ]oim Labor-Management Committee that an action 
in the nature of certiorari under G.L. c. 249, § 4, is the proper route for review of Committee 
public-safety arbitration decisions, rather than G.L. c. 30A (as the plaintiff town urged) or G.L. 
c. 1 50C (as the defendant union urged). 

• Edmonds v. Chao ( U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) "1 he court affirmed the decision of 
the U.S. Department of Labor requiring the Commonwealth to repay approximately S9 million 
in federal funds distributed by the Commonwealth to the City of Lynn under the Job Training 
and Partnership Act. The court upheld the Department s findings that the Cit}' had not put in 
place the appropriate accounting safeguards and that the Commonwealth had not presented 
sufficiently detailed evidence of appropriate use of the funds to overcome these deficiencies. 

RETIREMENT 

• State Board of Retirement v. Woodward (Supreme Judicial Court) The court agreed that 
the State Retirement Boards implementation G.L. c. 32, § 13(4), which requires pension 
forfeiture upon a conviction involving violation of the laws applicable to a public retirement 
system member's office or position, is nor subject to any statute of limitations. 

• Buchanan v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (Appeals Court) Fhe court alTumed 
CRAB s determination that the plaintiff did not qualif)' for superannuation retirement, rejecting 

138 



GOVERNMFNT BURFAl.' ADVIINISTRATIVF. LAW DIVISION 

her chiim ih.ir CMvAH iiupropcik' taik'd to crctiit litf uiKkr (i. L. c. 32, § 14, for time earned 
as a resulr oi a lump sum settlement ai;reement in workers compensation proLeeJin^s. 

• Bristol County Retirement Board v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board, et al. 

(Appeals C-ourr) The court held that C'KAB coukl not lawfulK relieve a public retiree from a 
statutory obligation co refund excess pa)-ments she leceived Irom Bristol (!oimtv .is a result of 
an oversight by the State Retirement Board. Ihe court conehuled that ( ..I . c. 32, § 20(S)(c), 
vests the discretion to grant such relief in the county letiiement board which, in this case, did 
nor abuse its discretion in declining to grant relief to the retiree. 

• Bulger V. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board (Superior C^ourt) Reversing in part a 
C>RAB decision, the court held char a housing allowance and annuity pa\'ments that were provided 
ro the Presidenr of the Universic}' ot Massachuserrs were "regular compensation ' that should be 
included in the computation ol his retirement allowance, while agreeing with ( !RAB that annuitv 
paymertts that were part of a "golden handcuff package were not "regular compensation"' h)r 
that purpose. CRAB has appealed the adverse portion of the court's judgment. 

PROF ESS 1 ONAL LICENS I NG 

• Kobrin v. Board of Registration in Medicine (Supreme Judicial Court) Ihe court upheld the 
revocation of a psychiatrist's license based on his two convictions for Medicaid fraud, rejecting the 
psychiatrist's argument that the Board's reliance on adininistrative summary decision procedures 
deprived him of due process. The court also rejected the psychiatrists argument that the Board 
was estopped from imposing discipline against him because it had previously exonerated him of 
prior, related allegations of tiiisconduct. i'he court agreed that the Medicaid fraud convictions 
occurring alier the first disciplinaiy proceedings were an independent basis for discipline. 

• Ingalls V. Board of Registration in Medicine (Supreme ludicial Court) The court affirmed 
the revocation of a physician's license based on sexual misconduct involving three patients. The 
court held that the Board did not err or violate due process in proceeding on patient complaints 
received 7 and 14 years after the incidents; the Board did not violate due process in accepting 
"impact " statements from the complaining patients at the sanctions hearing; and substantial 
evidence supported the Board's findings of sexual misconduct. 

• Coletti V. Department of State Police (Appeals Court) The court affirmed a decision of 
the Department of State Police to revoke plaintiff's private detective license pursuant to C.L. c. 
147, § 25. for misconduct evidencing a lack of the required good moral character, even though 
the conduct occurred prior to the issuance of the license. 



139 



GOVERN'MF.NT BUREAU ADM i NiSTRATl VE EAW DIVISION 

INSURANCE. BANKING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

• Global NAPs, Inc. v. Department of Telecommunications & Energ y (U.S. Court of 
Appeals, First Circuit) Upon DIE's appeal, the court reversed the decision of the district 
court and held that the DTE was not compelled by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to give 
preclusive effect to a prior decision of the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission construing 
an "interconnection agreement" (between competing telecommunications companies) identiciil 
to the one before DTE. The court held that, in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress 
intended to allow each states regulator to develop its own body of caselaw interpreting federal 
law. 

• Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New England and Department of Telecommunications and 
Energy (U.S. Court ol Appeiiis, First Circuit) Ihe court upheld an order at the DIE. regarding 
the terms of an "interconnection agreement" between two telecommunications companies. The 
court held that a 2001 order of the Federal Communications Commission did not preempt 
the DTE from requiring that Global NAPs pay "access charges" to Verizon for calls made by 
Cjloba! s customers to internet service providers. 

TAXATJON 

• Sylvester v. Commissioner of Revenue (Supreme Judicial Court) The court upheld a 
Massachusetts statute that limits a modest real estate tax exemption for veterans to those who 
have resided in the Commonwealth for five years prior to their application for the exemption. 
The court held that the residency requirement does nor violate the Privileges and Immunities 
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Fhe U.S. Supreme Court later denied the taxpayer's 
petition for a writ of certiorari. 

• J albert Leasing, Inc. v. Massachusetts Port Authorit}^ (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) 
The court held that a MassPort fee on buses stopping at Logan Airport does not violate a federal 
law prohibiting certain taxes and {ces on the interstate transportation of passengers. The Attorney 
Genera! filed an amicus brief for the Commonwealth supporting MassPort and arguing for a 
narrow reading of the federal law. 

• Hudson Savings Bank v. Austin, United S tates of America, and Commonwealth of 
M assachusetts (U.S. District Court) The court dismissed this interpleader action removed 
to federal coiut by the United States. Ihe action was filed by a bank holding excess proceeds 
from a foreclosure sale and named the IRS and the Commonwealth's Department of Revenue 
as claimants to the funds. 'Fhe court held chat dismissal was required because the Eleventh 



140 



GOVERNMENT BLIREAl.' ADMINISTRATIVE I AW DIVISION 



AnicncliiK'nt barred the cxtrcisc of tcclcial loiiii jiiriscliaioii over the C^iinnionweahh, \et the 
Coimiioiiwealth was an iiKhspensable |nut\' to the case. 

ALCOHOl Rh-GULATION 

• Stonington Vineyards v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (U.S. Oisrricr (>)urt) 

Applying a recent Supreme Court decision, the court held that [Movisions of Massachusetts law 
perniirring in-state, hut not out-of-state, wineries to sell and ship wine directly to consumers 
and retailers unconstitutionally discriminate against interstate conmierce. The court denied the 
Commissions motion to certify to the Supreme judicial Coiut the question whether, in light 
of the invalidity of the existing scheme, the Legislature would have intended to permit direct 
sale by all wineries or h\' none. 

• Peoples Super Liquor Stores. Inc. v. Jenkins (U.S. District Court) The court allowed the 
Alcoholic Beverages Control Commissions morion to dismiss various constitutional challenges 
to provisions in C.L. c. 138, § 15. that prohibit a person or firm from owning more than three 
package-store licenses. The court denied the ABCC's motion to the extent it sought dismissal of 
a claim that the same provisions are preempted by ERISA and of a Commerce Clause challenge 
to § iVs separate ban on nonresident ownership of package store licences. 

• Labrecque v. Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Appeals 
Court) On the Board's appeal, the court agreed that the Board properly counted plaintiffs New 
Hampshire OUT conviction in determining that the plaintiff was an habitual tniffic offender 
(HTO). The court concluded that, even though the HTO statute refers only to convictions 
under Massachusetts laws, another statute, C.l>. c. 90, § 22(c), directs that out-of-state OL'l 
convictions be treated as if they had occurred in the CJommonweahh. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Administrative Law Division opened 844 cases and closed 1 ,02^ cases. 
At the close of the fiscal )'ear, 1 ,3 1 1 cases were pending in the division, (^ases handled b\- the division 
or in which the division filed an d/r;/ai5 brief resulted in I 1 re(H)rted decisions of the Supreme Judicial 
Court. 12 reported decisions of the Massachusetts Appeals Court, four reported decisions of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and eight reported decisions of the United States District 
Court for the F^istrict of Massachusetts. In addition, division attorneys were involved in numerous cases 
iji those courts and in state trial courts that resulted in unpublished decisions, as well as in a.ssisting in 
trial and appellate court cases handled primarily by Special Assistant Attorneys Ceneral. 

141 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE EAW DIVISION 

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 historic 
district by-laws (G.L. c. 40C), and city and town Home Rule Charter amendmerus (G.L. c. 43B). 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Municipal Law Unit included the following stall members: Assistant 
Attorney General Robert Ritchie, Director; Kelli Gunagan; Sandra Haskins; Eva Szczech; and Thomas 
Weber. 

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

With respect to liomc Rule Charter amendments, G.L. c. 43B prescribes that mimicipal charters 
and charter amendments from any of the 35 1 cities and towns in the Commonwealth must be reviewed 
b)' the Attorney General, who must render an 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 2006, the Municipal Law Unit reviewed (a) 810 general by-laws, of which 723 
(89.3%) were approved, 35 (4.3%) were approved with partial deletion, 7 (0.9.%) were disapproved, 
21 (2.6%) were returned with a finding that no action by the Attorney General was required by state 
law, and 24 (3.0%) received cautions; (b) 827 zoning by-laws, of which 774 (93.6%) were approved 
(including 184 zoning map amendments), 12 (1.5%) were approved with partial deletion, 17 (2.1%) 
were disapproved (including two zoning map amendments), two (0.2%) were returned with a finding 
that no action by the Attorney General was required by state law, and 22 (2.6%) received cautions; (c) 
four historic district by-laws, all of which were approved; and (d) 43 charter amendments, all of which 
were found to be consistent with state law with the exception of one which was returned with no action. 
I his was an increase of 30 over the number of charter amendments submitted in the previous year. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the authority conferred by Chapter 299 of the Acts of 2000. under which 



14: 



GOVERNMENT BURFAL- ADMINISTRATIVE I AW DIVISION 

the ArroriK-y Cilmkt.iI m;n' \vai\c minor piOLcdiiiMl ciclit iciicits in zoning In-law fii.itimfiHs siibiniiicd 
For approval, was (.-xorciscd in IS instances, a (.lccrca.sc of 17 instances from ilic previous year. In two 
in.stances, objcction.s were Hied to the y\ttorney Cienerar.s waiver of minor procedural dericiencics. F-or 
this reason, the Arrorney General was not authorized by (Chapter 299 to waive the deficiencies and w.i.s 
required instead to disapprove the ainendments. Also in liscal Year 2()()f), the authoniv eonferreil In 
Chapter 299 to extend review ofan aniendinent by mutual agreement with town counsel was exercised 
twice, in order to provide the town and our office with more time to discuss legal issues presented by 
the proposed by-law amendment. 

Above and beyond what is required by statute, the Attorney (k-neral has chosen to extend the 
.services and resources of the Mtmicipal Law Unit by providing, rime permitting, voluntary informal 
review of propo.sed town by-law amendments, and — even thougli not subject to review b\' the Aitornev 
General — proposed city ordinances. During Fiscal Year 2006, the number of calls from local public 
officials and members of the general public, many of which related to anticipated changes in local laws 
and charters, continued to increase. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the unit monitored a number of cases in litigation in which municipal law 
i.ssues are involved. Even where the Attorne\' ( ieneral has initially elected not to intervene or otherwise 
participate in such ca.ses, the unit monitors developments so that the Attorney (ieneral may become 
involved if warranted by developments in the case. At the close of Fisc;il Year 2006. unit attorneys were 
monitoring approximately 49 such matters. 

The most prevalent subjects of local regulation during Fiscal Year 2006 were b\'-laws regulating 
communit)' preservation, affordable housing/inclusionary housing, wetlands, open space, agricultural 
uses and structures, site plan reviews, and srormwater management. 

Over rime, unit personnel have gradually increased the imit s oittreach efforts b\' writing and speaking 
to groups all around the Commonwealth. Particular emphasis has been placed on working with town 
clerks and local planning boards, as both are intimately involved in the substance and procedure ol 
local legislation. Unit personnel participated in dozens of outreach and educational events during Fiscal 
Year 2006. Unit personnel attended the Massachu.setts Town (Klerks (Conferences to hold classes and 
to present and explain the books used for submitting the by-law packets. Unit personnel also actively 
participated in events held by the Cjty Solicitors and Town Counsel Association in order to exchange 
perspectives on issues of mutual interest and concern. 

OPINIONS 

The Attorney General is authorized bv G.L. c. 12, §§ 3, 6 and 9, to render formal opinions and 



143 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIM. DIVISION 

legal advice to constitutional officers, agencies and departments, district attorneys, and branches and 
committees of the Legislature. Formal, published opinions are given primarily to the heads of state 
agencies and departments. In hmited circumstances, less formal legal advice and consultation is also 
available from the Opinions Coordinator, as is information about the informal consultation process. 
The questions considered in legal opinions must have an immediate concrete relation to the official 
duties of the state agency or officer requesting the opinion. H}q:>othetical or abstract questions, or 
questions which ask generally about the meaning ol: a particular statute, lacking a tactual underpinning, 
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 die constitutionality of enacted legisladon. 
Formal opinion requests from state agencies that report to a cabinet or executive office mtist 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 2006, no foimal opinions were issued. During the same time period, the 
Attorney General issued 20 letters providing informal advice, providing a certification or designation 
to a federal agency in connection with the Commoriwe;ilths participation in a fedetiil program, or 
declining to give advice. 

TRIAL DIVISION 

Ihe Trial Division is responsible for defending the Commonwealth in civil cases brought against the 
Commonwealth and its departments, agencies and employees in a variety of actions, primarily consisting 
ol tort, eminent domain, employment, contract, civil rights, and land registration actions. Members of 
the division anah'ze each case at the outset to see if the case should be resolved through settlement or 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 summar}' judgment motion. Alternative dispute 
resoluiion a[tproaches are always considered and are utilized at any appropriate stage of the case. Fhe 
experience ot the division in representing the Commonwealth in civil lavv'suits 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. 



144 



GOVFRNMENT BURFAf IRiy^l DIVISION 

The followiiii; personnel served in the lii.il Division (or .ill or pan of l-ist.ii Year 2006: Koseniarv 
Connolly. C^hieh Hrnest Sarason: Alison Andehnan; jason Barshak; Matthew Bcrgc; Oispin Hirnhanin; 
John Bmven; Ranjana Burke; Joseph C:.illanan; Kcnee Colenian; Cathlecn ( :()llins; JcUVcy ( olHns; Stephen 
Diek; Brian Donovan; John Dorsey; Lisa Fauth; SalvatorcC norlandino; JuJyJakobsche; Sarah Joss; Jean 
Kelley; Ronald Kehoe; Bryan Killian; Jennifer I, averry; Jennifer lespinasse; 1 ueinda MacDoiiald; I. aura 
MacMullin; Howard Meshnick; Sally Mengual; Amanda Murphy; Janet Nolan; Ann Marie Noonan; 
i^Jicia Oladayiye; Mary O'Ncil; Maite Parsi; Ashley Rau; Fran Riggio; Noclle Renaud; David Stanhill; 
Catherine Sullivan; Mark Sutlift"; Theresa ^alsh; Ciwen Werner; Meredith Wilson; Doris White; and 
Charles W\7,anski. 

TORTS 

Most of the trids 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 t)'pical of the tort cases tried by members of the division 
during the course of the year. 

• Burke v. Conrail and Massachusetts Highvyay Department (Superior C'ourc) 1 his case arose 
from a train derailment near a bridge, in which a Conrail employee was injuretl and (^)nrail 
suffered track damage and lost business while track repairs were made. Both the employee and 
Conrail sought money damages. MFiD had certain maintenance obligations for the bridge, 
and it was alleged that one of the bridge retaining walls gave way, falling onto the tracks and 
causing the derailment. MHD settled the personal injury claim before trial, and, as to Conrails 
claim, argued that others caused the accident or, in the alternative, that this was a tort rather 
than a contract claim and so Conrails damages should be capped at Si 00,000. After a lengthy, 
complex multi-party trial, the jury agreed with MHD, awarding Conrail only SHO.OOO. despite 
Conrails request for $1.2 million in damages. The verdict and damages are the subject of post 
trial motions and a possible appeal. 

• Chestnut Place v. MDC (Superior Court) This case rai.sed significant questions on whether 
MDC's pumping of water, to keep Boston's Storrow Drive free of water and driveable, depleted 
the plaintiffs^ groundwater and caused structural damage to the wooden pilings supporting their 
building. The case also raised the question whether MDC's alleged negligence for the pumping 
gave rise to tort liabilit)' capped by C.L. c. 258 at $100,000 or whether it was a nuisance claim 
which arguably falls outside of C.L. c. 258. After a lengthy trial, the jury found that the MDC s 
large-volume pumping of groundwater wa.s negligent but that such negligence was not the 
proximate cause of the damage to the plaintiff's building. The jury thus entered a verdict for 
the ML~)C. 



145 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION 

• Rossi V. Massachusetts State Police et al . (Superior Court) Plaintiff sued the State Police 
for personal injury and propert}' damages allegedly caused when a cruiser, pursuing the vehicle 
driven by the co-defendant, collided vvath the plaintiff's car. The co-defendant was later 
apprehended and criminally charged. After trial, the jury found that the State Police were not 
negligent in causing the collision and that the co-defendant vs'as the cause; the jurv' awarded the 
plaintiff $10,000 against the co-defendant and entered a defense verdict for the State Police. 

• Plante v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) Plaintiff claimed that the MDC negligently 
maintained the pedestrian walkway by the Charles Street MBTA station and that as a result 
she injured her foot and ankle in a pothole. Plaintiff required surgery and suffered lost wages 
in addition to medical expenses. The evidence revealed that the walkway was known to need, 
and was in fact scheduled f-br, repairs. Before trial, plaintiff's lowest demand was $75,000, but 
the case settled on the first day of trial for $18,000. 

• Arnold v. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner et al. (Superior Court) Two women 
were injured in a fire at their home. One woman died at the scene and was identified; the 
other woman was brought to the hospital where the plaintiffs, believing themselves to be the 
woman's parents, regularly visited until the woman succurnbed to her injuries. The Office of 
Chief Medical Examiner then discovered that the two women had been misidentified and that 
plaintiffs' daughter was actually the woman who had died at the scene, and had since been 
cremated, rather than the woman who died in the hospital. The plaintiffs sued the OCME, the 
funeral home, and the crematorium for emotional distress. The jury found that the OCME's 
negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs" damages, and so entered a verdict in 
favor of the OCME, but found for the plaintiffs against the funeral home and crematorium. 

• McMorrow v. CorTvrnonwealth et al . (Superior Court) Plaintiff, a child's biological tather, 
had been the subject of a report of child sexual abuse. After initially substantiating the report, 
the Department of Social Ser^'ices social worker changed her mind and concluded instead 
that the child's mother had fabricated the story. Plaintiff claimed that the DSS was negligent 
because it did not interview him before substantiating the report, although the DSS regulations 
do not require that he be interviewed, and the social worker has discretion whether to do so. 
Plaintiff also claimed that DSS later failed to rake adequate and prompt action to remove him 
from its central registry of alleged child abuse perpetrators, which assertedly interfered with his 
being hired by a local police department. The jury returned a verdict of $ 1 75,000, which was 
reduced to the tort cap of $100,000. 



146 



GOVFRNMF.NT BURFAl.' TrIAI DIVISION 

• Cruz V. City of Lawrence Police Department and Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

(Superior Cx)iirt) As ;i result ola stint; ()(x;r.itit)n conduuiil loinily In ilic Si.iii; Polite and Uk:i\ 
police, the plaintitTvvas ;urcsred, charged with various ilrug offenses, and jailed for two weeks. 
The District Attorney then decided not to prosecute the case because of a defect in the search 
warrant obtained by the local police. PlainrifTclainKd that the ('oniinonwealth w.is negli^^ent 
in its training and supervision of the State Police. The Commonwealth prepared an extensive 
motion for a directed verdict which it presented to the plaintiff as jury empanelmenr began. 
At the Starr of the trial, the plaintiff dismissed his claims against the ('ommonwealth. 

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

• Brown ppa Maestre v. MDC (Superior Court) Plaintiff a minor child, was playing on a 
swing set at an MDC park. Plaintiff claimed .she fell and was injured becau.se the .swing was in 
disrepair. The MDC moved to dismiss ba.sed upon the recreational use statute, arguing that it 
had no liability because no fee Wiis charged for the u.se and enjoyment of the park. The court 

allowed the motion. 

• Aubourg V. Roxbury Community Colleg e (Superior Court) Plaintiff claimed that the 
Colleges negligent maintenance of its property allowed snow and ice to accumulate, causing 
her to fall and injure herself The College moved to dismi.ss the suit because plaintiff failed to 
make presentment of the claim upon the proper executive officer as required by the tort claims 
act. The court allovved the motion. 

• Carle, Admx. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Superior (x)urr) Ihe plaintiff's decedent 
was a patient in a Department of Public Health day program. On the dcxy in question he left 
a supervised home and never arrived at his day program; he was later found dead, apparently 
drowned in a river. However, the plaintiff had no evidence as to the manner or time of the 
decedents death and could not meet his legal burden of proving that the death was cau.scd by 
the Commonwealth. The Commonwealths motion for summary judgment on that basis was 
allowed. 

• Cronin et al. v. Shea et al. (Superior Court) Plaintiffs claimed that the Department of Social 
Services and its social worker were negligent in how they conducted a child abu.se and neglect 
investigation, causing the plaintiffs' fajnily relationships to became .seriously strained and resulting 
in emotional distress. DSS and its .social worker filed motions for summary judgment, arguing 



147 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION 

tliar DSS was nor negligent and that in any event the Comnionweidth was immune from this 
type oF claim. The court agreed and allowed the motions. 

Other tort cases raised legal issues requiring resolution by the appellate courts. Examples of this 
type of case resolurion are as toUows: 

• Ollveira v. Commonwealth (Appeals Court) Plaintiff claimed that her car was improperly 
forfeited to the Commonwealth after her husband, as part of a plea agreement, agreed to do so. 
She argued that he had no right to offer the car as part of the agreement, that she was denied due 
process before her property was taken, and that the State Police were negligent in the manner 
in which they seized her car. The Commonwealth won summary judgment on plaintiff's tort 
and civil rights claims. Plaintiff appealed and the Appeals Court affirmed. 

• Smith V. Registryof Motor Vehicles (Appeals Court) 7"he court affirmed summar)' judgment 
for the RMV on a claim that it negligently maintained its license databases. Under the tort claims 
act, the Commonwealth is irrmiune from claims relating to the RMV's licensing functions. 

In Fiscal Year 2003 the Legislature passed a new law, G.L. c. 258D, requiring the Commonwealth 
to provide financial compensation and services for eligible persons who had been erroneously 
convicted of a felony and who had sensed time in a state prison or house of correction as a result. 
The Attorney General is charged with defending the Commonwealth when such claims are filed. 
As of the end of Fiscal Year 2006, the division was defending 19 such claims. In some of those 
cases, liability was determined and compensation has been paid, but the cases remain open pending 
requests for services. In other cases there is active litigation contesting liability. It is expected that in 
Fiscal Year 2007 the first judicial ruling interpreting this statute will be issued, and the first jury trial 
will occur. 

Q3NIRACIS 

The division defends the Commonwealth and its agencies in a variety of contract actions, including 
construction disputes, breach of lease cases, and bid protests. Often these cases are complex because 
they often involve interpretation of bidding regulations and a complicated statutory framework. These 
cases also frequently require the division to defend requests for preliminary injunctions that may 
resolve the entire case. Unlike tort cases, there is no statutory cap on the potential exposure to the 
Commonwealth, so the Conmionwealtlfs damages exposure can be quite large in any given case. The 
following are examples of the t}'pes of contract cases handled by the division. 



148 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIM DIVISION 

• Ahern Painting v. Department of Conservation and Rccrfation (Su|Hii()r( oiirO I'Liiiuiff 
claimed that it was owxtl an cqiiirahlc atljusiiiRiu piirsdaiu to a painting contract with Ml )( '. 
(LX^Rs predecessor) due to alleged changed conditions of the work. The case wxs tried to the 
court without a jury. 'Che court entered jiulnnKnt for plaintiffs in the amount of $65,229. 

which was less than the plaintilt s pierrial demand. 

• Hanover Ins. Co. v. Depi. of the Ireasury (Superior C^ourt) This declaratory judgment 
action was filed to determine the plaintiff insurers liahilit\- under fidelirv hontls with respect to 
claims for losses due to embezzlement of funds by employees of the State Treasurer. The court 
held A bench trial to determine the extent of coverage available to compensate the ( Commonwealth 
for the embezzlement scheme. The court issued a preliminar\' decision indicating that under 
the terms of the policy, Hanos'er was obligated to pay the Commotnvealth .Si. 7 million. Final 
findings and rulings have not yet been issued. 

• Hodess V. Department of Capital Asset Management (Superior Court) A contractor hired 

for work at Quinsigamond Communirv' College brought this breach of contract claim seeking 
§393,000 in damages. After mediation, DCAM settled the case for $52,000. 

• City of Cambridge v. Commissioner of DCAM et al. (Superior (Court) I'he city sought 
to enforce what it claimed was a reverter clause in the deed conveying the city's skating rink 
to the Departmeiu of Conseivaiion and Recreation (DCTl) and the Division of Capital Asset 
Management (DCAM). DCR allowed the cit)' to have a right of first refusal to bid on managing 
and operating the skating rink. The cir\' declined to bid and also sought to preclude DCCAM 
from accepting a bid from a private contractor: the city sought enforcement of deed provisions 
that purportedly required reconveyance of the rink to the cit)'. The CClommonweahhs motion 
to dismiss was allowed on the ground that while the city owned the rink, the Commonwealth 
owned the land on which the rink was situated and remained responsible for maintaining 
the rink under the deed. DCAM s proposal to seek bids from private parties to perform rink 
management services was found not to violate the deed. 

REAL ESTATE 

The real estate cases handled by the 1 rial Division consist primarily of eminent domain cases, along 
with niiscellaneous other types of real property cases. Like contract cases, there is no statutory cap 
which limits the Commonwealth's exposure to damages in these t\'pes 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 thev were resolved. 



149 



GOVERNMENT BlIREAU TRIAL DIVISION 

• Brox Industries v. Commonvveaith (Supierior Court) Plaintiff sought $ 1 .7 million for the 
taking of 6.6 acres of land in Tyngsborough for the Route 3 project. The initial payment made 
to the plaintiff, known as the pro tanto, was $163,862. After trial the jury awarded plaintiff 
5750,586, a net gain (after deducting the pro tanto) of approximately $587,000. 

• AK Media V. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Superior Court) Plaintiff owned a billboard 
and lease rights on a building in Dedham. The property and the billboard were taken by the 
state as part of the Route 1 improvement project. The plaintitt was not the owner of the land 
but rather had a leasehold interest in the sign. MHD's pro tanto was $0, as was the appraisal 
of MHD's expert. The jury returned a verdict of SO. 

• C&:J Realty Trust v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) Plaintiffs sought to recover $3.85 
million for the taking of land along the Nepon.set River in Dorchester. The pro tanto was $ 1 .59 
million. The jiu}' awarded S3. 5 million, in total; after deducting the pro tanto the plaintiffs 
will receive approximately $2 million. 

• SDB Corp. v. Commonwealth (Superior Court) The jury awarded plaintiff $975,000 for a 
taking of 1.24 acres of land in Dorchester. This was $305,000 less than the pro tanto of $1.28 
million previously paid to plaintiffs, and more than $1 million less than what plaintiff sought 
at trial. 

• Boston Water and Sewer Commission v. Commonwealth (Appeals Court) Plairuiff 
challenged the constitutionality of a statute that transferred certain of its land to the University 
of Massachusetts without providing for a sum certain or any alternative site as compensation. 
The Commonv/ealth obtained summaiy judgment on the ground that BWSC, as a creation of 
the Legislature, could not challenge the constitutioniilit)' of legislative enactments. On BWSC's 
appeal, the Appeals Court affirmed. 

• Danvers Preservation Fund v. Massachusetts Historical Commission et al. (Superior 
Court) Plaintiff sought to prevent the sale and conversion of several buildings that were once 
part of the Danvers State Hospital. Plaintiff argued that the Commonwealth failed to meet 
statutory and regulatory requirements for the demolition or conversion of historic buildings. 
The court denied the plaintiffs application for a preliminary' injunction to stop the sale. 

EMPLOYIyIENI,CIVIL.RlGHTS,.AND.^ 

The Trial Division is frecjuently called upon to defend the Conunonwealth and its officials and 
employees in employment and civil rights cases. These cases are factually and legally complex and 



150 



GOVERNMENT BURFAL' [ KIAl DIVISION 

prcscnr challenging issues to tlic division. Also. Ik-cuisc thciv is no st.nutorv c;ip on ilic nionctarv 
damages that can be awardcti in these cases, and because these t\'[ies of\laiins IreciueiiiK' are brought 
against officials or employees in rlieir individual capacities, the potential rtnancial exposure can be 
significant. The division handled a number of employment and civil rights ca.ses during Fiscal Year 

2006. including the following: 

• Nelson v. Salem State College et al. (Supreme ludicial ("ourt) 1 he College installed a video 
camera in a rented office to investigate whether an luiauthori/ed (■•erson wa.s gaining access to the 
office after hours. The employees, including plaintiff, were not told about the camera, which was 
hidden. The plaintiff subsequently learned of the camera and filed this civil rights suit claiming 
a violation of her right of privacy in her work space. The (College respoiuled that the plaintiff 
did not enjoy an expectation of privacy iti the public office and that this was not a constitutional 
violation. In addition, the college argued that the law WiLs sufficiently unsettled and college 
officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The Superior Court granted summary judgment 
for the defendants and the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed. 

• Dasey v. Anderson (Appeals Court) Plaintiff was dismissed from the State Police during 
his probationary period, after it was learned that he gave false information in his employment 
application. After filing an unsuccessful federal court action, plaintiff brought this state court 
suit claiming that the discharge was unlawful and unsupported by good cause. The State Police 
moved for summary judgment on the ground that the federal court decision was res judicata of 
plaintiff's state court claims. The Superior Court allowed the motion and, on plaintiff's appeal, 
the Appeals Court affirmed. 

• McDonough v. Massachusetts State Lottery (Superior Court) Plaintiff claimed that the 
lottery failed to conect and protect her from a sexually hostile and retaliatory work environment. 
Plaintiff obtained a jury verdict for $36,000 in back pay, $ 1 1 .000 in emotional distress damages, 

attorney fees, and $50,000 in punitive damages which were then disallowed b\' the court on 
the Lottery's post-trial motion. 

• DeCario v. ABCC et al. (Superior Court) Plaintiff sued the ABCC and its former chairman 
in his individual capacit)', claiming that her job at the ABCC was eliminated in retaliation for 
bringing an MCAD complaint alleging gender discrimination. The ABC(''s defense was that 
the plaintiffs job was elitninated as part of an office reorganization. The jury found for the 
plaintiff. The parties are preparing the final judgment which will include front [\iy. back pay, 
lost pension benefits, emotional distress, attorneys fees, and interest. 



151 



GOVERNMENT BliREAU TRIAL DIVISION 

• Bhaduri v. Middlesex Sheriff's Office et al. (Superior Court) A correcciorial officer claimed 
that he was retahated against and constructively discharged as a result of racial discrimination. At 
trial, the jur\' found in favor of the individually named supei-v'isors but found against the Sheriff s 
Office, awarding $25,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages. 

• McCiain v. Roxburv' Trial Court et al. (Superior Court) A court employee alleged that he 
suffered discrimination based upon his Muslim religion and retaliation as a result of filing an 
MCAD complaint. The retaliation allegedly included the unlawful alteration of his criminal 
records, a false criminal complaint by a co-worker, and ultimately his termination. The jury 
rejected plaintiff's claims and entered a verdict in favor of the defendants. 

• Vockel V. 7'rainor et al. (Superior Court) Plaintiff an employee of the states Human 
Resources Division, claimed that HRD and its managers discriminated against her on account 
of her gender. 1 he defendarus itioved for summary judgmeru on die ground that plaintiff could 
not make out a prima facie case of discrimination. The motion was allowed. 

• Lee V. Department of Revenue (Superior Court) A former DOR employee alleged that 
DOR had discriminated against her on the basis of race when it failed to promote her over 
the course of her employment and allegedly retaliated against her when she complained of her 
treatment. DOR moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff's claims were 
not timely filed, DOR could not be a named defendant in a damages claim under one of the 
federal civil rights statutes relied upon by plaintiff, and finally that plaintiff could not meet her 
burden of proof The motion was allowed. 

• Philip v. Cronin (U.S. District Court) Plaintiff alleged that he was terminated from the 
Medical Examiner's (Office in retaliation for his speech criticizing the office and that the defendant 
Cronin, his supervisor, interfered with his contractual relations with the state and intentionally 
inflicted emotional distress upon him. After a week-long trial, the couit allowed the defendants" 
motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case. 

• Shing v. Department of Revenue et al. (Superior Court) Plaintiff claimed that she was 
denied more than 100 promotions on account of her ethnicit}' and that she suffered retaliation 
after bringing her discrimination claim. Plaintiff sued DOR and several individually named 
supervisors. In various pretrial motions the individually named defendants were dismissed. 
After the jury was empaneled and both parties gave opening statements, the case was settled 
for S300,000, including attorneys fees. 



152 



GOVERNMENT BURFAL,' jrIAI DIVISION 

• Lahousse v. D epartment of C orrection {Superior C lomi) A I )( )( : ii);im,i};ciikiu cin[>l()vcT 
filed rhis vvhistlchlowcr action alleging that I )()C: ivtaliaicJ against lici Iviscd on lici Loiiiplaims 
about labor relations and alleged mistakulations ((t'inniate release tinu. Afrer irial the |ury 
awaided plainrirt" $5,000. 

• Collins V. Massachusetts Highway Department (Superior ( ^ourt) An MH 1 ) employee filed 

this vvhistleblower a^iion alleging rhai MHl) retaliated against him afier he told his supervisor 
that other einpkn'ees were leaving work early without authori/aiion. Alter trial, the jur\' returned 
a verdict for MHD. 

• Mather v. Executive Office of Public Safet>^ (Superior Court) An employee of the former 
Governoi's Alliance Against Drugs filed this whistleblower action alleging that GAAD wa.s 
eliiTiinated, and he was terminated, because he accused an FOPS undcisecietaiy of mishandling 
federal funds. EOPS s defense was that GAAD was eliminated due to severe budget problems 
in early 2003. After a six-day trial the jury returned a verdict for E(3PS. 

• Scannell v. Reilly et al. (Superior Court) The Commonwe.iltlfs Secretary of State inxestigated 
Putnam Investments for alleged trading violations and ultimately reached a resolution under 
which Putnam paid a substantial fine. Plaintiff, a former employee at Putnam, claimed "relator" 
status under the state False Claims Act, arguing that the evidence he gave to the Commonwealth 
was the reason for the successful claim and he should obtain a percentage of the fine. Fhe 
Commonwealth moved to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff had not followed the statutory 
requirements for gaining "relator" status. The motion was allowed; plaintiff has appealed. 

• Gomes v. Cit\- of Brockton et al. (U.S. District Court) PlaintifFsuffercd a diabetic seizufe 
while in custody and sued the cit)' and the Massachusetts Frial Court for damages for their 
alleged deliberate indifference to his condition. 'Hie Trial C!ourt moved to dismiss the claims 
against ii on the ground that the plaintilTwas never in the Trial Courts custody or control. The 
motion was allowed. 

• Mihos V. Swift (U.S. District Court) A former Massachusetts Turnpike Authority board 
member sued a former Governor alleging, inter alia, that she retaliated against him by seeking 
to remove him from the board because of his vote to delay ati increase in tolls on the lurnpike. 
The district court's denial of the former Governor's motion for qualified immimity was appealed 
to the First Circuit, which remanded the case for fiirther discovery atul a trial. Afier extensive 
discover)' and briefing, the parties reached a mediated settlement of $ 1 97,500, including attorneys 
fees. 



153 



GOVERNMENT BUREAU TRIAL DIVISION 

• Duxbury Trucking v. Massachusetts Highway Department et al. (U.S. District Court) A 
women/minority-owned business with contracts for the Central Artery Project sued MHD and 
an MHD employee, claiming sex discrimination and a due process violation. Plaintiff argued 
that it lost S5 million due to the Commonwealths fiiilure to enforce certain wage laws on the 
Project, thus creating an unequal playing field on vs'hich plaintiff could not effectively compete. 
MHDs motion to dismiss the claims against it was allowed; the motion to dismiss the claims 
against the MHD employee remains to be resolved. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

At the beginning of Fiscal Year 2006 the Trial Division had 1,606 open crises. During the year the 
division opened 366 cases and closed 544. At the close of the year the division had 1,428 open cases. 



154 



PUBLIC PROTECTION 
BUREAU 

Children, Youth and Comm unities Division 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division 

Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division 

Environmental Protection Division 

Insurance Division 

Investigations Division 

Division oe Public Charities 

Utilities Division 



M.IRI ICPROTFCTION HURFAIJ 



Public Protection Bureau 

The Public Prorection Bureau manages and oversees civil affirmative litigation on behalf of the 
("ommonvvcalth and its citizens; the development of policy, legislative, and regnlafor^' proposals; and 
personnel for eight divisions: (Children, Yoiiih and Communities; Civil Rights aiul Cavil Liberties; 
Consumer Protection and Antitrust; Fnvirt)nmental Protection; Insmance; Investigations; Public 
Charities; and Utilities. The Bureau also includes the (Consumer (Jomplaint and Information Section 
and oversees the Local Consumer Aid Fund, which provides grants to local community groups to 
mediate And resolve consumer cotnplaints at the local level. 

'Lhe Public Protection Bureau included: Alice Moore, Bureau Chief; David Beck; (diarleiie Besr- 
Brown; Richard Cole; Kimberh' Henr)'; Katharine London; Anna iMarie Meola; (ilen Shor; Isabel 
Silva; and Rose Ursino. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

HEALTH CARE 

The Bureau develops and coordinates health care policy initiatives to improve the coordination, 
enhancement, and expansion of current health care policy enforcement efforts. The Bureau targets 
its efforts to preserve access to affordable, high-quality health care services that meet the needs of 
com nnmi ties. 

Health Care Information Website The Biucau, with Health Care for All, is developing a website 
to help consumers find, understand, and use health care itiformation available through the Internet. 
The site will help consumers gain access to information on health plans, hospitals, physiciatis. and long- 
term care in areas such as cost, quality, and licensure. It will also help consumers na\'igate the various 
sires available, and a guide will help users understand the inh)rmation presented. 

Health Reform The Bureau has been closely monitoring implementation of the health reform law 
passed in April 2006. Lhe law created the C'ommonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, 
responsible for enrolling low-income itidividuals in subsidized health insurance plans, making affoiilable 
health insurance plans available to individuals and small groups, and developing affordability standards 
for waiving compliance with the individual health insurance mandate. The Bureau has been providing 
advice and information to help make sure the C>onnector implements these programs in a way that is 
fair, equitable and affordable to individuals and small businesses. 

157 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 



Monitoring Hospitals Sc Health Plans The financial performance of the hospital industry in 
Massachusetts has improved dramatically to the point that the industry's performance is the best it has 
been in ten years. The Bureau, however, continues to monitor the hospital industi^' closely, focusing on 
financially vulnerable hospitals. The Bureau also continues to monitor the membership and financial 
status ot health plans in somewhat uncertain financial condition. 

Community Benefits The Bineau oversees Attorney General Reill\''s CorniTmnity Benefits 
Guidelines for both hospitals and HMOs. Members of the Bureau's Health Care Polic}' staff and the 
Public Charities Division manage the Community Benefits initiative. The Bureau took a number of 
actions to encourage Massachusetts not-for-profit hospitals and health plans to provide benefits needed 
by their local communities: 

• Making the Fiscal Year 2005 hospital and health plan Communit)' Benefits database publicly 
available on the Attorney General's website. Fihy-three hospitals aiid hospital systems 
voluntarily provided information about hundreds ol programs - ranging hom health screenings 
to communirv' education - representing a total investment of $501 million in Massachusetts 
communities, including $270 million in programs and services and $230 million in charity 
care. 

• Presenting awards to four Massachusetts hospitals (Brockton Hospital, Cape Cod Health 
Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, and UMass Memorial Plealth) for excelling beyond 
expectations to provide outstanding programs that address the broader health care needs of 
their communities. 

• Holding a Community Benefits Conference on June 20, 2006, to introduce the many new 
Community Benefits staff at ho.spitals and health plans and their community partners to the 
central tenets of Community Benefits programs: needs assessment, community involvement, 
and program evaluation. 

ELDER PRCrrECTION 

The Bureau seeks to enhance protections for Massachusetts elders by improving both the coordination 
of the Attorney Cjeneral's outreach efforts as well as the response to matters involving elder fraud 
and abuse. An internal steering committee, composed of division chiefs or bureau chiefs and other 
representatives from throughout the Office with substaruive jurisdiction over elder cases and matters, 
and chaired by the Legiil Coordinator for Elder Issues, creates the policy agenda for elder matters. 

Elder Abuse Grant Project In late 2002, the Attorney General received a training grant from 



158 



PUBIJC PROTF.CTION BLIREAi; 



the OHuc on Violence Against Women, U.S. Dep.irtnient ofjusiite, to est.ihlish .in niteidiseiplniary 
initiative to improve the capacity of prosecutois. law entorcement. elder service, and domestic violence 
professionals to recogni/c, investigate and prosecute abuse perpetrated against older individiials. I he 
projecr received a no-cost extension to operate through September 30. 2005. 

The Bank Reporting Project The Bank Keporring Project is a collaboration among the Attorney 
(leneial, the Massachusetts Bankers Association, state banks, and the Hxeciitive ( )rricc ofFlder Affairs 

to train bank tellers and security personnel to better recogni/e and report elder hnancial exploitation. 
During this fiscal year, the project held seven training sessions throughout the state and trained 
approximately 200 bank personnel. The Attorney General also joined the Massachusetts Bankers 
Association, the Massachusetts Credit Dnion keague, and the Better Business Bureau in issuing an 
advisory wartiing the public about fake check schemes. 

The Attorney General's Working Group on Assisted Living Facilities and Continuing C^are 
Retirement Communities The Attorney General convened an Assisted Living Facilities working group 
to develop a plan to identif}' and address perceived gaps in the laws governing assisted living facilities 
and continuing care communities. The group reviewed proposed assisted living regulations and met 
w'ith advocates and industry groups. 

The Attorney General s Elder Fraud Alert Calendar The internal steering committee developed a 
calendar that covered a variety of fraud prevention and other useful information, including Medicare 
drug plans; advance directives; unfair debt collection; foreign lotteries; home itnprovement; investment 
scams; Internet spyvvare; identity theft and charities fraud. The office distributed 4^^,000 English 
language, 3,000 Spanish language, and 2,500 Portuguese language calendars to law enforcement, elder 
groups and individual consumers, and posted the calendar on the Attorney' Cknerafs website in English. 
Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, andVietname.se. 



OUTREACH, £L:)UCATI0N ANL^ TRAINING 

The Bureau developed a three-hour curriculum to train police cadets on elder fraud and abu.sc, and 
bureau staff served as instructors on two occasions at a regional training acadenn- for mimicipal police. 
Attorney General Reilly, the PPB Bureau Chief, Assistant Attorneys General, and mediators: appeared 
on local cable television programs and at elder events to discuss issues affecting elders; appeared before 
the Elder Legislative Caucus and the Executive Office of Elder Affairs to discuss financial fraud; spoke 
at assisted living facilities, senior centers, TRlADs and community groups; distributed information and 
an.swered questions at the annual conference of the Massachu.setts C^oimcils on Aging, at two events 

159 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CHILDREN. YOUTH AND COMMUNITIES DIVLSION 

Sponsored by the Massachusetts Aizheimers Association, and at a large elder conference in Middlesex 
County; and served as representatives on various elder advisory boards including the Massachusetts 
End of Life Commission and the Boston Partnership for Older Adults. 

CHILDREN, YOUTH AND COMMUNITIES DI\aSION 

The Children, Youth and Communities Division identifies and addresses existing and emerging 
trends affecting the safety of children, youth, and vulnerable communities (vv'ith an emphasis on elder 
and immigrant populations). The division serves as an internal and external inh)rmation and referral 
source, delivers education and outreach programs, and develops resources to support new and existing 
programs. 

The division coordinates and stall's the .Attorney Cenerals Student Conflict Resolution Experts 
(SCORE) Program, a nationall}'- recognized peer mediation program created to reduce violence in schools 
and foster safer learning environments for students. The division also oversees a Conflict Intervention 
Team (CIT) of specially trained community mediators, who mobilize on a moment's notice to provide 
emergency mediation service to schools in crisis or on the verge of crisis. Ihe division co-coordinates 
the -Attorney Cenerafs Safe Schools Iniric^rive, a collaboration with a team of external experts chat works 
to promote safe schools and educational equity. 

Children. Youth and Communities Division staff included: Michelle Booth; Dawn Fontaine; Johny 
Laine; and Anna Marie Meola. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIMTIES 



Student Conflict Resolution Experts Program (SCORE) Founded in 1989, SCORF^ is a school- 
based program that uses trained student mediators to resolve conflict among peers. In Fiscal Year 2006, 
the Attorney General awarded $385,000 to 25 schools in communities across Massachusetts, including 
Boston, Greenfield, Fitchburg, Fiolyoke, Lowell, Lynn, Maiden, Medford, Montague/Turners Falls, 
Quincy, Pittsfield, Somerville, Stoughton, Springfield, Taunton, Wakefield (ser\nng twelve communities), 
and Worcester. Student mediators in SCORE programs mediated 1 ,757 conflicts involving 4,4 1 6 youth; 
96% of conflicts were resolved successfully through the use of peer mediation. The conflicts included 
physical fights, harassment, name-calling, stealing, threats, property damage, and rumors. 

Division staff maintained close contact with participating schools, monitored grants, and provided 
technical assistance. Staff served as faculty for student mediator training events in which over 180 

160 



PURI ICPW^TFCnON BL'RFAf t Mil l)l<l\, U )r IH AND COMMUNITIFS DIVISlOV 

new mcdi.uors received iraining. SCORF schools tiMiiied ad .iJdiiioii.il 1 .!() students to serve .is peer 
mediators. Division staff also provided advanced training and support to vi .jdult mediation program 
coordinators to strengthen their skills in recognizing the ap|iropn.ite ippliLation ot" metliation mk\ 
providing effective mediation training to voting people. 

Conflict Intervention Team (CIT) Hoiuided in 1992, the ("11 is a collaborative project among 
the Attorney General, the Ma,ssachiisetts Department of Fdiication, and the Mavsadnisetts Association 
of Mediation Programs and Practitioners. Composed of a network of specialK' trained community 
mediators, CIT provides mediation scn'iccs on a short-term basis to schools experiencing or at risk for 
experiencing large-scale conflict. In Fiscal Year 2006, division staff conducted nvo assessments at a 
high school that requested a (d F intervention to address conflict between white students and students 
of Middle F.asiern descent. Although the situation was not appropriate for mediation, staff worked 
with the Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Division, the local district attorneys office, and the local police 
department to ensure that tiic district had access to resources that helped them protect student safety, 
investigate the situation, and de-escalate the conflict. The division engages in targeted outreach to 
schools experiencing or having the potential to experience large-scale conflict to make them aware of 
.services and to provide referral to appropriate resources. 

Attorney General's Safe School Initiative (SSI) Founded in 2003, the Safe Schools Initiative is a 
collaborative project involving a technical it*;sistance team of over 60 representatives froiTi the fields of 
law enforcement, education, health, civil rights, victim assistance, and prevention. The SSI provides 
schools with practical tools and strategies that help them foster a climate safe from harassment, bullying 
and hate crimes. 

The Division Director and the Senior Counsel for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties co-direct the 
SSI. Central to the SSI is a two-year pilot project designed to work intensively with three school 
districts to design and field test tools and strategies for fostering safe schools and a culture of respect. 
In its first year of operation, the SSI established pilot projects in three communities (Marlborough, 
Randolph and West Boylston), conducted a comprehensive needs as.sessment in each district, supported 
the development of an action plan that corresponds to specific needs identified in each district, and 
developed and implemented a model civil rights policy, lb share the tools and resoinces developed in 
its first year of operation, SSI web pages now appear on the Attorney General s website. Division stall, 
in collaboration with SSI partner the New England Equity Assistance Center at Brown I'niversit)', also 
wrote Multidisciplinary Collaboration in a Statewide Safe Schools Initiative: Committed Stakeholders 
Addressing the Issues of Bullying, Harassment and Flatc Crime and presented the paper on September 
20, 2006, at the annual Persistently Safe Schools conference sponsored by the Hamilton Fish Institute 



161 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CHILDREN, YOUTH AND COMMUNITIES DIVISION 

on School and Communiry Violence at George Washington University; the paper will be published in 
the proceedings of the conference in late fall of 2006. 

Elder Protection Working with the Legal Coordinator for Elder Lssues, division staff coordinated 
activit)' in the Attorney Generafs federally funded Training Grant to Stop Abuse Against Older Persons 
and Individuals with Disabilities. In this fiscal year, staff co-developed the curriculum for the final 
training event of the grant. At the Hands of (Jthers: Elder Abuse in Institutional Settings, a conference 
designed for law enforcement officers, prosecutors, victim services professionals and other disciplines 
playing a direct role in responding to elder victims of abuse. Other project activities included the design 
and launch of Elder Abuse Project web pages on the Attorney C.ieneraEs website that include laws and 
regulations, safety planning and mandated reporting information, conference materials, a searchable 
database of N'lassachusetts resources by county, national resources, and elder statistics. I'his website was 
highlighted in the December 2005/January 2006 issue of the National Center on Elder Abuse Newsletter, 
and it continues to be listed as a resource on the Massachusetts Trial Court Elder Law Resources website. 
Staff also coordinated the establishment and activity of a multidisciplinary Elder Abuse Roundtable in 
Worcester County that engaged in several outreach and training events about elder domestic violence 
awareness and elder financial exploitation prevention. 

in addition to activity directly related to the Training Grant to Stop Abuse Against Older Persons 
and Individuals with Disabilities grant, staff also supported the development and delivery of severiil 
training events addressing the prevention of fraud and financial exploitation for elders and professionals 
working with elders. The trainings included two events presented exclusively in Spanish for residents 
of Central iVlassachusetts. Division staff also participated in efforts to raise awareness of utilit}' costs 
savings programs, with an emphasis on outreach to the elderly. 



OUTRFACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Division stafFhave participated in a wide range of ( 1 ) outreach, technical assistance and training events 
concerning the application of mediation and violence prevention strategies for adults and (2) worlcshops 
about peer mediation, conflict resolution and diversity appreciation for middle school and high school 
students, including the ]2ih Annual Peacemakers Summit for middle and high school mediators and 
the 2nd Anrmal North Shore Peer Mediators' Summit. Last year the division coordinated programs 
and served as members of training teams for workshops for staff at six school districts about protecting 
students from harassment, bullying and hate crimes. Staff also provided technical assistance to other 
divisions and bureaus in the Attorney General's Office, as well as to district attorneys' offices, to support 



162 



PUBLIC PROTF.CTION BURFAU CIVII KK.1 11 s AND CIVIL I.IBFRTIKS DIVISION 

a wide range ofcdiKarioii.il [no^rams, iiKlinJing Iiiutik-i salfU'. In total, ilic tlivisKtii participattcl in 
training and outreach tvxius that engaged nearly 3,300 Massachusetts residents ni iistal Year 2006. 
1 )ivisi(>n staihilso servetl on the Atrorne\- Cieneral's I )iversitv Comniittee and Massachusetts Task horce 
on Hate C!rinie.s. 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES DIVISION 

The Civil Rights and C^ivil Liherties Division enforces the Massachusetts ( avil Rights Act (M(.R/\). 
The MCRA authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief when threats, intirnidation. 
or coercion based on ati individuars race, color, national origin, ethnic background, gender, sexual 
orientation, disabiliry, age, or religious affiliation interfere with the exercise of that persons civil right.s. A 
violation of a civil rights injunctive order constitutes a criminal oHense, putiishable by a maxiinuni of 1 
years in state prison if the victim suffers bodih' injurA', or up to two and one half \'ears in a correctional 
facility if no bodily injury results. 

The division also enforces the fair housing laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, 
color, national origin, religion, ,sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, .source of income 
(receipt of housing subsidy), age, or disability. Division staff also focus on employment discrimination, 
discriiTiination in places of public accommodations and educational ec]uity. 

The Disability Rights Project works to increa,se enforcement of state and federal laws assuritig ecjual 
access to places of public accommodation like restaurants and stores and access to municipal buildings 
and ser\'iccs. The Project protects the rights of individuals with disabilities not only through litigation, 
but also through assistance I'or individuals, trainiiig, publications, intervention with municipal entities, 
and speaking engagements. 

The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division included: John Hitt, Division Chief; Patricia Correa, 
Director, Disability Rights Project; Cathy Ziehl, Director, Employment Rights Project; Bethany Brown; 
Zoe Butler-Stark; Michael Fleischer; Rosalind Kabrhel; Maria MacKenzie; Tina Matsuoka; and Ienn\' 
Rossman. Two volunteer Assistant Attorneys General, Andrew Goldberg and Elizabeth l.ange, assisted 
the division. The division also worked extensively with Richard Cole, Senior Counsel for C'ivil Rights 
and Civil Liberties. 



163 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CiVlL RIGHTS AND CIVIL. LIBERTIES DIVISION 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

BIAS AGAJNST SEXUAL ORIENTATION 

• Commonwealth v. Tonikins and Braxton (Suffolk Superior Court) 1 he divisioti obtained 
a civil rights injunction against two Boston men who had beaten a teenager because of the 
teenager's sexual orientation and gender identity-. 

• Commonwealth v. Brunelie (Bristol Superior Court) The division obtained an civil rights 
injunction against a New Bedford women who repeatedly harassed her neighbors based on their 
actual or perceived sexual orientation. 

BIASAQyNSi:.NA;riONAL.OR]j3IN,Ei:HM^ 

• Commonwealth v. MacDonald, et al. (Suffolk Superior Court) The division obtained 
civil rights injunctions against four Winthrop teenagers who attacked and hatiissed a Somali 
family based on the family's national origin and religion. 

• Commonwealth v. Greeley, et al. (Middlesex Superior Court) The division obtained a 
civil rights injunction against two Newton men who attacked several teenagers because of their 
national origin, race, or ethnicity. 

• Commonwealth v. Miguel Camargo. Phe Meas, and Jamie Roldan (Superior Court) The 
division obtained final judgments by consent extending for two years injunctions obtained 
against the defendants. The case involved a man of Pakistani descent who three men assaulted 
at the 7-E!even convenience store in Easron where he works as a clerk. The attackers yelled 
racial epithets and accused the man of being a terrorist related to Osama Bin Laden. 

• Commonweahh v. Fay (Middlesex Superior Court) 1 he division obtained a civil 
rights injunction in this case where a white man attacked a Sikii convenience store clerk in 
Billerica. 

EDUCATIONAL EQUITY 

• Comfort v. Lynn School Committee, et al . (United States Supreme Court) The division 
filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court opposing the plaintiffs' request that the Supreme 
Court review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The 
Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for review, leaving in place the decision of the First Circuit 
upholding the constitutionality of the City of Lynn's voluntary public school desegregation 
plan. 



164 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BURFAU CIVII RKiHTS AND CIVII, I.IBFRTIKS DIVISION 

H OUSING DISCRIMINATION 

• Commonwealth et ai. v. Chelsea 1 lousing Authority, et al. (SiifTolk Supc i lor ( iourt) Tlic 
division obtiiined consent judgments and S78,0{)() in damages against the (Chelsea Housing 
Authority. The consent judgmeius inchule broad injuiuiive rehel", inchichiig detailed reasonable 
accommodation policies ami proiedurcs and an indcpciuleni monitor to oversee am' luiiire 
denials ot reasotiable accommodation requests ami the adoption ol an anri-teiiant-on-tenant- 
hatitssment pohcy. 

• Commonwealth v. Frank Middleton Realt}^ et. al. (Superior Court) The division obtained 

a Final Judgment by Cx)nsenr in this case involving race-based housing discrimination when a 
teal estate company allegedly applied dilTeient terms and conditions to tlie applii^atioti ofati 
interracial couple who attempted to [nirchase property. 

The division also continued to itivestigate, commence, litigate, and informall\- resolve scores of 
cases under: (1) the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act; (2) C.L. c. 151 B; and (3) the Massachusetts Public 
Accommodations Statutes. 



SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVrriFS 

Civil Rights in Schools The division continued implementing the Attorney Cieneral s Sate Schools 
Initiative, which is aimed at developing iimovative, communit}'-based policies and procedures for dealing 
with civil rights issues that arise in the Commonwealths public schools. The division worked intensively 
with three pilot districts (Randolph, Winchester, and West Boylston) to draft and implement model 
civil rights policies and procedures in conjunction with the Massachusetts Departmetu of Fducation. 
local district attorneys' offices, local social services organizations, and local community groups. 

Meanwhile, the division continued to field a vvide variety of civil rights complaints from parents, 
students, and advocacy groups alleging violations of civil rights in the Commonwealth's public schools. 
In response to these complaints, the division spent numerous hours coordinating with local education 
officials {superintendents and principals) and local police departments in an atretnpt to address effectively 
the issues raised by the complaints. 

Arab, Muslim, South Asian, Sikh Community The division continued its work with a '■Coimnunity- 
Law Enforcement Working Croup' to develop new efforts at encouraging ongoing cotntnunication 
between law enforcement and the Muslim. Arab and Sikh communities in Creater Boston. 



165 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

OUTRL\CH. EDUCATION. AND TRAINING 

The division continued its traditional outreach, education, and training about civil rights issues in 
the Commonvs/eaith. 

Community Hate Crime Prevention Division staff made presentations to local organizations and 
community meetings relating to how to address effectively hate crime issues. 

Outreach to the Disability Community Through its Disability Rights Project, the division met 
throughout the year with independent living centers around the state and disabilit)' rights advocacy 
groups. These outreach activities helped the division identify areas of particular concern to the disabilit}' 
communit)' that Disability Rights Project could address. 

fair Housing The division worked with the Law, (>ulture, and Difference program at Northeastern 
Universit)' Law School to develop updated informational materials and brochures relating to Massachusetts 
housing antidiscrimination laws. 

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

The Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division (CPAD) is the leading voice in the ( Commonwealth 
for consumers disadvaruaged by untair or deceptive acts or practices in the marketplace. The division 
enforces both state and federal consumer protection and antitrust laws by investigating and prosecuting 
a wide array of civil cases. By aggressively enforcing the consimier and antitrust laws, CPAD helps 
protect consumers from unethical business practices, and ensures that businesses compete on a level 
playing field based on the best qualit)', service and price. 

CT-'AD also promulgates consumer protection regulations, mediates consumer complaints against 
businesses, and provides information to the public through the Attorney Generals Consumer Hotline, 
advisories antl information on the Attorney Cienerals Web site, distribution of brochures on a lumiber 
of issues affecting consumers, 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 sei-vices to consumers who have encountered a problem in a purchase 
of consumer goods or services. The division also provides grants to a statewide network of 19 Local 
(Consumer Programs (LCPs) and nine Face-to-Face Mediation Programs to furnish information and 
mediation services. 'Lhe information CCIS and the LCPs gather is available to tfie division for review 
and evaluation for possible legal action. Many cases the division has brought over the years have had 

166 



PUBLIC PROTF.CTION BURFAl,' CdNSUMF.R PROT FCTION ANf) AVFITRUST DIVISION 



their genesis in CX.IS aiul the I CM's, and patterns ofiinfair or deceptive tondiiet these cases reveal have 
also served as the basis for draFr legislation (identit\' thert, telemarketing fraud) ami regidations (travel 
services, long-rerni care facilities). 

CPADstafTincluded: Jesse C^-aplan, [division (liief; Diane I.awton, Managing Attorney; ('hristopher 
Bany-Smiih; Cairlin Burke; Judirh Connolly; Maigrcr C'ooke; April Fnglish; Itilie Ksposiro; Marv 
Freeley; Stephanie Kahn; Pamela Kogiu; Kasey Lindsey; Betty Maguire; Mary Marshall; Lois Martin; 
David Monahan; Carmen (3sorio-Bernuide/; Katherine Re)'nolds; Scott Schafer; jelTre)' Shapiro; 
C^hristine Sullivan; Jacqueline Welch; Judith Whiting; Betsv 'VCIiittev; ( jeoffrey Wh\-: Marvina Wilkes; 
and Mail' Wollenhaupt. 

CClS staff included: Gail Gabriel, Director; Julie Papernik, Assistant Director; Melissa Armstrong; 
Tiffany Bennett; Paul C^arey; C.hristina C-iampolillo; Max Feldpausch; Deborah Firlit; iUert Fogart)-; 
Ricardo Goodridge; Jeremy Jatiow; Brenda King; Diatie McGarrell; Rose Miller; Anva Petroif; Susan 
Potter; Jentu' Rosman; Alexis Rufb; Andria Simon; atid Jon Wai 'Fotnmee. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

HMLTH CARE .\ND PRESCRIPTION DRUGS 

• Commonwealth v. Peoples Benefit Services, Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) In November 
2005, CPAD filed suit against Peoples Benefit Sen-ices, Inc., a Pennsylvania company, for 
allegedly using deceptive marketing tactics to lure senior citizens and other Medicare beneficiaries 
into believing they were signing up for Medicare-approved prescription drug discount cards, 
when the)' were nor. The lawsuit alleged that Peoples unlawfully used government-like logos, 
phrases and terms in its mailings and commercials to market its Senior Security drug discount 
card. These official-looking marketing materials coincided with the roll-out of the new fedetiil 
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit and, the lawsuit alleges, were designed to mislead seniors. 
CPAD is continuing to litigate this case, seeking injunctive relief, consumer restitution and 
civil penalties. 

• Commonwealth v. Warner Chiicott Corp. and Barr Pharmaceuticals (I'.S. District Court. 
D.C.) In December 2005, Massachusetts joined .34 other states and the District of Columbia 
in filing an antitrust suit against Warner Chiicott Corporation and Barr Pharmaceuticiils. 
alleging that the two drug companies illegally conspired to prevent the sale of generic versions 
of Ovcon, a prescription oral contraceptive. 'Fhe lawsuit alleges that after Barr announced it 
would begin offering a cheaper generic versioji of Ovcon, Wirner Chiicott paid Barr S20 million, 

167 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRU^ST DIVISION 

and in exchange Barr agreed not to sell the generic alternative. CPAD and the other states are 
continuing to litigate this case, seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties. 

ELDER PROTFCTJON 

• Commonwealth v. Logan Healthcare Facility, Inc., et ai. (Suffolk Superior Court) In 
June 2003, CPAD, with the assistance of the Department of Public Health, filed suit against 
the owners and operators of five nursing home facilities located on the South Shore and in 
Southeastern Massachusetts, alleging that they grossly mismanaged the financial operations of 
the nursing homes, putting the health and welfare of the facilities' 349 patients at risk. CPAD 
sought and successfiilty obtained the appointment of a temporary receiver over the nursing 
homes, and the receiver safely transferred all the residents to new facilities. CPAD also obtained 
a preliminary injunction against the defendants, all members of the Logan family preventing 
them from transferring any of their assets or the assets of the facilities. In February 2006, CPAD 
filed an action for contempt against several of the Logan defendants, alleging that they violated 
the 2003 preliminary injunction order by fraudulently transferring certain assets. In June 2006, 
CPAD obtained three separate C'onsenr Judgments resolving the contempt actions. Under the 
Judgments, the Logans are required to pay a total of S567,727, represeruing receivership costs, 
civil penalties, and attorneys' fees. 

• Commonwealth v. Sachem Associates and Carol Vaieri, d/b/a Ann Carroll Nursing Home 

(Suffolk Superior Court) In November 2005, CPAD, with the assistance of the Department of 
Public Health, filed suit against the ov.aier and operator of the 28-bed Ann Carroll Nursing Home 
in Lynn, Massachusetts. I'he lawsuit alleged that the nursing home, among other problems, 
failed to prevent or report resident-against-resideni physical and sexual abuse, including two 
allegations ol rape. CPAD successfully obtained the appointment of a temporary receiver 
over the facilit}^ and that receiver safely transferred the residents to other fitcilities. CPAD is 
continuing to litigate this case. 

• Commonwealth v. Larry James Semces (Suffolk Superior Court) In October 2005, C.PAD 
obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance against a Cape Cod home improvement contractor, 
Larry James, doing business as Larry James Services, resolving allegations that James engaged 
in unhiir and deceptive practices involving at least fifteen consumers, most of them elders. 
James allegedly accepted excessive down payments from consumers and then abandoned many 
of those jobs; in others, he allegedly failed to provide the quality of work and materials he had 
promi-sed. Under the Assurance, James paid consumers in excess of $7,000 in restitution, and 
paid the Commonwealth a $2,500 penalty. 



168 



PUBLIC PROTF.CTION RURFAl' Cl^NSUMi k I'RdI KTION ANII /WTITRl 'ST DIVISION 



CHILD PROTECTION 

• On-Line Sales of Illegal Weapons (Suffolk Suixiioi Court) In M.iy 2006. CPAI) sua! 
three ouf-of-srare Inrcrncr dealers for allcgidly .scllui^ illegal weapons, inciiuiing smn guns, 
to consumers in Massachusetts. Ihc three dealers, Personal Protection Outlet of North I'ort. 
Florida, Unitiue Wholesale, Inc. of Kissinimee, Florida, and \XV Care ( oinpanv of Coppcll, 
Texas, all operated on-line "stores' on the eBay Imertiet auction site, and sold and shipped the 
weapons to undercover investigators with the Attorney (k-neral's ( ')fHce. FBay co()perated with 
the Attorney Generals investigation, and. as a result, iniplcincnted stricter warnings, prdicies, 
and penalties for sellers on its auction sire. Two of the Internet dealers. Personal Protection 
Outlet and Unique Wholesale, agreed to resolve the lawsuits by entering into con.sent judgments 
that banned luture sales of stun guns into Massachusetts, required the firms to use software that 
automatically blocks shipments to consumers in Massachusetts, and forced them to pav S^.OOO 
each in civil penalties. CPAl^ is continuing to litigate its case against We Care (Company. In 
October 2005, CPAl) obtained judgments against three other out-of-state weapons sellers, 
permanently barring the dealers from shipping illegal weapotis to Massachusetts consimiers and 
ret]uiring them to pay thousands of dollars in civil penalties. These judgments against C&M 
Enterprises of Fort Gaines, Georgia, Copgear.net of Killeen, Texas, and Martial Arts Gear of 
Lafayette, Louisiana, resolved lawsuits brought by CPAD in August 2004. 

• On-line Sales of "Look-Alike" Air Guns and BB Guns to Minors In May 2006, C^PAI) 
announced a sting operation targeting the sale of age-restricted air guns and BB guns to children. 
CPAD issued demand letters to six out-of-state Internet companies and one Massachu.setts 
store indicating that the Attorney General intended to sue them as a result ol an undercover 
investigation. During the investigation, a 16-year-old boy had successfully purchased weapons 
from these merchants in violation of Massachusetts law, which prohibits the sale of air and BB 
guns to minors under the age of 18. The guns, some of which are referred to as "airsoft guns, 
are high-powered, often semi- or fully-automatic, and fire plastic or metal pellets that can inHict 
serious injuries. 'Fhey pose an additional safety risk because they are designed to kiok and feci 
exactly like real guns, and local police are finding that these guns are used ro commit crimes. 
These cases were part of an overall initiative to target the sale of age-prohibited products to 
minors over the Internet, including alcohol, cigarettes and fireworks. 

• MySpace.com Social Networking Site In May 2006, CPAD announced the results of an 
investigation into the popular social networking Web site, MySpace.com. The investigation 
found that, among other concerns, minors as young as 14 who use the MySpacc Web site were 
exposed to sexually explicit and violent content, bullying, and contacts from sexual predators. 



169 



PUBLIC PROTECTION Bl'RF.AU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

In a lerrer to the conipiany, the Attorney Generid demanded that MySp^ace make dramatic 
changes to its Web site to ensure the safety of minors, including instituting age and identity 
verification systems and deleting inappropriate profiles and content. Immediately afi:er the 
Attorney Generals letter, MySpace instituted changes to the Web site. C>PAL) is continuing 
its investigation of MySpace and other social networking Web sites. Staff from CPAD also 
participated in a June 2006 conference in Wishington, D.C. sponsored by the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) addressing how to help protect teens who use 
social networking Web sites. 

• Tobacco Sales to Minors by Pharmacies and Convenience Stores (Suffolk Superior Court) 
In March 2006, CPAD filed an amended Consent Judgment against CVS Pharmac)' requiring 
it to pay up to $200,000 to settle allegations diat the pharmacy chain sold tobacco products 
to minors. This was the third action since 1998 that the Attorney General had taken against 
CVS concerning its tobacco sdes practices. Compliance checks by the Massachusetts Tobacco 
Control Program found that CVS sold tobacco to minors in 72 oi 454 compliance checks in 
Fiscal Year 2004. and 75 of the 677 compliance checks in Fiscal Year 2005. Under the Consent 
Judgment, CVS had to pay an initial S 100,000 to the Commonwealth, and faces as much as 
$100,000 in additional penalties if it fails to substantially curb its tobacco sales to minors over 
the next two years. The Judgment also requires CVS to implement improved employee training 
programs and secret shopper compliance checks, and to limit its tobacco advertising. The CVS 
Judgment followed an /'Vssurance of Discontinuance with the nation's largest tobacco retailer, 7- 
FJeven, Inc. in August 2005, 40 states, including Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, 
obtained a settlement with 7-FJeven that addressed the retailer's sales practices and required it 
to implenient policies and procedures to reduce tobacco sales to minors. In December 2005, 
the states also entered into a settlement with ConocoPhillips addressing its tobacco advertising 
and sales practices. The 7-Eleven and ConocoPhillips agreements followed similar agreements 
between the states, including Massachusetts, and other national chain retailers and convenience 
stores operated by Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Rite Aid, ExxonMobil, BP, Amoco, and ARCO. 

• Online and Mail Order Sales of Cigarettes to Minors in January 2006, Massachusetts 
and 36 Attorneys General across the countty announced that Philip Morris USA had agreed to 
take steps to combat the illegal sale of cigarettes over the Internet and through the mail. Philip 
Morris agreed to stop shipping cigarettes to Internet or mail order vendors that the Attorneys 
General identify as engaging in illegal sales, including sales to minors. The agreement v/ith 
Philip Morris followed a series of lawsuits CT^AD filed against Internet cigarette retailers who 
sold cigarettes to Massachusetts teenagers. These lawsuits resulted in judgmerus and other 



170 



PUBLIC PROTF.CTION BURFAL' CdNSUMl K PRol l( HON ANf) ANTITRUST DIVISION 

orders against hnir IiUtTiKt cigarette ticakrs tiulmi; iluir sales in Massatluiselts, a\k\ recjuiring 
rheiii to p.w penalties totaling more than Sl.'i million. 

INTERNET AND HIGH TECH 

• Commonwealth v. Leo Knvayev. et al. (Suffolk Superior ('oiiri) hi October 2005, CPAD 
obtained a judgment 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. The judgment permanentl\' shut down 
dozens of illegal Web sites, and ordered the defendants to pay $37 million in civil penalties. 
CPAD originally filed the case in May 2005, alleging that Kuvayev and his associates sent 
hundreds of millions ol unsolicited "spam" e-mails to consumers and busine.sses 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 Bcston post office box address for 
some of their business operations. 

• C^ommonwealth v. NEPCQ LP, doing business as mydv.co.uk (Suffolk Superior ( lourr) In 
December 2005, CP.AD filed suit against a Waltham Internet compan)' for defrauding hundreds 
of consumers, most of tfiem located in the United Kingdom, in connection with the online 
Side of consumer electronics. The company, NEPCO LP, and its president, Jeremy Paradies, 
operated a Web site called mydv.co.uk, and billed the online vendor as "The L'Ks Best Source 
for Digital Video tA^uipment." The company was actually located in Massachusetts and had 
no presence in the United Kingdom. CPADs lawsuit alleged that the defendants routinely 
engaged in deceptive pricing, overcharged customers, failed to deliver merchandise, shipped 
wrong orders, and failed to give consumers promised refunds. CPAD obtained an emergeiKy 
order effectively shutting down the company. CPAD continues to litigate this case seeking 
restitution for consumers and civil penalties. 

CONSUMER FINANCING AND CRLT:)IT 

• Commonwealth v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, et al. (Suffolk Superior Court) In 
March 2006, CPAD filed a civil complaint and final judgment against Ameriquest »\iortgage 
Company, resolving allegations that Ameriquest, the largest "subprime" mortgage lender in the 
United States, falsified home values and borrower incomes and used other high pressure and 
unfair tactics that trapped consumers into burdensome debt. A settlement among Amerquest, 
its parent, ACC Capital Holdings, and additional subsidiaries, and Attorneys General and 
banking and financial regulators from 49 states, including Massachusetts, requires Ameriquest 
to pay $325 million to the states; approximately $12 million of that amount will be returned 



171 



PUBIJC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

to thousands oFMassachusetts iionieowners. It iilso requires the company to revamp its lending 
practices. The complaint filed against Ameriquest alleged that the California-based lender 
regularly tried to induce borrowers into entering loans by misleading them about loan terms, 
including the interest rate of the loan, the presence or the mechanics of the adjustable rate 
feature, the material costs of the loan, and the ability of consumers to refinance the loan at a 
later date. The complaint iilso alleged that the Massachusetts Division of Banks in 2003 had 
ordered Ameriquest to pay consumers over $5 million in refunds and to correct a number of 
problems, including using deceptive consumer solicitations, using an unsound pricing model, 
steering consumers to larger loans, and failing to disclose to consumers all the points they were 
being charged. Despite this order, Ameriquest, the complaint alleges, continued to engage 
in unfair and deceptive practices through December 2005. Under the sertienient, harmed 
consumers should begin receiving their refunds in early 2007. 

• Commonwealth v. Cambridge Credit Counseling Corp., et al. (Suffolk Superior Court) 
In November 2005, CPAD and the Public Charities Division obtained a consent judgment 
against Cambridge Credit Counseling Corporation and its controlling directors and officers, 
John and Richard Puccio, resolving allegations that they breached their fiduciarv' obligations 
and engaged in uniair and deceptive practices under N'lassachusetts charities and consumer 
protection laws. The judgment requires Cambridge, an Agawam, Massachusetts-based non- 
profit credit counseling agency, and the Puccios to pay $4.2 million in penalties and consumer 
restitution, and permanently bars the Puccios from working with Cambridge, contracting with 
the charity, or receiving any money from the charity. The judgment resolves a lawsuit filed 
in .April 2004, alleging that Cambridge and several of its directors and officers fijnneled more 
than $60 million of the charity's assets to for-profit companies owned by insiders, including 
the Puccios, and also misled thousands ot consumers about the benefits of joining its credit 
counseling program. Under the judgment, harmed Massachusetts consumers should begin 
receiving refunds in late 2006. 

• In Re BK Counselors (Suffolk Superior Court) In October 2005, CPAD obtained an 
Assurance of Discontinuance against a Walpole, Massachusetts, company, resolving allegations 
that the company misrepresented itself as an approved credit counselor under the new fedenil 
bankruptcy reform law. Under the federal bankruptcy reform law, which had just gone into 
effect, individuals planning on filing for bankruptcy must receive credit counseling from 
a certified bankruptcy counselor. BK Counselors ran an advertisement offering approved 
bankruptcy counseling, despite the fact that it had not been certified b\' the US Trustee. Under 



172 



PUBLIC PROTFCTIONBURFAl.' CX^NSIJMF.R PROTF.CTION AND ANTITRUST l)l\IS|()\ 

the scttlciiKiii, BK ( ounsflDrs paid the ( ^ominoiiwcihh S5, ()()(). .iiul is piohihiii-d tiom lutiirc 
inisrcprcscmations. 

TF.LKCOMMUNICIATIONS 

• In Re Direc'W. Inc . (SnlTolk Superior (^ourt) hi December 2005. (IVAD filed an Assurance 
of Discontinuance against sarelHte 'W provider Direc'I'V, hic, resolving allegations that the 
company engaged in deceptive marketing and advertising practices. The alleged deceptive 
practices included running advertisetnents that used small, unreadable print to explain limitations 
on special offers, hiling ro disclose extra charges for additional satellite receivers, and failing 
to disclose material contract terms, like minimum time conunitmcnts. Under the .settlement, 
reached by Massachusetts and 21 other state Attorneys Cieneral, Direc TV is recjiiired to abide 
by certain marketing and advertising statidards. DirecTV also paid Massachusetts S290,O0O. 

•• In Re Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc . (Suffolk Superior Cx)urt) In March 
2006, CPAD obtained an Assurance of Discontinuance against Philadelphia-based Comcast 
Cable Communications Moldings, Inc., resolving allegations that the cable 'IV operator, and 
its predecessor, A !&: I Broadband, engaged in a patterii ot unfair and deceptive advertising and 
sales practices. CPAD initiated its investigation of Comcast after receiving significant tunnbers 
of consumer complaints. Based on this investigation. CPAD alleged that Comcast, among other 
things, failed to adequately disclose material information about certain "free" or reduced rate 
digital cable packages, promoted higher priced digital packages without disclosing less expensive 
options, overstated the number of available channels, and charged monthly rental fees for 
converter boxes and remote controls, even for consumers who did not need them. In resolving 
the allegations, Comcast agreed to pay the Cotnmonwealth $750,000, and to provide S25(),000 
in computer lab equipment for approximately 40 Boys & Cirls Clubs across Massachusetts and 
the Crittenton Women's Union in Boston. 

• Commonwealth v. Nor\'ergence (Suffolk .Superior Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, 
NJ) Between July 2005 and June 2006, CPAD has obtained settlements with five finance 
companies (Popular Leasing USA, BB&7", De Lage Landen, Irwin Leasing, and L'.S. Express) 
arising out of a telecommunications scam spearheaded b)' New Jersey-based telephone compan)-, 
Norvergence Inc. In November 2004. CPAD filed suit against Norvergence for defrauding 
more than 200 Massachusetts small business owners who signed long-term contracts with the 
company to provide discounted telephone and Internet services. Norvergence had assigned the 
consumers' contracts to financing companies throughout the United States, filed for bankruptcy 
protection, and ceased providing any telephone or Internet services. The finance companies 
holding the contracts, however, continued to collect thousands of dollars horn the defrauded 

173 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BtiREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

consumers. In June 2005, CPAD obrained a defoult judgment against Norvergence. CPAD dso 
lead a multistate investigation oFthe finance companies seeking to stop their collection actions. 
Altogether, Massachusetts and the other states have obtained ^\ssurances of Discontinuance 
against nine of the finance companies, providing approximately 2, 1 50 small businesses with relief 
from their contracts totaling over $49 million nationsvide. In Massachusetts, approxiniately 
140 small businesses have received over $3.5 million in relief 

OTHER CONSUMER PROTECTION 

• Commonwealth v. Riverside Mitsubishi, et al. (Worcester Superior Court) In September 
2005. the Attorney Generafs Ontral Massachusetts Office, with the assistance of CPAD, secured 
a Consent Judgment requiring the owners of Riverside Mitsubishi, an Auburn, Massachusetts; 
car dealership, to return $550,000 to its former customers, and prohibiting them from owning 
or managing any car dealership in Massachusetts. This settlement resolved the Attorney 
General's December 2003 lawsuit against the dealership and its owners and operators, Todd, 
Daryi and Brenda Rivernider. The lawsuit alleged that the dealership and the Riverniders 
defrauded consumers by filling 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. 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, and 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 in Florida state court. As a result of the 
settlement, over 135 former Riverside customers received refunds ranging from $389 to over 
$ 1 2,000 in March and April 2006. 

• Commonwealth v. Consumer Giants USA, Inc., et al . (Suffolk Superior Court) In October 

2005, CPAl^ filed suit against three out-of-state telemarketing firms and three individuals 
accused of defrauding hundreds of Massachusetts consumers with a government grant scam. 
The lawsuit, filed against Consumer Grants USA, Inc., a Florida company, James T. Lovern, 
its president, and Leo J. Corrigan, its vice president. Freedom Grants, Inc., a Nevada company, 
Evelyn Hernandez, its president and director, and Your Choice, Inc., a Wyoming company, 
alleged that the companies and individuals violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection 
Act and Telemarketing Solicitation Act by using telemarketers to scam consumers into believing 
they had been awarded thousands of dollars in federal grants. The defendants then sought 
the consumers' bank account information, and, instead of delivering the grants, automatically 
withdrew hundreds of dollars in "processing fees" from consumers' accounts. In March 2006, 

174 



PURI..IC PROTECTION BURFAl' CONSUMF.R PROTFCTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

CPAl) obtained (.Ichuilt jiulgincius ;ii;;uiist \\w oltlu- J(.fciul.uiis, loi.iliiig Si million in civil 
penalties, restitution .iiui costs. (PAD is continuing to liti^itc- flic c.isc against Your (Choice, 
Inc. 

• Cornmonwealtii v. Anns Place, et ai. (SuHolk Supciior Court) In OctoUct 2{)0S, ( PAD 
fiiecl suit against the owners of Ann's Place, a Norton, Massacluiscrts, restaurant and banquet 
hall, alter it abruptly closed its doors without /ehinding customer deposits and leaving consumers 
scrambling to rearrange plans for scheduled hinctions. The Attorney C ieneral's complaint alleged 
that the owners, Phyllis Lorenzo Maglaras and Chris Magalaras, continued to take deposits for 
weddings, bridal and baby showers, graduation parties, and club dinners right up until it closed 
its doors in April 200^. '['he lawsuit alleges that the defendants took these deposits knowing 
that they were going to close the fctcility, and that it would not be available lor the functions. 
CPAD is continuing to litigate this case. 

• In Re East Coast Pianos, Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) hi February 2006, CPAD filed an 
Assurance of Discontinuance against East Coast Piano Siiles, Inc., a New Jersey piano retailer. 
The Assurance settled allegations that East Coast Pianos advertising violated the Massachusetts 
Consumer Protection Act by offering thousands of dollars in mail-in cash rebates that most 
consumers svould likely never receive. In brochures mailed to promote its public piano s.ile at 
hotels in Massachusetts, East Co;ist advertised that consumers could reduce the cost of pianos 
by thousands of dollars with the mail-in rebates. But East Cost fiiiled to disclose that a Florida 
company, Cashback America, administered the rebate program and that consumers would not 
be able to get their rebates for another three years. Even then, Cashback could refuse to give the 
rebates if the consumer failed to meet a host of unconscionable requirements, or if Cashback 
simph'- did not have enough money. Under the settlement, F':Lst Coast agreed to stop using or 
promoting the Cashback rebate program. 

• Commonwealth v. Boston Baby, et al. (Suffolk Superior C^ourt) In April 2006. CP.AD 
filed suit against Boston Baby Stores and their owner, Harvey Slobodkin. for failing to return 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in consumer deposits after abruptly closing the stores in 
March 2006. The Attorney Cenerals lawsuit alleged that Boston Baby closed its retail stores 
in Newroti, Danvers and Braintree without notice to hundreds of expectant couples who had 
f>laced large deposits for baby furniture. The defendants failed to deliver the furniture, and 
in many cases even failed to order the furniture. Aft:er the stores closed, the defendants failed 
to give customer refunds totaling over S400,000. In bringing this ca.se, CPAD obtained an 
emergency order freezing the defendant.s" assets. CPAD continues to litigate this case, seeking 
consumer restitution and civil penalties. 

175 



PUBLIC PROTECTION Bl'REAU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRU'ST DIVISION 

• In Re Yellow Pages, Inc., et al. (Suffolk Superior Court) In April 2005, CPAD filed a 
mukistatc Assurance of Discontinuance against Nevada-biised Yellow Pages, Inc., and California- 
based Electronic Directories Company, LLC, and their president, John Wurth, settling allegations 
that the companies used deceptive tactics to lure small businesses into purchasing online directory- 
listings. The states alleged that Yellow Pages, Inc., lised promotional checks - which they called 
"instant cash back offers" - to bait consumers and small businesses. The checks did not cleady 
disclose that consumers who cashed the checks committed to pay for annual listings in Yellow 
Pages publications. While the checks were t)'pically worth only $2 or $3 dollars, the directory 
listings cost the consumers $179 on average. Under the Assurance, the companies agreed to 
cease all collections from affected consumers, and to provide restitution. 

• Foreclosure Rescue Scam Investigation In March 2006, the Attorney General announced 
a CPAD investigation of individuals and businesses allegedly targeting homeowners by offering 
to "rescue" them from foreclosures, but instead tricking them into deeding over their property, 
losing their homes and any equity they had built in their homes. In announcing the investigative 
initiative, the Attorney General noted that foreclosures are on the rise in Massachu.setts, and 
families facing foreclosure are particularly vulnerable to people promising to help them save 
their homes, i he Attorney General warned honieowners not to hill prey to these schemes, and 
offered specific advice and assistance. CPAD s investigation of alleged mortgage foreclosure 
rescue scams is continuing. 

ANTn'RUST 

• In Re Federated Department Stores, Inc. (Suffolk Superior Court) In August 2005, 
Attorneys General in Massachusetts, New York, California, Pennsylvania and Maryland entered 
into an Assurance of Discontinuance with Federated Department Stores, Inc., the owner of 
Macy's, in connection with its acquisition of the May Department Store Company, the owner of 
Filene's. Under the agreement. Federated agreed to take steps aimed at maintaining competition 
and choice for consumers in the wake of the merger, and to ensure that Federated does not 
monopolize the department store space in any given mall. The agreement required Federated 
to divest overlapping Macys and Filene's stores to competing retailers in seven Massachusetts 
locations, including Downtown Crossing in Boston, Southshore Mall in Braintree, Westgate 
Mall in Brockton, Burlington Mall in Burlington, Cape Cod Mall in Hyannis, the Natick Mall, 
and the Northshore Mall in Peabody. 

• Commonwealth v. Marquee Holdings, Inc. (AMC) and LCE Holdings, Inc. (Loews 

Cinemas) (U.S. District Court, S.D. N.Y) In December 2005, the Attorneys General of 
Massachusetts, Illinois and New York and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a Complaint 



176 



PUBLIC PROTFCTION RDRFAU CX^NSUMKK PROTFfTION AND ANTITRl'ST OIVISION 

and Consent ]iKlt;nKiu against i\larc]iitv HoKlnigs, Int.. the owner of AMC movie theaters, 
and LCE Holdings, Inc., the owner of l.oews (!ineinas, in coinieetion wiili the merger of the 
nvo movie theater chains. The C Complaint alleges thai the merger is likely to give the new entity 
control of the only lirst-nm commercial theaters in terr.iin cities and towns, including Boston, 
which would eliminate com[H'iition and \\k<.-\y lead lo higher prices. The (Consent Judgment 
requires that, as a condition of" the merger, the parties divest certain theaters to another movie 
dieater competitor. In Massachusetts, CPAD required AM(! to divest its AM(] Fenway 1.3 
complex in Boston. The Con.sent Judgment is aimed at providing competition among first-run 
commercial movie theaters and providing better choice For consutners. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 
MONEY RETURNED TO THE COMMON\CniALTH 

( Penalties/Costs/Other) S 2,3 1 1 ,6«0 
CONSUMER RESTITUTION RECOVERED 

CPAD $5,390,0341' 

CCIS S 193,046 

local Consumer Programs $ 3.423,769 

Face To Face Mediation Programs S 1 ,0 1 1 .8'79 

CONSUMER HOTLINE CALLS 

CCIS 81,358 

Local Consumer Programs 28,621 
CONSUMER COMPLAIN IS RECEIVED/REFERRED 

CCIS & Local Consumer Programs 1 1 -493 



■ This restitution hgiire does not include refunds ni.ide directly tVoni the business to consumers in some c.iscs (in 
particuhir, the refunds in connection witii ihe Norvergeiice finance company settlements). 



177 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU CONSUMER PROTECTION ANE) ANTITRUST DIVISION 

Face To Face Mediarion Programs 3,323 
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS MEDIATED 

CCIS 1,612 

Local Consumer Programs 5,920 

Face-'lb-Face Mediation Programs 1,904 

SIGNIFICANT 1NITL\TIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Amicus Curiae Massachusetts joined a number of amicus curiae briefs sponsored by other state 
Attorneys General, including: opposing blanket federal preemption ot state consumer protection laws 
relating to banking and telecommunications; supporting elForcs to control tobacco advertising targeted 
at children and addressing other tobacco issues, including challenges co state escrow laws; supporting 
pro-competitive antitrust positions in the pharmaceutical and energy markets; and supporting consumer 
claims in Norvergence-related appeals. 

Consumer Advocacy Massachusetts has joined multistate letters and comments to federal 
agencies and Congress, and participated in federal initiatives, advocating for consumers in the areas of 
telecommunications, tobacco, contact lenses, and federal preemption of state laws pertaining to wireless 
services and food labeling. 

Gas and Oil Pricing In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, CPAD joined other 
divisions to take measures to address the gasoline price spikes, to investigate whether companies were 
illegally profiteering from the disruptions caused by the hurricanes, and to plan for potential future 
petroleum market disruptions. CPAD and the Investigations Division solicited gas pricing information 
horn consumers throughout Massachusetts, sent investigators to visit specific gas stations across the 
state identified as charging high prices, subpoenaed pricing and other inforination from dealers and 
distributors, and initiated, with certain other states, a regional study of the p^etroleum and heating oil 
distribution market structure. CPAD also assisted in letters from the Attorney General to the Federal 
Trade Commission and the Department of Justice seeking a coordinated approach to investigating and 
addressing high energy costs. 

Manufactured Housing (U^AD continued to protect residents of manufactured housing communities 



178 



PUBIJC PROTECTION BURFAi; (I^NSIIMKR PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

from unfair practices by (akiri<;aiKl niccliatint; complaints fr(.m nsitk-ms and lo regularly participate- m 
Maiuihicrurcd I lousing Commission mcctinp across iIk- ( ^ommonwcalih. 

TOBACCO 

Cigarette Advertising and Sales Targeted to Minors In August 2()()S, ( :PAl) and Attorneys ( ieneral 
frotn 30 other states obtained a settlement with 7-Fleven addiessing the retailer's tobacco sales and 
advertising practices in an effort to reduce tobacco sales to minors. In December 2005, the states also 
entered a settlement with ConocoPhillips addressing its tobacco advertising and sales practices. And 
in March 2006, Cd'AI) filed an amended Consent ludgment against (A^S IMiarniacy requiring it to 
pa)' up to $200,000 to settle allegations that it sold tobacco products to minors, in November 2005, 
the states, including Massachusetts, sent a letter to the Motion Picture Association seeking to have the 
mcnie industr\' include anti-smoking public service announcemetits in DVDs and other videos. In 
January 2006, Massachusetts and 36 other Attorneys General announced that Philip Morris USA had 
agreed to take steps to combat the illegal sale of cigarettes over the Internet and by mail. 

The Tobacco Master Settlement ~ 2005 MSA Payment Ihc Commonwealth received 
?233,4 13,488.34 in April 2006 as its share of the 2006 Annual Payment under the 1998 Tobacco Master 
Settlement Agreement. An additional S30,5 12,064 remains in a disputed pa\'ments accoimt, which 
represents Massachusetts' iillocated share of disputed payments made by R.J. Reynolds and I.orillard in 
connection with their asserted claim to a Non-Participating Manufacturer (NPM) Adjustment for Sales 
Year 2003. CPAD closely monitored and enforced the settlement to ensure that the (Commonwealth 
received the full amounts due under the agreeiDent. Ihe Attorney General also reported to the legislature 
c|uarterly on MSA payments, under G.I.. c. 29D, §3(i). 

Tobacco Master Agreement - Significant Factor Determination In the spring of 2005, the 
major tobacco companies who were origiiiiil participants in the MSA moved for a "Significant Factor 
Determination" in connection vv'ith their 2003 MSA payment. The tobacco companies are seeking to 
reduce their 2003 MSA payment to all of the states by as much as S 1 . 1 billion. Massachusetts and the 
other states, in coordination with the National Association of Attorneys (ieneral, commenced their 
defense according to the procedures set forth in the MSA. Uncier these procedures, a single decision- 
maker selected b\' the states and the tobacco companies determined in March 2006 that the MSA was a 
significant factor contributing to the tobacco companies' market share losses for 2003. As a result, two 
tobacco companies. R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard, deposited portions of their 2006 MSA payments into 
a disputed payments account. Philip Morris did not. Under the MSA, a further determination that 
the Commonwealth did nor diligently enforce its NPM escrow statute is required before the tobacco 
companies can receive an NPM Adjustment. In April 2006, Massachusetts filed an emergency tiiotion 
seeking immediate payment of the disputed amounts withheld, and a judiciiil determination that the 

179 



PUBLIC PROTECTION Bl.iRF.AU CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

Commonwealth did diligently enforce its NPM escrow statute. In June 2006, the court rejected the 
Commonwealths claims, and held that, under the MSA, the tobacco companies could compel arbitration 
of the diligent enforcement issue. The Commonwealth intends to appeal that decision. 

Non-Participating Manufacturer (NPM) Enforcement CPAD continued enforcement of the 
statutory and regulatory scheme 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 an escrow account has been established, fi.mds are deposited, and all 
cigarette brands sold in the state are listed on a directory. In July 2005, CPAD and other states entered 
into a settlement agreement with the Seneca-Ca)aiga Tobacco Co., relating to escrow payments. In 
December 2005 and January 2006, CPAD settled NPM escrow payment issues for 2003 and 2004 sales 
with a number of additional NPMs. In January 2006, CPAD filed suit against an NPM, Tabacalera 
Honnington of Paraguay, for underfunding its escrow account for 2003 sales of the Parker brand of 
cigarettes. Massachusetts also continued to participate with Attorneys General in other states in defending 
litigation brought to challenge the NPM enforcement activities of those states. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 



Consumer Education/Advisories CPAD, in some cases in coordination with other divisions, issued 
consumer advisories on pressing consumer issues, including: information on increases in gas prices and 
preparing for the winter heating season; warnings about computer viruses in connection with Sony 
BMG music CDs; advice for consumers affected by the Boston Globe and Worcester Telegram & 
Gazette security breach; warning homeowners about foreclosure rescue scams; offering advice about 
tax refund anticipation loans; and warning consumers about counterfeit check schemes. CPAD also 
helped update a number of the Attorney General's consumer guides and brochures, including The 
Attorney Generals Guide to the Internet. CPAD, particularly through the efforts of the Consumer 
Complaint and Information Section, also sponsored a series of National Consumer Week initiatives 
in February 2006. 

Consumer Complaint and Information Section (CCIS) CCIS responded to over 80,000 telephone 
calls to the Consumer Hotline, responded to letters, distributed brochures, and made public speaking 
engagements. CCIS answered over 5,000 public records inquiries on the Consumer Hodine and 
responded to approximately 271 written public records requests from the press, consumers, outside 
agencies, and investigators seeking complaint information against specific businesses. Staff members 
also participated in National Consumer Week activities in February 2006 by appearing at seveial MBTA 



180 



PURIIC PROTFCTK^N Rl.RFAL' 



F.NVIRC^NMFNTAl. PROTFX lUiN I)I\IS|()\ 



a\k\ comnuircr rail stations, malls, post oHIlcs, senior and coniinuniiv tenters, ami stiiools; ansurritji; 
consunicrs" questions; and providing hroLiuircs and [lanipliltts on varioirs LonsutiKr protection issues. 
Thiougliour the year CClS ,sra[>"t(^n tinned ouriv.ich pro!.'j.uiis ai a v.irietv ot events across the state. 

CPAD Attorneys C^PAl) Atroiiiey,s participated a.s ,spcaker.s and panelists in coiisunicr cilucation 

event,s, a.s well a.s in indii.stiy seminars and forums, on numerous issues including identity theft. Internet 
safety, protecting your ciedit. mortgage scam.s, and oilier consLuiiei protection i,s.sues. 

ENVIRONMEN lAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

The Environmental Protection Division (HPD) .serves as litigation counsel on environmental issues 
for various state agencies, particularly tho.se within the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. EIM) 
handles the (.commonwealth's civil litigation to enforce enviroimiental protection programs established 
by state statutes and regulations, including laws governing air pollutioti, water pollution, water supply, 
waterways, wetlands, and hazardous and solid waste. EPD al.so plays a key role under the Clean State 
Initiative to ensure that the CommonweaJths own agencies abide by state and federal environmental laws, 
and in doing ,so the division may bring enforcement actions against those agencies in court where the 
Attorney Cieneral, in his enforcement discretion, deems action necessai)'. Ba.sed on the Attorney (leneral's 
broad authority to protect the environment of the CoiTimonwcalth, EPD initiates .uul intervenes in 
state and federal litigation, and participates in administrative proceedings before federal agencies on 
significant environmental issues. EPD defends lawsuits challenging the actions of state environmental 
agencies and the legality of state environmental laws. 

EPD staff included: James R. iVlilkey, Division Chief; Frederick Augenstern; Ken Borden; Matthew 
Brock; Nora Chorover; Kathleen DeVito, Benjamin Ericson; I. Andrew Coldberg; Nanq- (Betsy) Harper; 
Carol lancu; Matthew Ireland; Eleanor Baskin; Siu Tip I.am; Penny Michalski; Einda M\llmaki; Willi.nn 
Pardee; Seth Schofield; and Danah Tench. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

NATION.^L AND REGIONAL .\I R PO LLUTION ISSUES 

• Global Warming/Climate Change The Attorney General continued his leadership lole in 
.seeking to address the problem of global warming. On August 28, 2003, the Li.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA_ i.ssued two rulings declining to regulate greenhou.se ga.ses imder the 
federal Clean .Air Act. EPD served as lead counsel in a challenge to tho.sc rulings in the D.C. 



181 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVLSION 



Circuit Courr of Appeals: Commonwealth of Mass. v. EPA. Sixteen states or other governmental 
entities and 14 national or regional environmental groups joined in the challenge. On July 
15, 2003, a three-judge panel issued three separate opinions. Two of the judges agreed on a 
judgment that let EPAs administrative decision stand, but on very different grounds (hence 
there is no holding). The third judge, who was the only judge to reach the principal issue in the 
case, whether EPA had authorit)^ under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, 
agreed with Petitioners on all grounds. On August 29, 2005, Massachusetts {together with five 
other states and the District of Columbia) filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing 
en banc. On December 2, 2005, the Court denied rehearing by the panel by a 2-1 vote, and 
denied full court review by a 4-3 vote. Judge Eatel wrote a dissent from the denial o^ en banc 
review (joined by Judge Rogers) in which he stated: '"if global warming is not a matter of 
exceptional importance, then those words have no meaning." EPD filed a petition for certiorari 
on March 2, 2006, on behalf of 29 parties (this includes all of the original parties except for 
one environmental group that no longer exists). The Supreme Court granted the cert petition 
on June 26, 2006, and will hear the case during the next fiscal year. 

• Mercury Emissions During Fiscal Year 2005, the federal EPA issued nvo sets of regulations 
regarding the emission of mercury from power plants. Power plants are the largest source of 
mercury, which poses serious neurologiciil risks, especi;illy to children and pregnant women. EPD 
joined several other states in filing a challenge to both sets of regulations in the D.C. Circuit. 
During much of the last fiscal year, the litigation itself was stayed while EPA accepted additional 
administrative comments. t-PD joined multistate comments opposing EPAs approach, loward 
the end of Fiscal Year 2006, F^PA reaffirmed its eadier ruling, and the litigation is once again active. 
In Fiscal Year 2005, EPD also filed suit in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts challenging 
EPAs failure to turn over key documents EPD had pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act 
request. In Fiscal Year 2006, EPD won an important ruling in this case. Federal Magistrate 
Judge Collings ruled that the two key documents (computer modeling runs regarding the impact 
of various regulatory scenarios) were not exempt under the deliberative process exemption. 
Reilly v. US EPA, 429 ESupp.2d 335 (D. Mass. 2006). 

• New Source Review E.PD coininued its efforts working with other states to challenge 
regulatory changes that will significantly weaken the New Source Review (NSR) provisions of 
the fedetitl Clean Air Act. On March 17, 2006, the D.C. Circuit unanimously struck down 
the Equipment Replacement Rule EPA had promulgated as part of its modifications to the 
New Source Review Program. New York v. E.PA., 443 R3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The rule 
would have allowed power plant owners to avoid having to go through NSR review so long as 
the plant equipment they were replacing was less than 20% of the cost of the unit. The Court 

182 



PlJBi.lC PROTFCTION RURFAU FNVIR(>NMFNTAl PROTFCTION l)l\ is|()\ 

ruled rluu tlic rule change viol.uctl tin plam l.uii;u.i^c ol tin- ( Ic.ui Air Act. ( )n |uric- M). .^.()(»6, 
the Court denied EPA's Petition for RclK-aring and Rehearing Hn linth. l-.Pl) also continued 
to play a significant role in a niulristarc and KPA enforcement action against American F-.lectric 
Power, a large Ohio-based power cotnpan\'. for upgrading plants without installing Best Available 
Control Technolog)' as rccjuircd by the NSR program. During biseal Year ."!()()(), rhere w:ls a 
trial on liability, as well as significant discovery and settlement negotiations. Toward the end of 
the fiscal year, the Court announced that it would stay its ruling on liability, as well .ls any trial 
on remedy, until afi:er a ruling in Environmental Defense v. Duke Energ}' C^orp., another NSR 
case currently before the Supreme Court. EPD joined with other states as amici in supporting 
the cert petition in Duke Energ)' (EPD also joined amicus briefs in several other similar NSR 
ca.ses). 

• Other national air pollution issues EPD continued to serve as the lead state in pressing a 
multistate challenge to EPA's implementation of the national ambient air quality standards for 

ozone and fine particulates (fine particles that can lodge deep in the lungs). In this case, several 
northeastern states are alleging that EPA made arbitrar}' distinctions in determining what rules 
apply to which areas (with the result that areas upwind of Massachusetts, which contribute 
significant!)' to the C.'ommonweakh's smog problem, may be allowed a great deal more time 
to reduce their pollution than Massachusetts itself is allowed), and illegally repeiiled emission 
control requirements on new sources. The case, which is pending in the D.C. Circuit, will be 
heard during the next fiscal year. 

SIATE AIR POLLUTION LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

• State enforcement EPD pro.secuted several air enforcement ca.ses under state law, including 
a case against Peabody Municipal Light (PML) in which EPD alleged that a local power 
producer neglected to enroll in a regional emissions trading program. EPD resolved this case 
through a setdement in which PML agreed to engage qualified personnel to operate the facility, 
to implement a facility wide environmental management .system, and to conduct a h)llow-up 
independent compliance audit, all in addition to paying a penalty of $200.01)0 for past violations 
(of which sS50,000 is subject to waiver if PML stays in compliance). 

• California Car Initiative hi Fiscal Year 2006. EPD resolved its last case in an enforcement 
initiative targeting the sale of cars that are not certified as meeting California emissions standards. 
In this case, against R.J. Foley, EPD obtained injunctive relief and a civil penalty of S45,000. 

• Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and Propo.sed Changes to State Carbon 
Dioxide Regulations During Fiscal Year 2006. Attorney Ck-ncral Reilly siibtnitted comments 



183 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

to the Department of Environmental Protection opposing proposed changes that he beheved 
would weaken state regulations governing carbon dioxide emissions from older power plants. 
He also opposed Governor Romney's decision to withdraw from the RGGI, a regional effort 
among the northeastern stares to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. 

• Power Plants In May 200 1 , DEP adopted new emissions standards for the six older power 
plants in Massachusetts. In Fiscal Year 2006, t.PD continued its defense of a challenge to those 
regulations filed by the owner of one of the affected power plants, and the Plaintiff agreed to 
dismiss the case. 

ENERGY CONSERVAl'lON 

During Fiscal Year 2006, F^PD joined several other states in suing the Department of E'uergy over 
the agency's fiiilure to set energy efficiency standards for various appliances. As of the end of the fisciil 
year, the suit was still pending. 

ENFORCEMENT OF HAZARDOUS AND SO FED NX^LASTE 
DISPOS.U AND iVLANA GEMEN T LAWS 

Under G.L. c. 2 IE, the Attorney General is charged with the responsibility ot recovering 
Commonwealth fimds spent cleaning up hazardous waste sites. ^-Tiere possible, EPD enters into 
settlements with the parties responsible for the contamination to obtain their agreement to clean 
up the sire, rather than pursuing a cost-recovery action after the state has stepped in to itself clean 
up the coiuamination. Ihis saves the Commonwealth money up front and results in the efficient 
administration ol: site cleanups. EPD also enforces the hazardous and solid waste management laws to 
prevent environmentiil contamination from occurring in the first place. 

• Mendon Road EPD reached a settlement resolving claims for recovery of costs the state 
spent many years ago to clean up coal-related wastes in Blackstone. This long-running litigation 
(which had been to the First Circuit twice) turned on the question of whether the substance 
lerric ferrocyanide is a hazardous substance under the Comprehensive F^nviioimiental Response, 
Compensation and Liabilit)' Act. The settlement agreement, which was still subject to public 
comment as the fiscal year closed, requires the company to pay just under S5 million in costs 
and interest. 

• Boston junk/Boston Edison In another major 21 E action, EPD reached a settlement with 
Boston Edison and others addressing the recovery of costs spent to clean up the site of the Boston 
Convention Center. During Fiscal Year 2005, EPD had won an important interlocutory appe.il 
in the case before the SJC: Commonwealth v. Boston Edison, 444 Mass. 324 (2005). Under 



184 



n-'BLiC PROTF.CTION BLIRFAl.' FN\IR()NMF-N TAI. PROTKCTK^N DIVISION 

rhc terms of the seitlomciit, wIikIi w.is still suhjcci to pulilit conimi-nt ;uul touri .ippn.val .is 
the fiscal year closed, the Defeiul.ints h.ive .i};ree(.l to pay $H.6 million .uu\ to ptrtorm .ulditioiial 
cleanup work worth approximately SSOO.OOO. 

• D.B, Enterprises EPI) coiuiinied its prosecution of the owners .nui operators of a 
large landfill in rhc Town of Wendell to recover millions ordoll.us ih.it the Department of 
Environmental Protection spent lo siahili/e the landfill in order to prevent its catastrophic 
collapse. In Fiscal Year 2006, EPD secured a Pinal judgment re<.]iuring the defendants to pay 
the Commonwealth over $2 million in response costs and penalties pmsuant both to c. 21 E 
and the Solid Waste Facilities Act. 

• Comtnonvvealth v. Flaherty EPD continued its suit against developers of a contar^iinated 
site in lyngsboroiigh who were disclaiming liability for the cleanup. 

• Commonwealth v. Troiano Fhe Superior Court granted E.PD's tnotion for a Preliminary 
Injunction on March 24, 2005, requiring Troiano to fully abate nuisance conditions at his 
Grafton food waste recycling business. 

• Commonwealth v. Eskani an EPD sued the owner of four gas stations in Medford and 
Maiden alleging he failed to clean up his properties in accordance with c. 21 E and to comply 
with various state air pollution requirements. 

• Babson Realty A Chapter 21E case in Hanson involving a party who failed to clean up a 
contaminated site. 

• South Shore Crane In a case against a company in Easton who tailed to complete a cleanup, 
EPD obtained a court order that required injunctive relief and a civil penalt\- of $"1,000. 

• HUB Construction In a contempt action, EPD obtained a settlement with the owner of 
a solid waste facility in Hull requiring injunctive relief and the payment of S.^'^-OOO in fines 
and costs. 

• Transrail 'Fhis licetising matter currently before the federal Surface Transportation Board 
(STB) involves a proposed solid waste transfer station in Wilmington. Together with the 
Department of Environmental Protection, EPD subnntted various filings contesting the 
applicants position that it does not have to seek state and local approval to site the facility. 



185 



PUBLIC PROTFCTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAl. PROTECTION DIVISION 

NATURAL. RESOURCE RECOVERY, PROTECTION. AND PRESERVATION 

• Buzzards Bay Oil Spill NRD Together with the federal government, EPD is pursuing 
natural resource damages from the owner of the barge that caused an oil spill in Buzzards Bay 
in 2003. Under a protocol EPD helped negotiate, Bouchard is conducting an assessment of 
the NRD from the spill. 

• Protection of Endangered Species and Plants The Appeals Court in March 2006 heard 
oral argument in Capolupo v. DFW, a case involving the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act 
(MESA). Capolupo challenged Fisheries' regulatory interpretation of MESAs "talvc" prohibition 
as ultra vires, arguing th<5t the legisl.iture did not intend for a "take" to include "mere habitat 
alteration." The case involves C'apolupos attempt to build a single family home on an island 
in the Merrimack River in Saiisbur)' that is prime Bald Eagle habitat. On March 4, 2005, the 
Superior Court had granted EPD s motion to dismiss, agreeing that Capolupos chiillenge to 
the agency's statutory authorit}' to require a conservation permit was not ripe and that there was 
no actual controversy for declaratoiy relief because Capolupo has not yet applied for a permit. 
By year's end, the Appeals Court had not issued a ruling. 

Much of EPD's environmental work is done to protect the Commonv\'ealth"s water-related resources, 
including water bodies, drinking water, wetlands, and tidelands. The Attorney Ceneral brings suit 
against parties that violate the state laws passed to protect these critical resources. 

• Commonweahh v. Consolidated Machine In a case involving alleged water pollution 
violations in Allston, EPD obtained a settlement that included injunctive relief and a civil 
penalty of S60,000 ($25,000 of which is subject to waiver). 

• Commonwealth v. Brandywine EPD is prosecuting a case involving wetlands violations 
in Billerica. 

• Commonwealth v. LaMountain EPD obtained summar)' judgment against a developer 
for wetlands viohitions in Oxford. 

• Commonwealth v. Battve Related to a pending enforcement action involving wetlands 
hlling in Methuen, EPD brought a fraudulent conveyance case in a Maine state court and 
obtained a $625,000 attachment on vacation propert}'. 

• Municipal wastewater treatment cases With the federal government, EPD handled 
numerous cases against municipalities regarding violations at their wastewater treatment plants, 

186 



PlJRl IC PROTFCTiON BURFAU FNVIRCINMFNTAl. PRCITF.CTION I)IVIS|()\ 

including Hillcric.u Hroi-kron, ( ".liicopcc, (^ohassct, [•itdihurg. ( ilouustcT, .iiul the drcaicr 
Lawrence Sanir.u\' DistriLt. 

• Protection of Public Conservation Land I he Attorncv ( icntial enforces Article i9 of the 
Amendments to the State Consriturion (as amended hv Article 97). which serves to protect 
public park hud and land dedicated to conservation purposes, in this role. I'.IM) concluded 
its involvement in a controvers)' concernint; the Town of Hanson, which sold two parcels of 
conservation land ro private parties. In Fiscal Year 2()()S, F.PI) had submitted an amicus brief" 
to the Supreme Judiciiil Court in Lindsay v. Town of Llanson, a case involving one of the two 
parcels. On June 29, 2003, the Supreme Judicial C^ourt held that the land was not in fact 
protected conservation land (at least with respect to a bona fide purchaser) because the town 
meeting vote to nccjuire the land contemplated that a conservation restriction be recoriied, and 
tliat act never occurred. During Fiscal Year 2006, EPD subtTiitted a Petition for Rehearing, 
which the Court denied. 

• State of Rhode Island, et al. v. EPA EPD is part of a multistate challenge to EPA's so-called 
Phase II cooling water intake regulations. Power plants generally use massive amounts of water 
from the ocean or rivers for cooling purposes, and the Phase II regulations govern this practice 
(e.g., through regulating the kinds of structures that existitig power plants have to u.se for these 
purposes). This is important because the power plants" use of the cooling water ends up killing 
massive amounts of young fish and other creatures. The states are challenging the regulations 
as being insufficiendy protective and inconsistent with the requirements o{ the Clean Water 
Act. The case was argued in the Second Circuit in June of 2006. 

• Federal wetlands jurisdiction cases Fhe Attorney Ceneral participated as an amicus fn 
two Supreme Court cases involving the extent of federal wetlands jurisdiction imder the C^lean 
NX'ater Act over wetlands not directly adjacent to navigable waters. The precedential value of 
the Courts eventual ruling is unclear, because four Justices supported a broad ruling of EPA's 
and the Army Corps' jurisdiction, four Justices supported a quite narrow reading, and Justice 
Kennedy's tie-breaking vote was based on the need to apply a "substantial nexus" test on a case- 
by-case basis. See Rapanos v. United States, 126 S.Ct. 2208 (2006). Fhe multistate amicus 
brief argued in f;ivor of broad jurisdiction. EPD joined a similar amicus brief in a First Circuit 
case that came down before Rapanos. See U.S. v. Johnson. 4.37 E3d 1 57 (1st Cir. 2006). 

• S.D. Warren The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that an applicant seeking a license for a 
hydroelectric dam needs a state approved known as a water qualit}' certification. S.D. Warren 



187 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

Co. V. xMain Board of Environmental Protection, 126 S.Ct. 1823 (2006). Together with other 
states, EPD filed an amicus brief on the winning side. 

STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2006, EPD handled enforcement p^roceedings leading to judgments or similar 
resolutions requiring payment oF$3,35 1 ,500 (not including two settlements requiring payment of" almost 
$14 million that were still subject to public comment and judicial approval at year's end). This figure 
is for penalties, cost recovery, and other payments awarded in Fiscal Year 2006, whether or not actually 
paid in Fiscal Year 2006. It does not include penalties that are subject to waiver if the defendant stays 
in compliance. In Fiscal Year 2006, F^PD received actual payments totaling $642,135.42 in penalties, 
cost recovery, and other payments. Other cases resulted in court judgments requiring private parties to 
undertake cosdy cleanups - a savings of millions of dollars for the Commonwealth. 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

BRO\>^^FIELDS 

Chapter 206 of the Acts of 1998, "An Act Relative to Environmental Cleanup and Promoting 
the Redevelopment of Contaminated Properr}^" 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 Ceneral to enter into 
Brownfields Covenant Not to Sue Agreements ("Brownfields Covenants") that provide liability relief 
beyond what is otherwise available under Chapter 2 IE, the state hazardous waste site liability' law. 
The Brownfields Covenant Program addresses site specific liability concerns for complex cleanups and 
important redevelopment efforts. 

Applications for Brownfields CJovenants are iis.sessed 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 revitiilizing open space; or 5) providing 
some other public benefit to the community in which the site is located. 

In Fiscal Year 2006, 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 seven Brownfields Covenants designed to promote 



188 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BURFAl' PNs IK( )NMI N TAl. PROTF.CI U>N DIVISION 

(.IcMiuip and ix-usc piojcus in seven tlittticiii toniiniiiiiiics of tlio ( oinmonwcMltli. I lie Mrownticlds 
Unit has concinucd its efforts on various long-tcmi ptoitcts, ,iiul has also LoiitiiuictI to sohtit new 
projects througli outreach and ediic.uion. 

BROWN m-L PS COVENAN TS FIN AI.IZKL) 

• North Andover- Ozzy Properties Developineni ol runner I iieent I aciliiy A Brownhelds 

Covenant is helping Ozzy Properties, Inc., clean up and redevelofi the 169 acre former Lucent 
Technologies' pr(»pert}', also known as the Merrimack Valley Works building, .it 1600 ( )sg()<)d 
Street in North Andover. The property contains approximately S*) manufacturing, warehouse 
and office buildings, with over 1.9 million square feet of Hoor space. Ozzy is redeveloping it 
as a nuilti use industrial, R&D and office space in an effort to bring back die 4,000 jobs lost 
when Lucent shut down most of its operations there. 

• Lawrence - Brook Street Park Project A Brownfields Covenant with DBT Corp.. an affiliate 
of Bank of America, made possible the cleanup and redevelopment of an abandoned three-acre 
former industrial property in Lawrence into a public park along the Spicket River. 

• Andover- Town of Andover Redevelopment of Reichhold Chemical Site A Brownrields 

Covenant is helping the Ibwn of Andover turn the site of a former chemical manufacturing plant 
into conservation land and playing fields. The agreement ensures the town 46 acres of open 
space, including over a mile of riverfront along the Shawsheen River, available for public use. 

• Marlborough - City of Marlborough s Frye Boot Project The City of ivlarlborough received 
a Brownfields Covenant in exchange for its promise to clean up the abandoned former Fr\'C 
Boot manufacturing propertv' and redevelop it into at least ^^7 units of housing for the elderly 
and physically challenged, with 40% of the units nieeiing the Commonwealths standards for 
affordable housing. 

• Plymouth - the Revere Copper and Brass Project A Brownfields Covenant with the 
current property owner, the Plymouth Redevelopment Authorit)-, and abutting property 
owners will enable the cleanup and redevelopment of the 1.5-acrc former Revere Chopper and 
Brass manufacturing facility in Plymouth's downtown harbor district into housing, including 

affordable units. 

• Attleboro - Preferred Real Estate Investments Redevelopment of Lexas Insirumenis Facility 

A Brownfields Covenant is helping Preferred Real Estate Investments redevelop the 261 -acre 
Texas Instruments property in Attleboro, a multi-building campus of manufacturing and office 



189 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EMVISION 

facilities which has been a major part oF the Attleboro economy for decades, into a modern 
business park of corporate offices, commercial and research facilities. The project is expected 
to create at least 1,250 new jobs and attract new tenants and owners to the property. 

• Foxborough - Bentley Porter Site An Brownfields Covenant with Foxborough Land 
Partners LLC is allowing the purchase and cleanup of the 100-acre former septic disposal facility 
in Foxborough and its redevelopment iiito cluster housing with significant open space. 

OTHER ACTIVE BRO\)C^FIELDS PRQIECTS 

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 ol liability concerns. 

• Berkley - Cranberry Crossing Development at Bogs Landing The Brownfields Unit worked 
with a developer considering 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 Town of Berldey lor public 
use. FT^D received a draft application for a Brownfields Covenant in \4arch 2005. Technical 
cleanup issues dominated sire discussions in Fiscal Year 2006. 

• Boston - Modern FdectropFating ME One, LLC, a joint venture of Crirz Development and 
New Boston Fund, Inc. is proposing to clean up the Modern Electroplating site in the heart of 
Dudley Square and build a multi-use retail/office building. EPD received a final application 
in April 2006. Technical concerns regarding off-property contamination have been the focus 
of discussions since then. 

• Brockton - Bargaineer Center W.B. Mason is proposing to buy an abandoned 1 1-acre 
site on F^.ist Battles Street, currently owned by the City of Brockton after a rax foreclosure, and 
redevelop it into W.B. Masons principle warehouse and distribution center for office products. 
In Fiscal Year 2006, EPD worked with W.B. Miison to develop an application for a Brownfields 
Covenant. 

• Chelsea - Forbes Park Residential Development I he Davis Design Development Corp. 
expressed interest ifi buying, cleaning up and redeveloping the former Forbes Lithographic 
Company Property at 1 Forbes Street on the Chelsea waterfroru into 225 hoiLsing units, including 
some affordable units. The Brownfields Unit began to assess the project in Fisciil Year 2006, 
and reviewed a draft application for a Brownfields Covenant. 



190 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BURFAl' FNVIRONMf-NTAI PROTKCl l(W DIVISION 

• F.verett - Everett Power Project FIM ) worked with 11 )K I'loptrties I I ( ;, who expressed 
interest in huyiui; a eoiu.uniiiatetl sire owned l>y ( i.I'. on the M.ilden Rivt r mi [-.verett and placing 
a mobile turbine power faciht}' there for use in peak demand periods, to evahiate whether a 
Brownfields C'ovcnanr would be appropriate For the project. 

• Holliston - Planet Aid Redevelopment of Axton Cress Site A nonprofit lessee of a 
conramiiuued site wants to expand its existing warehou.se and office facilities into a new building 
at the site to serve as its international headcjuarters. The Hrownfields Unit worketl with Planet 
Aid to develop a draft application in Fiscal Year20()6. 

• Hudson - Hillside Development Thorndikc Development is redeveloping the 4()-acre 
Hillsiiie sire, contaminated with arsenic from historic wool operations there, into a development 
of 151 units of village- type housing over 25 acres and open space on the remaining land. 
Negotiations over the Browrthelds Covenant neared completion in Fiscal Year 2006. 

• Lawrence - GenCorp/Lawrence Gateway Project One of the Brownhelds Unit's long- 
term priority' efforts is the Gateway Area of Lawrence. The redevelopment of the CjenC>orp Site 
into parking and the abutting Oxford Paper site into a park and an open space recreation area 
will be a catalyst for revitalization of 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 of the 
Gateway area and much of the mill area, creating significant public benefits to greater Lawrence. 
In Fiscal Year 2006, EPD moved discussions with GenCorp from general planning to a final 
application and negotiation of a Brownfields Covenant. 

• Norfolk- Southwood Hospital Site Atlantic Properties, a developer, is in discussions with 
Caritas Christi, the owner of this 97-acre boarded-up former state hospital complex, to buy, 
clean up atid redevelop the site into a mixed commercial development. In Fiscal Year 2000, 
EPD worked with the parties to submit an application for a Browtifields Covenant. 

• Pittsfield - Colonial Theatre Restoration Project The Colonial Theatre Association has 
purchased an abutting contaminated property to help complete the restoration ol an historic 
downtown theater. Fhe Brownfields Unit worked in Fi.scal Year 2006 to resolve the Associations 
liability concerns. 

• Springfield - Astro Chemicals Recieveloptnent of Hampden Coloring and Chemical Site 
Astro Chemical is interested in buying the Hampden Coloring and Chetnical site, a 4-acre 



191 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION 

former chemicdl mdnufacturing and processing plant owned by the Cit)' of Springfield after a 
tax foreclosure, and redeveloping it into a chemicd warehouse and distribution center. EPD 
worked with Astro to submit an application for a Brownfields Covenant. 

• Upton - Upton Village Project The Upton Development Group has applied for a 
Brownfields Covenant to help it buy a municipal landfill and neighboring property owned 
by Upton Fuel Oil and Construction Company to build a 35-acre mixed-use development 
with retail space, commercial office space, a public library, a residential neighborhood of both 
single-family and multi-family units, and public open space with both "town green" space and 
recreational areas. 

• Westborough - Bay State Commons Project Developer Westborough CC LLC, with the 
benefit of a Brownfields (Covenant completed in 2004, is cleaning up and redeveloping the former 
Bay State Abrasives/Tyrol it manufacturing hiciliry into a community oriejited shopping center 
expected to create 750 new jobs, tiix revenue hom retail stores, and public open space. In Fiscal 
Year 2006, EPD worked with previous owner Tyrolit, who requested to join Westborough CC's 
agreement for its contribution to the cleanup and redevelopment of the site. 

• Woburn - Decathlon Sports Project at W.R. Grace Property Decathlon proposes to lease, 
with option to purchase, the W.R. C^race property that is pare of die Wells Ci&H Superfund 
Site in NXAjburn, continue the ongoing cleanup, demolish the existing building, and build a 
new retail store and office building. EPD worked with Decathlon to determine whether a 
Brownfields Covenant was appropriate, and reviewed a draft application. 

• Worcester - 687 Millbury Street An individual developer, Huy Nguyen, is interested in 
buying a gas station Drake Petroleum currently owns and is cleaning up, and redeveloping it 
into a small strip mall on a commercial road in the Route 146 corridor. F^PD worked with 
Nguven to determine whether a Biownfields Covenant was appropriate for the project. 

• Whitman - Decor Manufacturing Site In Fiscal Year 2006, the Brownfields Unit continued 
its efforts to resolve Chapter 2 IE liabilit)" and cost recovery at this 6.9-acre site as a tenant at 
the propert)' attempted to purchase the site to expand its business there. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, EPD also worked with the Town of West Springfield to help the cleanup 
and refurbishment of a contaminated business park. The Commonv^^ealth had held an attachment 
on the portion of the business park owned by Anthony Frogameni since it had secured a judgment 
against Frogameni tor environmentiil violations. In order to allow the Town to take ownership of the 



192 



PUBLIC PROTFXTION RURFAU FNVIRONMFNTAl. PWTrF.CTIONJ DIVISION 



property .\\k\ i.|ualifv for kdoial fuiidiii}; (o clciii tlu- sitf up loi liituiv rxiisf. I IM ) amctd to a-losc die- 
attach men t. I he release helps return the Inisiiiess park to prodiKlive use. attratt Inisinesscs, provide 
jobs, and generate tax revenue for the Town. 

BROWNFIHLDS PROGR/\M DHVl'LOI'MKN 1' 

Fiscal Year 2006 continued to highlight the important role that the Brownfields Covenant Program 
plays in both public and private efforts to transform contaminated and abandoned or undcrutili/ed 
properties throughout the Commonwealth. Throughout the \ear, the Hrownhelds L'nit explored cleanup 
and redevelopment opportunities with a variety of property owners and prospective developers. These 
redevelopment projects could lead to the creation of new jobs, affordable housing, open space, and 
other important public benefits. 

The Brownfields Unit has encouraged cleanup and redevelopment projects to proceed in manv wavs 
-b)' entering into Brownfields Covenants when appropriate and through education and consulting that 
clears away liability concerns in other ways. Brownfields Covenants may be necessar\' where cleanup 
is complex and liabilirA' concerns stand in the way of a redevelopment opportunit}' of significance to 
the economic or environmental well-being of a commimity. There are many ca.ses, however, in which 
a Brownfields Covenant is not necessary for a project to proceed, once the parties to a development 
- owner, purchaser, developer, lender, or others - understand the liability relief available automatical!)- 
under Chapter 2 IE. Through public outreach and meetings with stakeholders across the development 
spectrum, the Brownfields Unit works to help interested parties imderstand Chapter 21 T to ensure 
that questions of liability are adequately and appropriate!}' addressed throughout the development 
process. 

Outreach activities in Fiscal Year 2006 included: meetings with officials in several municipalities 
to help identify local brownfields hurdles and possible solutions; attendance at public and private 
brownfields forums to explain the Attorney General's approach to Brownfields; speaking at a Boston 
Bar Association Continuing Legal FMucation seminar on Brownfields redevelopment; and participating 
on a planning committee for Brownfields 2006, an annual conference sponsored by h'VA and the 
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) that is the largest Brownficlds-related 
gathering in the country, which will be held in Boston, November l^-l'^, 2006. 

LEAD VAINT 

Massachusetts has a high rate of lead poi.soning among children due, at least in part, to exposure 
to lead-based paint in the Commonwealths older housing stock. Luckily, Massachusetts also has one 
of the nations strongest lead-based paitit notification and abatement laws. The MiLssachusetts lead law 
requires the deleading or interim control of lead hazards existing in homes built before 1978 where 



193 



PUBUC PROTECTION Bl'REAU ENVIRONMENTAL, PRO! ECTION DIVISION 

children under the age of 6 are Uving. Owners are also required to notify tenants that a property has 
not been deleaded, regardless of whether a child under the age of 6 is living in the home. During Fiscal 
Year 2006, EPD continued to press its enforcement case against Windsor Realty, a landlord in Holyoke. 
^'e also continued to examine other potential approaches to lead paint problems. 

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE SCHOOLS 

Consistent with Attorney General Rcillys priority on safe schools, EPD participated in numerous 
initiatives to address environmental health and safety concerns in Massachusetts' public schools, 
especially indoor air qualit}^ The Attorney General has been a consistent advocate of schools, adopting 
Flnviron mental Management Systems to address their environmental compliance issues on an ongoing 
basis. 

During Fiscal Year 2006^ EPD contiimed to work with community groups and other state agencies 
to identify the common environmental health and safet}^ issues in the schools, the challenges the schools 
face, and the gaps in the laws and regulations. EPD worked with several members of the Healthy School 
Council to develop legislation to address environmental health and safety issues in the schools. 

PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS, TOXICS, AND PESTICIDES 

Massachusetts has a longstanding conmiitment to reducing human exposure to harmtul substances, 
such as asbestos, toxics, and pesticides. 

• Pesticides and food In Fiscal Year 2005, EPD joined other states in petitioning the LLS. 
EPA to implement the Food Qualit}^ Protection Act (FQPA) by modify-ing the tolerances it 
sei: for residue levels for five pesticides (alachlor, chiorothalonii, methomyl, metribuzin, and 
thiodicarb). These pesticides are used in agricultural production of fruits and vegetables in the 
US, such as apples, grapes, peanuts, tomatoes, and wheat, coirmionly consumed by children, 
and EPA has failed to apply the mandator}' ten-times safet)' factor in setting the allowed levels 
for these pesticides. That petition remained pending during Fiscal Year 2006. 

• Pesticides and schools EPL~) continued to work with the F^epartment of Agricultural 
Resources on a joint initiative to enforce the Childrens Protection Act's provisions addressing 
"'integrated pest management plans" at schools and day care centers. 

• POPs Preemption EPD took the lead in organizing a multistate effort to oppose 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. As a result of EPDs sustained and forceful opposition, the sponsor of the 



194 



IM'BI IC PROTRCTION HrRFAL' 



FNVIR()NMFNTAt.PROTF.(TIC>N I)I\IS|()\ 



bill has propose*.! .iltcriKitivc l.inmi.i^..- th.it is iKtici ili.iri tli.ii iii ilic oii^in.il hill. 

• Toxics Release Inventory WA proposed major (.h.in^ts to the regulations governing the 
responsibiliries of companies ro report their leleases of loxit siilrstantes mto the enviromnent. 
KPI) joined other states in opposing these changes. 

• Asbestos Fi'l) resolved two asbestos enforcement cases in histal \\:.n 2006, one against 
Baystate Homeguard lor alleged violations in Springfield ($41,000 penalty, of which SlS.'^OO 
is subject to waiver) and the other against Patriot Environmental for alleged violations in 

Ashburnham (S40,000 civil penalty, of which S10,000 is subject to waiver). 

THE CLEAN STATE INITIATIVE 

A priority of the Attorney Ceneral is compliance, by all state agencies and authorities, with the 
environmental laws and regulations of the Commonwealth. During Fiscal Year 2006, the Attorney 
Ceneral continued his oversight of the MBTAs compliance with environmental laws, including the 
MBTA's compliance with a consent decree regarding the demolition of its old power plant in South 
Boston, hi addition to pressing individual ca.scs against stare entities, the Attorney Cicneral seeks to 
have state agencies generallv implement policies to prevent enviioniTiental violations from occurring. 

CAPE ^XaND 

EPD continued to be involved in the controversy surrounding the propo.sed placement of the Cape 
Wind "wind farm"' in Nantucket Sound. The Attorney General had previous!)- focu.sed on the legal 
question of whether a permit issued by tlie Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Rivers and El arbors 
Act provided sufficient authorit)' to allow a private party to occupy federal public trust lands. Ehe First 
Circuit found it unnecessary to reach this issue in its ruling on the project's 'test tower" (Alliaiice to 
Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc. v. United States Department of tlie .Army, 398 E. 3d 105 ( 1st Cir. 2005)), 
but the Court specifically noted that it was a "thorny" issue. During this fiscal year, the enactitient of 
the federal energ)' bill mooted this isstie by supplying statutoi^' authorit)' for private parties to occupy 
the federal seabed if the)' receive a license from the Department of the Interior (DC)l). On December 
30, 2005, DO! started the rulemaking process by issuing an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
for 'alternate energy- related uses on the outer continental shelf." Ehe Attorney General subnntiet! 
comments on February 28, 2006, and EPD provided oral testirtiony at a public hearing. 

^TAWR'S COVE I.NG FACILITY 

During Fi.scal Year 2006, EPD continued to be very involved in a controversy over the proposed 
NX^eaver's Cove liquified natural gas terminal in Fall River. After FERC issued an initial approval lor the 
facility, EPD and other parties filed a Petition for Rehearing. As part of this petition, FPL') argued that 



195 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVLSION 

the project was simply no longer viable in light oFtederiil legislation that required the old Brightman 
Street Bridge to stay in place. After FERC denied the Petition for Rehearing, EPD filed an appeal 
to the First Circuit. Meanwhile, the project proponent indicated that it was modifying its proposal 
CO use smaller ships because of the Brightman Street bridge issue. F,PD askeci FF^ RC> to re-open the 
matter because of this change, and appealed FERC "s refusal to do that. EPD separately pressed the 
Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers about this issue. At years end, the federal Department 
of Transportation has not yet ruled on the administrative petition EPD filed last year (joined by RI) 
requesting that it set new siting standards. 

I. RGISLATIVE EFFORTS 

Much of EPD s legislative work this year was in fighting various efforts to cut back on state authority. 
For example, EPD continued to oppose efforts by the Department of Defense to secure additional 
exemptions from federal environmental laws. 

On the state side, EPD fought for legislation Attorney General Reiily and Senator Brewer filed that 
would create a statute of limitations for cases brought to enforce the states cleanup statute, G.L. c. 2 IE. 
The proposed statute would key the stature of limitations to the discovery of the violation instead of 
to its occurrence, a change that is important f-br preserving the integrity of the largel\'-privatized state 
cleanup program. 

NUCLEAR SAFETY ISSUES 

During Fiscal Year 2006, Entergy filed for 20-year extensions of the current operating licenses for 
the Pilgrii7i and Vermont Yankee nuclear power stations. On May 26, 2006, EPD moved to intervene 
in both proceedings through filing a "conteiuion" based on safet)' concerns related to the storage of 
spent fuel. EPD also sent a letter to the NRC expressing concern over vibration issues related an 
"uprate" allowed at Vermont Yankee. EPD helped secure an important victory in a case before the 9th 
Circuit. In San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, No. 03-74628 
(June 2, 2006), the Court reversed a 2003 decision by the NRC Commissioners that had denied the 
intervenors a hearing on the cjuestion of whether NEPA required preparation of an environmental 
impact statement to evaluate the impacts of an intentional attack on a proposed independent spent 
fuel storage facility at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. EPD had joined a four-state amicus 
brief on the winning side. 

DEFENSIVE LITIGATION 

EPD defends state environjiiental agencies and officials sued on environmental issues. This delx?nsive 
litigation includes high-profile matters such as EPDs defense of the recently-enacted state Oil Spill 
Act against a preemption challenge brought by the Coast Guard, and its defense against a preemption 



196 



PUBI IC PROTFCTION BLIRFAf FNVIRONMFNTAI. PROTFC I K ^N OIXISION 



challongc a raili\);Kl iMoiiglu at^aiiisr state anti-idling rct;iilatii)ns. It aKo iiKluJts man) 'nuts ami holts' 



• Edgartown Friends & Fishers In this c. .>()A ap('c,il, ahuitcrs arc challcn^ni^; a ^;i(.untlwater 
discharge pcrniit DEP issued ro the Kiigartown wastewater treatment |)lant. Hetause the 
gioiindwarer discharge will eventually reach the I'.dgartown (Ireat Pond (in 1 S to 20 years), the 
ahurters argued that the discharge would cause or contribute to violations of the Ponds water 
<.]uaHt\' and that the permit violated the applicahle clean waters regulations. The Supreme 
Judici;il C^ourt affirmed the permit, ruling that the DEP's interpretation of the apf^licablc 
regulations in issuing the permit was reasonable. Edgartown Friends Ik Fishers v. DF.P, 4A(^ 
Mass. 830 (2006). 

• Shearwater As.soc. Inc., and Radin In these consolidated c. 30A wetlands appeals involving 
a controvers)' in Truro, the Appeals Court issued a 1:28 ruling vacating the Superior C!ourr 
judgments (that were in DEP s favor) and remanding to dismiss the cases as moot. 

• DiCicco V DEP (Westwood Fligh School) Abutter and citizens group challenged a DEP 
enforcement order that allowed illegally filled wetlands to remain in place. The Appeals Court 
held that it was within DEP's enforcement discretion to require only that the Town construct 
replacement wetlands nearby as part of a high school playing fields expansion project, rather than 
order in-place restoration and payment of a civil pertalty. See 64 K'lass. App. Ct. 423 (200's). 
A portion of the illegally filled wetlands were subject to a deed restriction recorded pursuant to 
the Inland Wedands Restriction Act. G.L. c. 131, § 40A. The Court noted that "no meaningful 
argument was made" that DEP should treat the restricted wetlands differently than the wetlands 
protected imder c. 131, §40 when fiishioning an enforcement remedy. 

MNKEUinCYVIATTERS 

EPD participates in bankruptcy cases on a fairly regular biisis to protect the Commonwealths 
interests. It represents the DEP, as a creditor, in ca.ses in which a debtor has environmental liability 
by filing a claim on the DEPs behalf seeking to recover outstanding costs or fees. EPD also seeks to 
prevent a culpable debtor from abandoning contaminated property that would otherwi.se likely create a 
Brownfields site. Wliere possible, EPD also attempts to compel the debtor to perform cleanup actions that 
are still necessary or to obtain funding from the estate to cover any costs the Commonwealth may iiicur 
to contain any immediate hazards posed by the debtor's sites. Last year, EPD received approximately 
$20,000 for unpaid fees and civil penalties that debtors .sought to avoid, and has pending claims for 
outstanding fees, civil penalties, and possible future costs in .sevetal ongoing bankruptq- ca.ses that total 
millions of dollars. In re DB Companies, Inc., No. 04-1 1{)18-PJ\V (Del. Bankr.), is an example of a 



197 



PUBLIC PROTECTION Bl'REAU INSURANCE DIVISION 

case in which EPD stepped in to object to a debtor's attempt to "abandon" contaminated property he 
owned or operated upgradient from the town of Hanover s drinking water supply wells. EPD is currently 
attempting to negotiate a resolution that would require the debtor to set aside funds for performing 
remediation and to establish a mechanism to allow the transfer of the property's title to a new developer 
at an appropriate time. Another example of EPD s bankruptc}^ work, Commonwealth v. Elizabeth 
Frogameni (zA^dversary Proceeding No.04-4337, Bankruptc)' Court, Worcester), began iis an enforcement 
suit against Quantum Machine Stained Coatings. Inc., for emitting large amounts of VOCs from its 
woodcoating plant without a required air permit. Quantum settled the case for a $325,000 civil penaltv' 
in 1997, and Elizabeth Frogameni and her husband, Tony, personally guaranteed the payment of the 
penalc)'. Quantum went out of business in 1998. In 2000, Tony filed a bankiuptq' petition seeking 
to discharge the debt under the guaranty, but he defaulted in the Adversar)' Proceeding EPD hied in 
the Bankruptcy Court. His debt was ruled to be nondischargeable. EPD then sued the Frogamenis 
under the guaranty in Superior Court and were granted summary judgment against them. Elizabeth 
Frogameni filed a bankruptq^ petition, to which EPD replied with another Adversary Proceeding to 
contest the discharge of her debt under the guarant)'. After a contested proceeding, the Bankruptcy 
Court granted summary judgment in EPD's favor on February 2 1 , 2006, ruling that Frogamenis 
debt also was nondischargeable as a matter of law. Elizabeth Frogameni appealed, but her appeal was 
disniissed on March 21, 2006, for her failure to follow the Courts procedural rules. 

INSURANCE PmSION 

The Insinance Division represents the public interest in administrative insurance rate setting 
proceedings, brings actions in state court against insurers for unfair acts and practices, provides comnients 
and testimony about proposed regulations and laws relating to insurance, assists in other litigation and 
projects 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. 

Insurance Division staff included: Clenn Kaplan, Chief; Staq' Book; Monica Brooloiian; Vivian 
Chen; Judith dePontbriand; Burt Feinberg; Rebecca Frade; Stacey Gotham; Hilary Hershman; Shannon 
Keith; Stephanie Kessler; Peter height; Br)'an Lincoln; Rosina l.ucibello; Emiliano Mazlen; Pam Meister; 
Rut)y Mintz; Patricia Morgan; Tom O'Brien; Quentin Palfrey; Nathan Rawding; Tonie Ryan; Jayna 
Stafford; Arwen Thoman; Rachel Weiner; and Danielle Wood 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMAIllES 

I he Insurance Division concentrates its efforts on rate setting proceedings in administrative rate 
dockers and appeals to ihe Supreme Judicial Court in those cases, and litigation against insurers for 
unfair practices. 

198 



PUBLIC PROTFXTION BURFAL' 



INJSIJRANC;F. DIVISION 



RATE CASE LITIGATION 

Insurance rate proceedings involve liij;hly complex litij;aiion, with liumlreils of millions ordollais 
in customer premiiinis at issue. The Insurance Division, with its atforneys, support staff", .uu\ in-housc 
actuarial and mathematical experts, reviews industry filings and intervenes in rate cases to prevent unfair 
rate increases. The Attorney General, as the only paiiy in the rate cases representing die piihlic interest 
in fair rates for consumers, and as the only party ahle to appeal unjustified rate incieascs approved l>v 
the Commissioner ot Insurance, plays a key role in this process. 

• 2006 Automobile Insurance Rate Proceeding The automobile insurance rare setting 

proceeding is an annual administrative litigation in which the (Commissioner of Insurance, based 
on proposals and evidence submitted by the auto industry and other [parties, sets automobile 
insurance rates for the coming year. Hie Insurance Division litigates these proceedings, 
representing the public interest, fhe division's involvement saved consiuners over $340 million 
'in Fiscal Year 2006. 

• FAIR Plan (Homeowner Insurance) Rate Case The FAIR Plan provides homeowner 
insurance to consumers who cannot obtain coverage from private insurers. Rates for this residual 
market plan are set in a cyclical rate proceedirtg. i'he industry' sought a 12% average staiev^'ide 
rate increase, with a 25% increases for many coastal communities. Moreover, the industry 
asked that the rate increase apply retroactively to the date of its filing. The division successfully 
challenged the retroactivity request, saving consumers $ 10 million. The Commissioner approved 
a non-retroactive increase of 12%, and the Attorney General is appealing that decision to the 
Supreme ludicial C,ourt. 

• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Medex Medicare Supplement Instirance pays for elder medical 
costs Medicare does not cover. 'Fhe Insurance Divisions intervention resulted in savings of over 
$5.8 million for Massachusetts consumers. 

SUFFOLK SUPERIOR COURT' IJTlGAnON: INSURANCE ISSUES 

In addition to the rate setting cases, the Insurance Division aggressively pursues insurers, insurance 
agents, and other pla\'eis in the insurance system when they commit unfair acts and practices. 

• Mandated Benefits Cases An Insurance Division review determined thai man\' health 
insurance companies were nor providing the mandated benefits required by MiLssachusetts law. 
Genworth Life and Flealth Insurance Company Fallon Community Health Plan, and Harvard 
Pilgrim Flealth Plan all entered into Assurances of F)iscontinuance, agreeing to reprocess any 

relevant claims, change their insurance policies to provide the mandated benefits, and pay 



199 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU INSURANCT, DIVISION 



Statutory penalties. The division will continue with its mandated benefits review during the 
upcoming fiscal year. 

• Zurich Insurance Zurich is a national insurance company that engaged in a national bid 
rigging scheme, leading to increased insurance costs for consumers. The Insurance Division 
led a multisrate group of Attorneys General reviewing Zurich's actions. The muitistate group 
resolved tlie matter by settlement agreement with Zurich, which will result in distribution of 
approximately $4 million in restitution to Massachusetts customers. $1 million in payment 
to the Commonwealth, and injunctive relief enforceable through a Suffolk Superior Court 
judgment. 

• American Bankers International Group (ABIG) Ihe Insurance Division investigated 
allegations that ABIG, a Florida based company, falsely told certain customers that their 
unemployment credit insurance would not cover consumers living in X'lassachusetts. ABIG 
entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance and agreed to review the claims previously denied 
to Massachusetts policyholders, take steps to prevent the error in the future, and pay a $20,000 
penalty. 

• Jefferson Pilot Jefferson Pilot Insurance Company, a seller of life insurance and annuity 
products, fiiled to tell customers that the Division of Insurance had de-listed one of Jefferson's 
agents. The company entered an Assurance of Discontinuance, agreeing to pay restitution to 
customers totaling $71,993.31 and make a $15,000 payment to the Commonwealth. 

• Group Insurance Concepts GIC served as a paid insurance advisor for the town of 
Burlington. The advisor represented that it provided conflict free advice and that it was not 
accepting any commissions from insurance companies. In fact, GIC accepted commissions 
from Blue Ooss Blue Shield, the successfiil bidder for Burlington's health insurance contract, 
and these commissions caused Burlington's premium to increase. The division obtained a 
judgment against GIC for $314,000. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Investigations Initiated 30 

Court Cases Initiated 6 

Rate Setting Proceedings Initiated 7 

200 



PUBLIC PROTFXTION BLIRFAIJ 



INISURANCF DIVISION 



judgmfius, A.ssuiMiKfs, aiul .VitkiiKiils | 1 

IVnalrics mk\ RchucJ PayiiKiits $ 2.2()(),()()(J 

Rcstiiiiti(Mi and Monttan' Savings for C^onsnnicrs $ 7,7()(),()(K) 

Monetary Savings for Consumers as a result of Rate Cases $ 359.8()()().f)()() 

Restitution to Massaehusetts Munieipalities $ 304, ()()() 

The division ineludes two mediation projects, the Insurance Mediation I'rograni and the A( i KUIer 
Hotline, that help consumers resolve certain individual disputes without legal action. 



MEDIATION CONSUMER MEDIAIIONS ASSISTED 

PROjECr CALLS RECO\ I RIES ' 

Insurance Mediation 6,314 843 S 1.319, 14S. 23 

AC Elcler 8,595 691 $ 142,235.23 

SIGNIFICANT INITIyVnVES, EFFORTS, AND ACIIVl IIES 

The Insurance Division also focuses on public policy initiatives, including educating legislators and 
prc^viding comments on proposed regulations and statutes; assists other divisions with their consumer 
protection efforts; and provides guidance and mediation assistance to consumers. 

PUBLIC POLICY INITIATIVES 

In addition to enforcing existing statutes, the Insurance Division is active in exploring various public 
policy issues. The division advocates regarding potential legislative changes and propo.sed regulations. 
It also performs important research and data analysis regarding the actual ellect of various ttends and 
systems on the insurance market and on consumers. I'his research and .uial\'sis is useful for public 
policy debate surrounding insurance matters. 

• Testimony and Legislative Guidance The division provides testimony at administrative 

public hearings and the legislature and provides legislators with guidance on regulatory initiatives 
and changes in insurance law. During the past year, the division provided guidance on proposed 
- TJiese inoiieniry recoveries are included in tlie division's Restiuition .nid Monei.iry Savings for Consumers. 

201 



PUBLIC PROTECTION Bl'RF.AU INSURANCE DIVISION 

changes ro the division oF Insurances regulations on maruiged care insurance and on legislation 
to make insurance gender neutral. The division also participated in multistate efforts opposing 
the proposed federal Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 
2006, and worked as part of the legislative reform working group on Workers Compensation 
Insurance. 

• Automobile Insurance Reform 1 he Insurance Division engaged in a broad effort to reform 
the auto insurance market in Massachusetts. It advocated for reform of the residual market 
(where consumers go for insurance when no insurer will voluntarily provide them with coverage), 
and played a key role in the Attorney General's defense of the reform plan implemented by the 
Commissioner of Insurance. The division also worked with advocates and legislators to oppose 
a reform plan proposed by Governor Romney, which would have removed stare oversight while 
still allowing insurer collusion on pricing issues. It also provided comments on a reform plan 
created by the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and completed work on the 
Attorney Generals proposal for auto insurance reform. 

• Connector Board The division researched and compiled data driven analyses relating to 
the new iMassachusetts health insurance reform, and provided advice on how best to implement 
the reforms. 

• Medical Malpractice Insurance Medical malpractice insurance provides coverage to 
physicians against claims for negligent and shoddy treatment. Practitioners are finding this 
coverage to be more and more expensive, and have demanded legislative caps on their liabilit}' in 
an effort to keep premiums down. The division completed an additional review of the medical 
malpractice arena. 

ASSISTING ^XaT H THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CONSUMER PROTECTION MISSION 

• Western Union Financial Services Western Unions failure to reRise suspicious wire transfers 
allegedly helped allow fraudulent activit\' against consumers. The division investigated as part 
of a multistate group. Through a sctdement. Western Union agreed to take steps to prevent 
fraud-induced transfers, pay $400,000 to investigating states, pay $8,1 29,000 for national peer- 
counseling, and electronically transmit consumer complaint information to requesting states. 

• Shelley v. Parker Firearms Rights Groups challenged the District of Columbia's right to 
restrict possession of firearms, claiming the Second Amendment bars the restrictions. Given 
similarities between Massachusetts' gun law restrictions and those of the District of Columbia, the 
division organized a multistate amicus group to support the District in its litigation. Insurance 



202 



PUBLIC PROTF.CTION BURFAf INSURANC.F. DIVISION 

Division pLisoniicl, in u)(ti\liii.uii)ii wirli ( 'I'AD, wrntt- ;in .itiiiciis hiitlfoi die I )( C ircuit. 

• Commonwealth v. Mikolinna s A plnsi^ian .ib.uulonctl his oIIkc. .mkI f.nktl to arrange for 
secure storage and private treatmcnc of his patiiiit nuciical records. Ilic ihvision obtained a 
judgment transferring custody oft he records ro the Aiiorney ( icneial and allowing the ilivision 
to safeguard rhem and return tiictn to consumers. 

• Health Care Information Web Site The Insurance Oivisioti helped creaie a Health Care 
Information Web site, allowing consutners to learn Ixisic information about health care choices. 
The Web site provides substantive information, but ;ilso connects consumers to third parrv' sources 
of information and helps rhem navigate those third party Web sites. The design and protorepe 
of the Web site were completed during this fiscal year, and the division and the Health Policy 
Director have begun working with Health Care For All on final text and implementation. 

• DSS V. Mother & Another At the request of the Attorney Cenerals Covernment Bureau, 
Insurance Division personnel successfully defended a state ageticy decision to terminate parental 
rights and place 10 children into protective care and custody of DSS. Following the hearing, 
the Appeals Court ruled in favor of the Commonwealth by affirming that tiie termination of 
parental rights was in the best interest of all 10 children. 

• H-4552 (Firearm Law Reform) Insurance Division personnel reviewed proposed changes 
to C.I.. c. 140 firearm laws and helped with outreach to advocaq' groups, drafting for legislators, 
and discussing the impact of statutory changes with government authorities in other states. 
Based on this work, the legislature closed two major loopholes in the amendments, which 
would have removed large classes of revolvers and a broad array of "target shooting" firearms 
from regulatory oversight. 

XONSJjMER.MEDJATiQNANDOUTRM.CH.E 

Insurance Mediation SerA-'ices In Fiscal Year 2006, 6,314 people, an average of S26 a month, called 
the Insurance Divisions Insurance Mediation Program to ask questions and seek helf-" with insurance 
problems. The Insurance Division mediators, assisted b}' undergraduate interns trained b)- the Insurance 
Division, answered the questions of callers, provided information, guidance, and referrals, and mediated 
consumer disputes with insurance companies. In Fiscal Year 2006, the Insurance Division opened 
84.3 consumer complaint files and closed 67 1 . Mediators recovered $\3\ ^), 1 4S.23 for Massachusetts 
consumers. 



203 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BliRF.AU INSURANCE DIVISION 

Health Insurance Forty-three percent of the callers were concerned about health insurance. Many 
of these callers had recently been laid off from their jobs and did not know their health insurance 
rights. Many small business owners also contacted the Insurance Division to ask questions about 
their responsibilities under Massachusetts "mini CC)BI<A/' which allows former employees and their 
dependents to coniinue health insurance coverage after certain qualifying events, such as job termination 
or death of the employee. As with the telepihone inquiries, a significant portion of the written complaints 
related to health insurance. Three hundred seven of the new complaints, 36% of the total, involved 
health insurance. The top six health insurance complaint categories were claim denials (62), medical 
billing problems (38), mini COBR/V (29), failure of employers to remit health insurance premiums 
(28), prescription problems (20), and enrollment or eligibilir\' problems (19). 

Auto Insurance Approximately 26% of the callers sought help with auto insurance problems. 
Most were having difficulty with accident claims; others raised questions about premium billing, policy 
cancellations, and surcharges. 

Other Insurance Issues The mediation program received inquiries related to a wide range of other 
r)-pes oi insurance, including homeowner and flood insurance, short and long term disability- insurance, 
life insurance and annuities, travel insurance and possible insurance scams. Callers asked questions 
about how to evaluate insurance before purchasing a policy, how to cancel unwanted insurance, how 
to appeal a denied claim, and how to deal with incorrect billing. 

AG ELDER HOTLINE 

The Attorney General's Elder Hotline provides a central place where senior citizens, age 60 and 
older, and their families can call for assistance on insurance issues and other consumer matters. AG 
Elder provides written and oral information, referrals within the Attorney General s Office or to other 
government agencies, and mediation services. During Fiscal Year 2006, the AG Elder Hodine received 
8,595 calls, opened 4,027 intakes, and closed 3,798. The hodine's mediation services saved consumers 
$142,235.23. Hotline personnel helped consumers with a variety of problems including insurance, 
debt and debt collection, home improvement contractors, utilities, telemarketing, and retail sales. 

Insurance Issues The hotline received 292 insurance related complaints and inquiries. C'lose to 
hall ol these related to health insurance prescription drug coverage or the new Medicare Part D system. 
Another 20% ol the inquiries related to annuities and insurance investment plans. AG Elder volunteers 
provided information to the consumers and, with the assistance of the Insurance Divisions Insurance 
Mediation Program, assisted in resolving these insurance disputes. 

Debt and Debt Collection Massachusetts seniors registered 267 complaints with the hodine 



204 



PUBI IC PROTECTION BURFAi; INVFSTICATIOSS HIVISION 

coiKcrning debt and dcln collLciion praaias. Seniors upoitcd ftxlini; pRssuriil and intiiiiidatcd hv 
both the vohiinc of calls ixxeivcd .\ud the hostile tone and lanmiage the debt collector representatives 
use. In inany cases, the l-Jder ilotlines intervention resulted m the cessation ot collections efforts or a 
reduction in rhe amoiinr owed. 

Contractors The hotline received 224 coniplaints against contractors coiucrning qiialitv of 
workmanship, lailute to deliver goods or .services, and billing disputes. 

Utilities The high cost of utilities, including telephone service, elecrricity, gas and home h.-afing 
oil (with a combined total of 239 complaints) is a major concerti for seniors. 

Retail Establishments and Dealerships Complaints against retail establishinents numbered 
147, followed by complaints against automobile dealerships and repair shops (130). Ihere were 139 
complaints regarding sweepstakes or lottery scams and 43 reports from victims or potential victitns of 
the counterfeit check scam. 

Telemarketing The hotline received 116 complaints related to telemarketing practices. Often 
these resulted in unwanted or unauthorized electronic withdrawals from an elders bank account. The 
hotline issued a telemarketing advisory posted on the Attorney Ceneral's Web site. 

INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

The Investigations Division conducts investigations primarily for divisions within the Public 
Protection and Government Bureaus. 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, 
coimry and municipal agencies; conduct surveillance, background checks and asset checks; anaKv.e 
financial records and perform other forensic accounting functions; and testif)' before grand juries and 
at trial. In some cases investigators worked closely with other state attorneys general, district aitf>rneys. 
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 Coinmission. 

The Investigations Division includetl: Quinton Dale. Director; Dante Annicelli; MoniqueCascarano; 
Eric Funk; David Hall; Jake Harney; Nicholas Paras; Carmen Pimcnrel; and Nancy Ward. 



205 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BI.IREAU INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

The division initiated 88 investigations in the following major areas: 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

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 ANL-) 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 and gun enforcement and health care initiatives. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

The division's role in EPD cases primarily involved locating and identifying assets of potentially 
responsible parties liable for paying costs incurred by the Commonwealth in 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 analv/.ed financial documents and 
prepared ability to pay analyses. The investigators also participated in lead paint inspections. 

INSURANCE 

Investigators reviewed and investigated businesses and organizations that withheld employee 
contributions lor health insurance premiums, but failed to actually purchase the health insurance 
coverage. Other cases investigated included unlawful sales practices, known as "churning," and the 
sale of fraudulent or costly life and health insurance policies. 

PUBLIC CHARI LIES 

The division investigated individuals associated with organizations who raised funds from the public 
in violation of Massachuserrs's law. In some instances, solicitors posed as law enforcement or other 
public officials or otherwise misrepresented themselves or the charity's ptirpose. Investigators worked 
with other law entorcement personnel in locating couriers who picked up donations. 

CRIMINAL BUREAU 



206 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BURFAIJ 



invfstk;atio\s division 



Iiivtstit^ators worked on c;ises tli.it icsnlttd in iiulKiiiKiiis .iiul coiivittioiis an.niiM indivuluals 
for violations of" the Coiunionwx.iltlis Lrnninal laws. Cases includeil: larceny af;aiiisi the elderlv 
and vulnerable by home improvemenr conrraciois and a travel apent; unlieensed practice of medical 
professions; releinarketing fraud and illegal charitable fund raisers. 

THJLUIMVISION 

The division played a major role in tort actions Hied against the C'ommonweahh hv investigating 
allegations oi abuse, mistreatment and deaths of individuals in state care; alleged wrongful termination 
of state employees; and personal injuries and other damages occurring on state-owned property and/or 
in accidents on state roads or involving state vehicles. The division also investigated ca.scs involving 
contract disputes and eminetu domain proceedings. 

ABANDONED PROPERTIES PROJECT 

The division assisted the Attorney Generafs Abandoned Properties Project hv conducting research 
on target properties in several commimities, 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. 1 he division researched properties in launton, New Bedford, Worcester, and Brockton. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

The division opened 88 investigations in Fiscal Year 2006, with 247 investigations ongoing as of 
June 30, 2006. 



DIVISION/BUREAU 



OPENED DURING 
FISCAL \TAR 2006 



ONGOING AS 

OF 6/30/06 



Consumer Protection/Antitrust 

Civil Rights 

Environmental Protection 

Government 

Insurance 



35 

27 

5 

3 

9 



84 

46 

26 

3 

12 



207 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 



DIVISION OF PU'BLIC CHARITIES 



PPB/Criniinal 
Public Charities 
Trial 



8 
10 

58 



TOTAL 



88 



247 



DI\aSION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES 



The Division of Public Charities carries out the Attorney Cenerd's responsibilities to represent the 
public interest in the proper solicitation and use of charitable flinds and to "enforce the due application 
of funds given or appropriated to public charities within the commonwealth and prevent breaches of 
trust in the administration thereof" CL. c. 1 2, §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 federally chartered organizations, all public 
charities must register with the division and all registered charities must submit annual financial reports. 
The registrations and financial reports are public records and the division maintains public viewing files. 
More than 22,000 charities are registered with the division, ;is 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 fundraisers, the Attorney General is a necessary party in 
iill proceedings brought to wind up the affairs of a public charit}' or to change the terms of a charitable 
trust. 

I'he liivision engaged in corporate governance and oversight initiatives to ensure that the governing 
boards of institutions carried out their fiduciary duties of due care and loyalr)^ and continued its activities 
in areas central to its mission: enforcement litigation to address deception and fraud in charitable 
fundraising, actions to ensure that charitable funds were appropriately administered and applied, 
enforcement of laws requiring accountability by public charities, and health care. 

'1 he division recognizes that charities provide vital services in our communities while both enjoying 
certain benefits because of their rax exempt status and assuming ceitain obligations. As a result, the 
division was involved in a number of initiatives intended to strengthen the charitable sector, including 
running an educational conference for charities board members and managers, making presentations 



208 



PUBI..IC PROTECTION BUREAU DIVISION OF fl IB! IC! c:HARITIF.S 



to a larj;c nuniki •)rpubliL ^i()U[\s .iiul h.ir (.r^.im/aiions on Ji.iriiics issues, .iiul .Kicllll^ instriittional 
materials to the charities section of the Attoiiie\' (icner.ils W'ch site. 

The PubHc C'harities Division inchulecl: Jamie Kat/, ( hief"; I.esHe Bennett; Amv Htvsotr. Satuira 
Caidotie; Hric C^airiker; Patiicia ( lifron; Mara lVi;nan Rojeski; D.iniil Kiiillo; lUtnaid (iieene; Ann 
Higgins; C-athy HolTman; Beth McCiiHicuclcly; Kathleen ()'("(. nnelh lohanna Soris: lli/.ilxih St,.ry; 
Scoit Weltv; and Marissa Woltmami. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIHS 

CR\RITY GOVERNANC E 

Much of the Arrorney Gefierals oversight of charitable corporations focuses on stewardship by 
charity boards of directors. The division may become involved when directors breacii 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 ca.ses, 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 coimtrv. It holds itself out as providing credit counseling scr\'ices to individuals who 
have amassed excessive credit card debt. In the spring of 2004, the Attorney Cieneral sued 
Cambridge Credit in state court for violating both charities and consumer protection laws. 
Cambridge Credit was also sued by North Carolina, which settled its claim, and is involved iti 
disputes with other federal and state regulators. Working with the Attorney General's Consumer 
Protection and Antitrust Division, the Charities Division litigated and finally settled this case. 
The settlement provides for new operating protocols and policies for (Cambridge Oedit, the 
departure of certain individuals who breached their hduciar\- duties to the company, and pa\-ment 
to the Commonwealth of approximately $4 million by both the itivolved ituiividuals and the 
company. The company has reformed its operations going forward and Massachusetts clients 
of the company will receive some restitution. 

• Copeland Foundation The division investigated the operation of this charit\- and determined 
that certain of its directors had enriched themselves inappropriately through miplemcnting a 
very rich pension plan and raising their own salaries. The division then obtained an agreement 
that the trustees would: dissolve the pension and return funds to the foundation; set salaries at 

209 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BL'RF.AU DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARITIES 

specified levels For individual trustee-eniployees going forward; establish certain policies and 
protocols; add independent trustees to the board; and hire an independent adviser to ensure 
that the trustees operate properly. 

• For-Profit Acquisitions The division continued to review proposed for-profit acquisitions 
of health care providers and other charitable corporations, with each transaction requiring the 
division to devote considerable time and resources. 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 for fair value, the transaction must be necessary and in the best interest of 
the charity, 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 Siile or other disposition of iill or substantiiilly all 
of the charit)''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. 

• Charitable Corporation Dissolutions In order to cease their corporate existence, charitable 
corporations must dissolve through a proceeding in the Supreme Judicial Court. To enforce 
the public's interest in the disposition of charitable assets, the Attorney General is a parry to 
all voluntaiy dissolutions of charitable corporations under G.L. c.l80, §1 lA. After review, 
negotiation of necessary modifications, and assent by the division, the dissolving charit)' files 
the pleadings in the Supreme Judicial Court. The division reviewed transactions involving 
numerous proposed dissolutions, some of which are ongoing. 

SOLICITATION OF CHARITABLE FUNDS 

Under G.L. c. 68, §19, every charitable organization intending to solicit funds from the public, 
except religious organizations, must apply to the division for a solicitation certificate before engaging in 
fundraising. I he division reviews certificate applications for compliance with statutory requirements. 
Unless there is a deficiency in the application, all certificates are issued within a 1 0-day statutory 
period. 

LInder G.L. c. 68, §§22 and 24, all persons acting as professional solicitors, professional fundraising 
counsel, or commercial co-venturers in conjunction with soliciting charitable organizations must 



210 



PUBLIC PROTF.CTION BURFAl' 



DIVISION OF PI IBI IC: CHARITIF.S 



register aniui^illy wiili the division. Soliutois .iiul uimnurti.il co-vciuiiaTs must .ilso tile a surctv hoiul 
in the amount of SlO.OOO. All hMuliaisers must also file with the division a eops' oUath Jiiiuliaisinp 
contract they sign with any charitable organi/ation, ami solicitors must later file a tinantial return for 
each fundraising campaign. 

The Attorney General rakes affirmative legal action again.st charities and professional tundraiscrs 
for unlair or deceptive solicitation practices and to enforce their fiduciary duties v.'iih respect to funds 
raised. In addition to injunctive relief the Attorney (jeneral may seek restitution of funds mtendeil In- 
the public to benefit a specific charit}', or particular charitable purpose, along with penalties and fees. 

I-:S TA TES AND TRUSTS 

The Attorney General focuses much attention on cases addressing the preservation and protection 
of charitable trusts. 

• Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston In the wake of the announced closings of 
numerous Boston area Catholic parishes, the division has communicated with the RC^AB over 
the handling of certain restricred funds and restricted properties either held b)', or on behalf 
of, specific parishes. Fundraising for the RCAB and its parishes over the years h;i.s resulted in 
the creation of a iaige number of restricted funds. The division has worked with the RCAB. 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 party 
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 
reviewing proposed allowances of accounts, executor and attorney fees, will comprotnises. sales of real 
estate, changes of purposes or beneficiaries of charitable trusts and bequests, amendments of charitable 
trusts to meet IRS requirements, and terminations of charitable trusts under G.L. c.203. §2*^. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Charitable Corporation Dissolutions The division assented to .S8 final judgments dissolving 
charitable corporations pursuant to G.L. c. 180, §1 lA. 

Wills, Trusts, & Other Probate Statistics The division received and reviewed 1,000 new wills. 



211 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU DIVISION OF PUBLIC CHARLFIES 

and received and reviewed 1,726 interim accounrs and 722 final accounts for executors and trustees. 
The division received, re\'iewed, and assented to 57 petitions tor license to sell real estate and received 
and reviewed 480 miscellaneous complaints and filings. 

Charitable Organizations: Registration And Enforcement The division processed approximately 
17,608 annual financial reports with annual filing fees of $ 1 ,873,51 5. The division reviewed 1,259 
new organizations, determined them to be charitable, and registered them. Tlie division sent each new 
charitable organization a packet of information about the division's registration and filing requirements. 
As part of an ongoing compliance program, division staff also contacted charities whose annual filings 
were deficient or delinquent to rectify filing deficiencies. 

Registration of Professional Solicitors and Fund-Raising Counsel 1 he division received and 
approved 352 registrations, resulting in $67,450 in fees to the Commonwealth. The division received 
registrations from 89 soficitors, 179 hind raising counsel, and 85 commercial co-venturers. 



MONEY RECOXO^RED FOR THE CQMMON^TALTH TREASURY 

Charitable Registration Fees $ 1,873.515 

Fundraiser Registration Fees $ 67,450 

Other fees, requests lor copies, requests 
for computer information $ 2,650.75 

TOTAL $1,943,615.75 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTI\TTIES 

Legislation 1 he Attorney General sponsored legislation that would enhance the financial integrit)' 
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, audit committees, and other measures designed to help charities prevent 

212 



PUBLIC PROTFCTION BURFAf UTIl ITIRS DIVISION 

self-dcaliii|:; and strctigtlicn ilitir tiiuiiKcs .iiul opcr.iiioiis. I lu- Aitonu-y ( .ciitral icMifictl on iH-lialfof 
the legislation in a hcariiii: in Novcinlxr 2()()S. Ihf Jnisioii ihcn nc_n()tiatfcl fiirthcr (.liangcs to the 
proposed statute and resiihniitted it to eoniniittee in the spiinj: of 2()()(). Ilu I egislatiire has not yet 
enacted the proposed legislation. 

Health Care The division focused much ofits efforts on health care. ( otisistent with the Attorney 
(■.eneral's strong interest in resolving problems related to the delivery of health care, the division 
monitored the actions ot a number of the signiHcant non-[iroht health care mstitutions that are [niblit 
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 took at academic medical centers in Boston and elsewhere, bur also reviewed the activities 
of community hospitals. 1 he division also began an effort to review the finances of Massachusetts 
non-profit fiMOs. 

Technology and Public Access The division continued to scan images of filed documents uno its 
computers, a project that helps both information retrieval and compliance efforts and allows 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 man\' charities. 

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 
F.nergv ("Department" or "D'l E"). G.I.. c. 12, § 1 1 E. The division carries on its work before state and 
federal courts and administrative regulatory bodies such as the DTE. the Federal Energ}' Regulaton' 
Commission ("FERC"), and the Federal Communications Commission ('TCC"). In many of these 
matters, particularly public urilir\' rate cases, the division is the only active participant advocating on 
behalf of Massachusetts consumers. 

The Utilities Division focused on advocacy of consumer interests in connecticin with traditional 
utilitv rate cases (electric, gas and telephone) and wholesale electric restructuring issues. Work continued 
among interested parties to enhance the service quality provided by the states utilities. 



213 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES fJi VISION 

The Utilities Division included: Joseph Rogers, Chiet; Bruce Anderson; Alexander Cochis; Jonathan 
Engel; Kerryn Fernandes; Patricia Kclley; Pam King; Colleen McConnell; Penny Michcilski; Timothy 
Newhard; Doe Pichard; Karien Reed; and Jamie Tosches. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 

UTILITY RATE CASES 

• 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 five years. On November 30, 2005, the Department 
reduced the Company's revenue request by 50% or $1 1 million. The Department also adopted 
the position of the Utilities Division and rejected the Company plan to charge customers for an 
accelerated, ten-year $300 million unprotected steel pipe replacement program, saving customers 
an additional $21 million on a net-present-value basis. Jlie Department also ordered a separate 
proceeding to review the parent company's management practices toward Bay State. Post-order 
motions for reconsiderations were pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Boston Edison Company, Cambridge Electric Light Company, Commonwealth Electric 
Company and NSTAR Gas Company ("NSTAR"), DTE 05-85 NSTAR notified the division 
that it intended to file both a distribution rate case for all four of its distribution affiliates, and 
a merger case to consolidate the electric companies into Boston Edison. After several weeks 
of negotiations, the Attorney General and NSTAR reached a comprehensive rate setdement 
agreement filed with the DTE on December 6, 2005. Although NSTAR was seeking 
approximately $S9 million in a combined distribution rate increase, it agreed to reduce this 
request by $59 million to $30 million, and to offset the distribution rate increases with transition 
charge reductions. The Settlement required staggered longer-term supply procurement that 
should protect customers from price volatility, provided incentives for NSTAR to advocate 
on behalf of" custoniers to reduce the cost of electricity market inefficiencies, and contained 
provisions for enhanced service quality, audits of service quality meiisures, ongoing oversight by 
the Attorney Generiil of company operations and the return of any cost double recoveries. 

• Massachusetts Electric Company, D.T.E. 06-5 The Company filed its 2005 rate index and 
reconciliation filing on January 27, 2006, asking for a rate increase to become effective March 
1, 2006. 1 he Department held a public hearing and an evidentiary hearing to consider which 
companies should be included in the regional index that determines the rate increase. The DTE 



214 



PDBllC PROTRCTION BURFAII PTII ITIFS DIVISION 

acccptcti the- divisions rceomiiKinhition (.n tlu- u>m|i,iiiKs to incliidi- in tin- iiultx. wlmli will 
result in a smaller increase in the C.'oiiipain's tlisinhution rates, saving eusKuners approximately 
$2 million. The reconciliatic^n Hlinj; is still (^pen at the iiul of the fiscal year. 

• Western Ma.ssachusetts Electric CoiTipany, Oil' 06-SS ( )n May 16. 2006, W'Ml-.C X ) fikd 
a Notice oflntenr to file a $27 million/year rate increase, with lates effective on January 1 . 2007. 
The division continues to discuss the proposed filing with \VMF(X), inchnling: devt-lopmeni 
of transmission infrastructure inifirovciuent projects to address the sii;nific.int tr;uisnnssion 
reliability concerns in the western iMassachuseits area and to reduce h'ERC^ Reliability Must 
Run Contracts; a pension adjustment mechanism; the new company call-center; recover)' of 
Basic Service bad debt; creation of a storm event reserve; improved service quality (stray voltage. 
manhole inspections and tree trimming); and staggered Basic Service procuretnent. This matter 
remains open at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Cambridge Electric Eight Company, Commonwealth Electric Company, FERC Docket 
ER05-742-000 On March 29, 2003, the Cx>mpanies asked FERC to approve major changes 
to their formula rate transmission tariffs passed through to retail customers. The division 
protested the tariffs; FERCJ accepted the proposed tariffs for filing but suspended them to 
conduct hearings on their reasonableness and settlement judge piocedures. On Ma\' 3 1 , 2005. 
FERC assigned a settlement judge, and the parties remain engaged in settlement negotiatiotis 
at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, FERC Docket No. ER04-98 1-000 On July 
1, 2004, the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company asked FER(^ 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% of the plant). On July 30. 2004, 
the division filed a FERC protest and joined the Connecticut Department o{ 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 on 
November 22, 2005, FERC rejected the arguments of the Connecticut (Commission that the 
Company acted imprudently. The Connecticut parties filed a motion fi)r reconsideration in 
preparation of an appeal. The motion was pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

• ISO New England Inc., FERC Docket ER06-94 On October 3 1 , 2005. ISO-NE asked 
FERC to approve its 2006 revenue requirements filing. On November 21, 2005, the division 



215 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

intervened and asked FERC to hold hearings on operating contingency costs, CEO emerging 
work allowance, salary increases, salary levels, capitalization oi labor costs, pension and PBOP 
cost increases, and depreciation and amortization. On December 30, 2005, FERC approved 
ISO-NEs budget based only on ISO's answer to the protests. Ihe division filed a motion for 
rehearing on January 30, 2006; FF^RC denied the petition on March 28, 2006. On April 24, 
2006, the Municipal Light Departments filed a petition for review of FERC s orders at the 
DC Court of Appeals (Docket No. CA-1 144). On June 16, 2006, FERC issued an order sua 
sponte allowing a rehearing on the issues of lobbying expenses and external affairs expenses, and 
ordering ISO to file more information. This matter is still open at fiscal year end. 

• Yankee Atomic Electric Company, FERC Docket ER06-249-000 On November 23. 2005, 
Yankee filed revisions to its wholesale power contracts related to decommissiojiing of the Ymkee 
Rovv'e nuclear facility in Rowe, Miissachusetts. Yankee proposed to collect $240.8 million for 
decommissioning costs through 2022. The parties agreed on $2 12 million for decommissioning 
costs through 2022, saving customers $28.8 million. 

UTILITY MERGERS 

• NSTAR Electric, D.T.E. 06-40 On May 26, 2006, NSTAR asked the Department for 
approval to merge Boston Edison, Cambridge Electric Light, Conmionwealth Electric and Cand 
Electric to create a single electric company, NSTAR Electric. NSTAR proposes consolidating 
the three transmission tariffs, basic service mechanism and pension and PBOP mechanism and 
extinguishing Cambridge Fdectric and Commonwealth t^lectric's debt. This matter is pending 
at fiscal year end. 

• NSTAR Electric, FERC Docket EC06-1 26-000 NSTAR also asked FERC to approve, 
pursuant to Section 203 of- the Federal Power Act, the federal aspects of the proposed merger. 
The division intervened. This matter is pending at fiscal year end. 

• National Grid/KeySpan Merger, FERC Docket No. EC06- 125-000 On May 25, 2006, 
National Grid and KeySpan Corporation submitted a proposed merger application for approval 
pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power .Act. The division intervened and requested 
a hearing to evaluate the effects of the merger on competition in the combined gas-electric 
services and distribution market, and to determine whether National Grid has committed to 
pay an acquisition premium that it cannot fully recover in rates because of rate restrictions on 
the recovery of those costs. This matter is pending at fiscal year end. 



216 



PUBLIC PROTF.CTION BLIRFAL' i;-jll ijips DIVISION 

ELECTRIC MATTERS 

FERC WHOLESALE MARKEJ' ISSUES 

• Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, et al., UR()4- 1 57-000 In .1 loinp.mion case 10 the 
Regional Transmission Organization ("RLO") filing, the New Kngland rransnnssion ( )wncrs 
filed requests to increase their \-\.\U. anihori/ecl return on equit\' C'RO}-.") for building new 
transmission lines and fiir an incentive bonus to their RC)F. Ihe division joined briefs filed 
by the Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale F.lectric (lonipany, the Attorney (ieneral of Rhode 
Island and other municipal power comp.inies opposing the requests. On Mav 17. 2()0S, the 
Administrative Law Judge granted the transtiiission companies a ROK of on I \' 1 0.72% compared 
to the 12.8% rec}uested and rejected the 1% incentive bonus on new transmission, saving 
Massachusetts customers approximately $ 1 8-30 million/year. The Municipal Light LX-partments 
appealed the decision to the full Commission on the basis that the allowed return is excessive. 
The matter remains open at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Devon Power LLC, et al., FERC Docket No. ER03- 563-030 ( '>n November 4. 2004, the 
division, on behalf of a coalitioti consisting of the Rhode Island Attorney C ieneral, the New 
Hampshire Consumer Advocate, AIM, The F,nerg)'Consortiimi, NSTAR and Strategic Fnerg\', 
filed testimony at FERC opposing the ISO-New Englatid's proposal for Locational Installed 
Capacit)' ("LICAP," the amount of generation capacity required by ISO-NE, on a regional basis, 
to ensure there is enough generating capacit)-^ in the system to allow it to work if there is a loss 
of some generating capacity). 'Fhe ALJ issued an Initial Order accepting the ISOs proposal 
on June 15, 2005. FERC allowed oral argument on I K"AP alternatives on September 20, 
2005, after the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required FERC to "carefull)' consider" the objections 
of the New England states to the LICAP proposal. On October 21. 2005, FERC ordered a 
settlement proceeding to see if the parties could agree to a LICAP alternative, but did not adopt 
the proposed order of the ALJ. The division participated in the settlement discussions, but it 
became evident that the draft settlement agreement suflFeretl from various delects, including the 
justness and reasonableness of the transition payments to the proposed market design, FERCs 
jurisdiction to impose a resource adequacy regime, the continuation of Reliabilit)- Must Run 
("RMR") agreements during the transition period, and various technical aspects of the forward 
capacity market. The Attorney General opposed the settlement; FERC approved the propo.scd 
settlement agreement on June 1 5, 2006. 'Ihis matter is pending at fiscal year end. 

• ISO New England, Inc., FERC Docket ER05--1 5-000 On March 21. 200=^. ISO- 
New England asked FERC to approve monthly Installed C^apacit)' Requirements ('Objective 
Capability- V-ilues") for the 2005-2006 Power Year. The division, the Rhode Island Attorney 
General, the Maine Public Advocate and the New Flampshire Consumer Advocate protested 

217 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVLSION 

ISO-NE's assumf>tioris concerning rhe tie benefits from its interconnections with neighboring 
control areas. FERC accepted the protest, saving Massachusetts customers approximately S460 
million in lower LICAP payments over the next five years. The Connecticut Commission filed 
an appeal with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals challenging FERC s authority over this issue; 
the matter is pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

FERC RELIABILITY MUST RUN CONTR.\CTS 
ISO-New England has authority, under Market Rule 1, to negotiate agreements (Reliabilirv' Must 
Run Agreements or RMR Agreements) to purchase electric energy at cost-based rates from generation 
facilities ISO-NE identifies as necessary to ensure reliability^ but that are unable to recover their operating 
costs under current market conditions. 'Fhe division revievvs these FERC filings to insure that only 
reasonable and prudent costs are recovered by units that are actually needed for reliability. 

• Consolidated Edison Energy MA Inc., FERC Docket ER05-903-000 On April 29, 
2003, Con Ed submitted a Reliability Must Run Agreement for an electric generating unit in 
West Springfield, asking for ISO-NE"s reliabilit)' determination as Con Ed considered whether 
further capital improvements to the unit would be cost jiLstified. On September 9, 2005, 
FERC conditionally accepted and suspended the RMR agreement and established hearing and 
settlement judge procedures. The parties, including the division, have agreed in principle to 
allow the unit an annual fixed revenue requirement (AFRR) of $7.05 million (Con Ed had 
proposed $8.2 million). 

• Berkshire Generating Company, LLC, FERC Docket ER05-1 179-000 On June 30, 
2005, Berkshire Power Company, LLC submitted a proposed RMR Agreement for an electric 
generating unit in Agawam, asking for an AFRR of $30 million. Division stalf filed a motion 
to intervene out of time with FERC. On September 6, 2005, FERC conditionally accepted 
and suspended the RMR agreement and established hearing and settlement judge procedures. 
The parties, including the division, have agreed in principle to allow the unit an annual fixed 
revenue requirement of $26 million. 

• Mystic Generating Company, FERC Docket 06-427-000 On December 29, 2005, the 
Mystic geneiating units 8 and 9 filed an RMR agreement, asking for an armual fixed cost charge of 
$240 million for each of the units. On February 27, 2006, FERC accepted the RMR agreement 
subject to refund, setting many issues for hearing and establishing settlement proceedings. After 
the parties could not reach a settlement, the settlement judge referred the case to hearing. The 
hearings are scheduled for next fiscal year. 



218 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BURFAl.' irVH ITIF.S DIVISION 



• PittsHeld Generating Company. 1..I* I I RC Docket I RO^) 262 ()()() On NoviinUcr 
30, 2005, I'ittsHcId Hied a KMR A};rceniLnt, proposing an annual com of service revenue 
requirement oi' $M\S million. On April 17. 2006, M'.RC. conditionally actepteii the RMH, 
subject to rehind, ,\m\ set the issues of eligibility and cost-of-scrvice reijiiirement lor settlement 
and hearing procedures. The parties, including the division, NS lAR, the Mass.Kluisetts 
Municipal Wliolesalers, and Pittsfield, were engaged in settlement discussion at the end of the 
fiscal year. 

• Braintree Electric and Light, FERC Docket EL06-48-000 On January 1 9, 2006, Brainircc. a 

municipality, filed an unexecuted RMR Agreement proposing to collect an annual co.st of service 
requirement of S5.96 million for its Porter 2 generator. On August 4, 2006, FHRC; rejected 
Brainirees proposed RN4R Agreement, and granted Braintree 30 days to provide a supplemental 
filing to demonstrate that Braintree did not recover its variable costs for the three month period 
it operated under the RMR Agreement. The matter is pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Fore River Development, FERC Docket ER06-822-000 On March 3 1 , 2006. Fore River 
submitted a RMR Agreement for its electric generating unit located in Weymouth, proposing 
an annual fixed cost charge of nearly $130 million. On May 26, 2006, HFRC^ asked Fore River 
for additional information, and on May 30, 2006, ISO-iNew England issued a supplementary 
report notif}4ng FERC that Fore River was not needed to ensure electrical grid reliability. Fhe 
matter is pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Consolidated Edison Energy of Massachusetts, FERC Docket ER06-8 1 9-000 ( )n March 
30, 2006, Con Ed filed a RMR Agreement for its two generation facilities in West Springfield, 
proposing to collect an annual cost of service revenue requirement of S 1 1 .9 million. 1 he matter 
is pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

DTE ELECTRIC UTILIT\^TR.\NSlTION CHARGE RECONCILIATIONS 
The transition charge is a mechanism established by the Electric Restructuring .A.ct of 1997 
for an electric distribution company to recover its allowable stranded costs .ls 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. C.I.. c. 164, §§ lA(a), and 220 C.M.R. § 1 1.03{4)(e). Fhe 
division reviews the reconciliation filings to insure that companies only recover costs permitted by the 
Restructuring Act. 



• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, D.T.E. 03-1 15 Fitchbuig made its 2003 
reconciliation on October 3 1 , 2003. On March 7, 2006, the Department approved Fitchburg's 
treatment of costs. 

219 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

• Cambridge Electric Light Company and Commonwealth Electric Company, D.T.E. 03- 
1 18/04-1 14/05-89 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. On September 16, 2005, rhe companies and the division filed a 
sealement agreement; ihe D'lfc. approved the settlement on October 19, 2005, saving customers 
approximately $\ million. The DTE approved a second settlement agreement in which the 
Company agreed to repay ratepayers $8.6 million that it double collected through its tariffs. 
The division continues to conduct discover}' on the Company's 2005 annual reconciliation 
filing. The matter is pending at the close of the fiscal year. 

• Boston Edison Company, DTE 04-1 13/05-88 The (Company nicide its 2004 transition 
charge reconciliation adjustment filing on December 7, 2004; the Department consolidated 
the case with the Company's 2005 annua! reconciliation case. The matter is pending at the 
close of the fiscal year. 

• Massachusetts Electric Company and Nantucket Electric Company, DTE 05-2/06-5 The 

Company made its 2004 Annual Retail Rate Filing on January 18, 2005; it made 2005 annual 
reconciliiuion in January 2006. The division and the Compan\' have asked the Department to 
consolidate the cases. This matter is pending at the close of the fiscal year. 

• Western xMassachusetts Electric Company, DTE 05-10, 04-40, 04-109 WMECO 
submitted an amended reconciliation filing for calendar years 2003 and 2004 on March 31, 
2005, to reflect the Departments order in Western Massachusetts Electric Company, DTE 01- 
36/02-20 (2003), and the rate settlement in Western Massachusetts Electric Company, D.T.E. 
04-106 (2004). The matter is pending at the close of the fiscal year. 

DTEAFFJLIATEXMMACTIONS 

• Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company's dealings with Enermetrix, Inc., DTE 03- 

9 The Department commenced an investigation into whether Fitchburg was an affiliate of 
Enermetrix, and, if so, whether Fitchburg adhered to the affiliate transaction statutes and 
regulations in its business dealings with t^nermetrix. The division has argued that Fitchburg 
and Enermetrix were affiliates and that Fitchburg violated the affiliate transaction laws and 
regulations, and has urged the Department to assess an appropriate penalty and order a refund 
to customers of the $19,126 brokering fee that customers indirectly paid to Enermetrix. This 
matter remains open at the end of the fiscal year. 



!20 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BLIRFAl' l,T|| n IFS DIVISION 



D TE ELE C TRIC INDUST RY RESTRUCTURINC; REIj\TRn CA^FS 

• Default Service, D.r.Li. 04-115 After the I )<.p.irtiuciu .iskcil lor coitinuiits on the 
piocurcnicnr of dcr.nilt service power supply lor residential ;uul sm.ill ( .^rl ».iiMoiners. the 
division subniiired comineiits supporting longcr-ierni contracts and a statewide auction. ( )n 
February 7, 200S, the Departiueiu leuanied 'defauli service" to "basic service." The ihvision 
also Hied comments on Jul)' 22, 2005. This matter remains open. 

• Increasing The Penetration Rate For Discounted Flectric, (ias And lelephone Service. 
D.T.E. 01-106 On August 8, 2003, the DTE ordered utilities to electronically transter all 
residential accounts to the Fxecutive Office of Health and Human Services (KOHHS) for 
the sole purpose of identifying customers eligible for discountetl service, and indicated that it 
would consider proposals for rate recroverj' of increased expenses resulting from the computer- 
matching program in a second phase. On December .3, 2004, the D'FF allowed utilities to 
recover revenues lost as a result ot this low income program as part of the next reconciliation 
filing (electric companies) or as part of the I..DAF filing (gas companies). In August 2()0S. 
two electric companies filed tariffs to recover costs associated with the matching program. 
The division submitted c:omments; on October 14, 2005, the D'f F established an alternative 
mechanism as the model utilities should use when filing their tariffs. 

• NSTAR Electric, DTE 05-84 On November 2 1 , 2005, NSFAR filed a proposal to prohibit 
customers from switching from a competitive supplier to basic service and back to the same 
supplier within a six-month time period (according to NSTAR, this practice by large C&I 
customers and competitive suppliers creates a more volatile basic service load, higher bids tor 
that load, and increasing prices for b;isic service). 'Fhe division supported the proposal; the 
Departnient approved the proposal on January 1 2, 2006. Fhe Retail Energ}' Supply Associations 
motion for reconsideration and clarification of the F^epartments Order remains pending. 

• Distributed Generation Revised Model Interconnection Standard Fa rift, F)TE 02-38-C 
The F)istributed Generation (DG) Collaborative recommends unih)rm standards lor the DG 
interconnection process to the Department. The division participated in the C^)llaboraiive's 
April and May meetings; the Collaborative submitted its final report to the Departmeiu on 
June 30, 2006. 

NATURAL. GAS 

• Berkshire Gas Company's 2002 Ser^-ice Quality- Report, DTE 03- 11 The Department 

approved BerLshires 2002 Service Qualit)' Report on September 30. 2003, without holding 
hearings. On October 20, 2003, the division filed a Motion for Reconsideration, renewing 



221 



PUBLIC PROTFCTION BUREAU UTILITIES EJlVISiON 

its request tor an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute of material tact regarding Berkshire's 
compliance with the staffing level requirements of G.L. c. 164, § IE. The matter remains 
open. 

• Berltthire Gas Company's 2003 Service Quality Report, DTE 04-13 On March 1 , 2004, 
Berkshire hied its 2003 Service Qualic)' Report. On April 21, 2004, the division filed comments, 
raising concerns about Berkshire's staffing level and its impact on public safety and service equality. 
The division iilso renewed its request for an investigation that allows intervention, discovery and 
evidentiary hearings to address Berkshire's reductions in staffing level and possible violation of 
G.L. c. 164, §lE(b). The division awaits a final Department order. 

• New England Gas Company, DIE 06-3 On January 3, 2006, the New England Gas 
Company asked the Department to approve changes in the gas commodity purchasing practices 
it uses in its Fall River and North Attleboro operations. The division recommended that the 
Department approve the Company's proposal to use forward acquisition mechanisms and 
order the Company to track the proposals success in mitigating price volatilitv'. The matter is 
pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Biackstone Gas Company, DTE 06-49 On May 23, 2006, Blaclcstone submitted the 
second annual rate adjustment filing under its performance-based ratemaking plan, proposing 
an increase in normalized revenues of $25,280 (a base revenue increase of 3. 1 %). On June 29, 
2006 the division recommended that the Department conduct a full investigation. This matter 
is still open at fiscal year end. 

• Berkshire Gas Company, DTE 06-46 On May 15, 2006, Berlcshire submitted the third 
annual rate adjustment filing under its performance-based ratemaking plan, proposing an 
increase in revenues of $738,920 (a base revenue increase of 2.74%). On June 29, 2006 the 
division recommended that the Departtneiu conduct a full investigation. This matter is still 
open at fiscal year end. 

• NSTAR Gas Company, DTE 06-44 On May 5, 2006, NSTAR asked the Department to 
approve a long-term supply and transportation agreement with Northeast Energy Associates. 
Under the agreement, NS EAR would purchase a winter ser\4ce gas supply and would be assigned 
a transportation contract. This matter is still pending. 

• Bay State Gas Company, DTE 06-36 On March 3 1 , 2006, Bay State asked the Department 
to approve a propositi to implement an increment^ capacitv' planning standard for grandfathered 



222 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BURFAl.' 



imilTIFS DIVISION 



customers and rchucd modifKatioiis to H.iy States tariffs and Cost of ( ,as AdjiistMKiit ( laiisc. 
This matter is still open at fiseal war erKJ. 

• Bay State Gas Company, DTE 06-7 On January 27, 2006. May State askeil the I )epar(ment 
to approve a long-Term ( las Supply and ( Capacity Agreeuieui with Northeast Knetgy Associates. 
The division intervened, participated in hearings and submitted briefs. The m.uter re/iiains 

open. 

• KeySpan Energy Delivery New England, DTE 05-.3S On April 29. 2005, KeySpan asked 

the Department to approve a firm transportation agreement with Tennessee (las Pipeline 
Company. The Department approved the petition on February 28. 2006. 

• Berlcshire Gas Company, DTE 05-58 On August 26, 200S, Berkshire asked the 1 )e|iartment 
•to approve a gas transportation agreement with Fennessee Gas Pipeline C'ompan)'. The 
Department ap[Moved the petition on February 28, 2006. 

GAS SAFETY 

• NSTAR Gas Company, DTE 05-36 NSTAR asked the Department to hold an adjudicatoii' 

hearing related to a Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) (alleging failure to comply with 
federal pipeline safety regulations) froiTi the Departments i'ipeline Safety and Engineering 
Division. 'File NOPV followed a Jul)- 24, 2002, iticident involving the release of natural gas at 
65 Main Street, F^opkinton, and an explosion that killed two children. On July I, 2005, the 
division appealed the hearing officer's ruling denying the Attorney General's full intervention 
in the case. The matter remains open. 

LONG-R ANGE NATURAL GAS SUPPLY FORECAST APPROVALS 

• KeySpan Energy Delivery New England, DTE 05-68 On October 13, 200^, KeySpan 
asked the Department to approve its long-range resource and requirements plan for the five- 
year fKTiod November L 2005, through October 31, 2010. The division inter\-ened, attended 
hearings and submitted briefs. This matter remains pending. 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

• Comcast Assurance of Voluntary Compliance Fhe division worked with C^PAD to obtain an 
.^surance of Discontinuance resolving allegations that Comcast engaged in deceptive marketing 
and advertising practices and had a poor record of customer service. Fhe Assurance requires 
Comcast to make clear and conspicuous disclosiues in advertising of. among other things: 



223 



PUBLIC PROTECTION Bl.iREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

the price of services after a promotional period; make accurate disclosures about the number 
of channels a consumer will receive, the limitations of "free installation" offers, and whether 
a converter box is necessary; provide consumers with a choice of special offers available when 
consumers ask about them; and promptly respond to customer service complaints. Comcast also 
agreed to pay $500,000 to the Local Consumer Aid Fund, $250,000 to the Commoiiwealth, 
and $250,000 in in-kind donations to Boys and Gids Clubs and the Crittenton Women's 
Union in Boston. 

• Billing and Termination Practices for Telecommunications Carriers, DTE 06-8 On April 
7, 2006, the Department opened an investigation to update its current Billing and Termination 
Practices to reflect the "highly competitive marketplace" and to consider necessary consumer 
protections and the scope of services (wireless, cable, and Voice over Internet Protocol) to which 
the protections will apply. The division noted the lack of evidence tor competition in the 
marketplace and recommended the Department promulgate specific billing and termination 
rules, not "guiding principles." The matter remains pending. 

• Amendments to Rules Governing Cable Licensing Process, DTE 06- 1 On May 5, 2006, 
the Departments Cable lelevision Division granted Veri/.ons petition to open a rulemaking 
proceeding addressing the licensing process for competitive providers of cable television services. 
The proposed regulations would revise 207 C.M.R. § 3.00 by establishing a new cable licensing 
process in a city or town where the issuing authority has previously granted at least one cable 
license, and the applicant seeks to offer cable television service in competition with the incumbent 
provider, and 207 C.M.R. § 3.09, governing appeals of an issuing authority's licensing decision. 
I'he matter is pending at the end of the fiscal year. 

• Funding Plan for Enhanced 9-1-1 Service, DTE 06-33 On April 28, 2006, the Departnient 
opened an investigation to develop a long-term plan for funding wireline enhanced 911 
emergency communications. Because of customer migration from wireline telephony to wireless 
and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), a new funding mechanism must capture revenue from 
technologies the current statute does not cover in order to maintain adequate E-91 1 operations 
(currently, the surcharge is imposed only on wireline ($.85) and wireless ($.30) ser\aces). 'Fhe 
matter is pending at the end of fhe fiscal year. 

• Verizon Petition to Allow Late Payment Charges, DTE 06-26 Verizon asked the 
Department for approvctl to introduce a late payment charge for residential customers. The 
division opposed the proposal; Verizon submitted a revised filing exempting Lifeline customers 
from the charge. The Department stamp-approved the revised tariff without explanation or 

the opportunity for further comment. 

224 



PlIBIIC PROTFXTION BUF^EAi; 



imilTIFS DIVISION 



RETAIL RATES 

• Verizon Resale Tariff, DTIL 06-61 ( )n Juiil K). J()(K). Vcri/t.ii \\k\\ \n^)\Mys^:^\ t.irilf revisions 
reducing the discounts applicable to resold services when provided with and widioiit Veri/ons 
Operator Services and Directory Assistance. The proposeil anieiidnient would nioie dian ilouNc 
the discount rate retailers pa\' Veri/on lor wliolesale service. The division has iiuervi-ned in die 
proceeding. The matter is pending at the end ol the Hscal veai. 

WHOLESALE RAFES 

• NASIJCA 7'ruth In Billing Petition, FCC CG Docket No. 01-208, 98- 1 70; FCC Fruth 
in Billing Ruieinaking, FCC CC Docket 98-170, CG Docker 04-208 On March IH. 20()'>. 
the FCC denied NASLICA's petition asking the F(X^ to investigate phone carriers' practice of 
passing along ordinary operating costs as "regulator)' compliance" fees in monthly line item 
surcharges on customers' bills. The FCC also sought comment on preempting state wireless 
terms and conditions legislation and on extending the point-of-sale disclosure requirements 
of the 32-stare Attorney General Assurance of VoluiKar\- (j)mplijtKe to all wireless carriers. 
The division filed joint comments with the National .Association of Attorneys General, and 
continues to monitor the FCC docket. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Utilities Division saved customers approximately Si 02.6 million 
through its individual efforts and approximately S486.7 million working with other consumer advocates. 
investor owned utilities and custoiTier owned utilities for total savings of S589.3 million. 



D7'E DOCKET S SAVINGS 

Bay State Gas Company, DTE 05-27 $32,000,000 

NSTAR Electric, DTE 05-85 $59,000,000 

Cambridge/Commonwealth, D'FE 03- 1 1 8/04- 1 1 4 $9,600,000 

Massachusetts Electric Company, DIE 06-5 S2.()0(),()()' ' 



Total DTE Savings 

225 



$102,600,000 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU UTILITIES DIVISION 

FERC DOCKETS MASSACHUSETTS SHARE 

ISO New Englcind« Inc., ER05-71 5-000 $460,000,000 

Con Ed WS-3 RiMR, ER03-903 $6,300,000 $2,961,000 

Berkshire RMR,ER05- 11 79 $21,660,000 $10,180,200 

Yankee Atomic, ER06-249 $28,800,000 $13,536,000 

Toral FERC Savings $486,677,200 

TOTAE SAVINGS $589>277,200 

SIGNIFICANT INITIATIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 

Utility Serv^ice Quality The division continued to examine the issue of utilit}^ ser\"ice quality, 
working with consultants, unions, customer groups, and other interested parties to review the service 
c]uality perlorrnance oi K'lassachusetts-based companies. 

Service Quality Standards for Gas and Electric Companies, DTE 04-1 16 On December 13, 2004, 
the DTE opened a docket to reviev^' existing service quaJit)' regulations. The division filed comments 
based on its Energ)' Advisors, LLC, report that reviewed DTE regulations and suggested modifications, 
and asked the DTE to open an investigation into requiring utilities to perform comprehensive inspections 
for stray voltage. In recent settlements with Western Mass Electric Company and NSTAR Electric, 
both companies agreed to send a report card on performance to their customers. The division has also 
had discussions with the state's gas and electric companies about improvements. The matter remains 
pending. 

Investigation into Compliance with the Gate Box Maintenance and Improvement Requirements 
of G.L. c. 164, sec. 116B, DTE 06-48 On May 19, 2006, the Department opened an investigation 
into gas utilities' and municipal gas departments" compliance with the regulations requiring easy and 
inmiediate access to gate boxes located in the streets for emergency shut-offs. This matter is pending 
at the close of fisciil year. 

AH Electric and Gas Companies' Annual Service Quality Reports, DTE 05-12 through 05-25 On 

March 1, 2005, all Massachusetts electric and gas distribution companies filed their 2004 annual service 



226 



PUBLIC PROTECTION RURFAi; ^r,-,, ,j,p^ |-)|visiON 

qii;ilirv rt-poris lor 1 )ci),irmK'nl .ippi()v;il. Aliliotij^li ilu- Ji\isi()ii .iskc-d ilu- 1 )c|),irmictii in iiivrMi^.Ut- 
rhcdatain the coinp.uiics' aporl.s. the I )(.[nuinKiu ;i[ipr<)vtil iIr- strvici (]u.ility reports witlioiii liirtlicr 
iiivc,stigari(>ii on Dcccmlx'r M), 2005. 

All Electric and Gas Companies' Annual Service Quality K<.[)oris, DII-. 06 1 2 through 06 25 
On March I, 2006, all Massachuserts electric and gas distribution companies fikd their 2()0S annual 
service quality reports for Department approval. The division asked the I )epartmeni to investigate the 
data in the companies' reports. This matter is pending at the close ot tlu- listal year. 



227 



REGIONAL OFFICES 



Western Massachusetts 

Central Massachusetts 

Southeastern Massach usetts 



RF.GIONAl.OrnCF.S 



WLSTERN VIASSACIHSr-TTS DIVISION 



Rfcionai OrFirFs 

WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 



The Western Massachusetts (WMAS) Division ofihc ( )fTKe ot'thr Arroiru-v (Iciifial. lot.itci! at 
1350 Main Street, Springfield, and a part oftlie Regional Operations Division ofilie Kxc-ciitivc Bureau, 
is responsible For handling affirmative criniinal and civil investigations and litigation, as well as tivij 
defensive litigation and administrative law matters arising in the four Western Massachusetts counties: 
Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin and Berkshire. The Government Bureau's state wide Municipal Law 
Unit is also housed in the Western Massachusetts Division and provides by-law review and approvd, 
as well as training and advice to town and municipal officials throughout the state. The Business and 
Labor Protection Bureau (BI.PB) Fair labor Divisions Western Massachusetts office is responsible 
for enforcing the states wage and hour laws on behalf of the citizens of western Massachusetts. Ihc 
Division also responds to a large number of consumer complaints and provides educational outreach 
ro area residents. 

The division consists of 33 staff members: a division chief; depim' division chief; ten assistant 
attorneys general, including the Directors of the Municipal Law L'nir and the Attorney General's Institute: 
tAvo civilian investigators; a consumer liaison; two investigators assigned to the BLPB's Medicaid Fraud 
unit; five Massachusetts State Police Officers; five Fair Labor Division inspectors; one administrative 
assistant; one paralegal; and four support staff 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Western Massachusetts Division staff mcluded: janiLC F-lealy, Division 
Chief; Michelle Aube; Joseph Ballon; Bruce Bussiere; James Clark; Brian Davics; Susan Decker; Jonathan 
Driskell; Joseph Dr7.)'7ga; Robyn Ciay; Kelli Cunagan; Bart Hollander; Sandra Haskins; Kevin Hope; 
Timothy Jones; Karen Kapusta; Dana Lapointe; Susan DeVine; Ibm Nartowic/; William O'Neill; Robert 
Ritchie; Harold Rogers; Michael Russo; Matthew Shea; C\'nthia Sherman-Black; Maria Smith; Richard 
Steward; Eva Szczech; Rosemary Tarantino; Marc Tonaszuck; Theresa Ukleja; Janus 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 2006: 



231 



REGIONAL OFFICES WESTERN N4ASSACHLJSETTS DIVISION 

GOVERNMENT BUREAU 

• Eduardo Velazquez v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts This was the first case filed in 
Massachuserrs under rhe new Compensarion for Erroneous Conviction stature, CI... c. 258IJ. 
The plaintiff was convicted of rape and odier offenses in Hampden County in 1 988. He was 
exonerated by DNA tesung and a nolle prosec}ui was filed by Hampden County District Attorney 
William Bennett in 2001. He was thereafier released from custody, after having served 13+ 
years in state prison. Alter internal review and consultation with the Hampden DA's Office, 
the case was settled for the statutory cap of $500,000. 

• Gingerich, et al. v. Shumate, et al. Domestic partners from New jersey obtained an order 
from the Hampden County Probate Court which required that they be identified on birth 
certificates as the parems of twin boys born in Springfield to a surrogate mother. Plaintiff 
Gingerich is the children's biological father. Alter the Registry of Vitiil Records objected to 
the Probate Court s order and after further court proceedings, it was agreed that the biological 
father and surrogate mother would be identified as parents on the original birth certificates and 
that amended birth certificates will name only the biological father. His domestic partners 
name will be added to the birth certificates following the completion of an expedited adoption 
proceeding. 

• Ronald Bercume v. Department of En\ironmental Management This eininent domain 
action arose out of the acquisition of 100 acres in the Mount Holyoke Range. The owner had 
entered into a purchase and sale agreement with a developer and was seeking several million 
dollars in damages. The Superior Court allowed the defendants motion for judgment on the 
pleadings and held that the plaintiff-developer did not have standing to sue for damages under 
executory contract to purchase and that the taking was made for a public purpose. 

• Jennette Mendez, on behalf of herself and others v. Douglas S. Brown, Acting 
Commissioner, Division of Medical Assistance Class action filed in Federal Court in which 
the plaintiffs alleged that DIvL\ discriminates against obese women by denying them breast 
reduction surgery. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Medicaid Act, the Rehabilitation Act and 
the Americans with Disabilities Act. hollowing extensis^e negotiations, the CASt was settled for 
$60,000 in attorney's fees after DMA voluntarily revised its guidelines for review and approviil 
of diis type of surger)'. 

PUBLIC IVROTIrXTnON RURFAU 

• Common wealth v. Jeffrey and Dawn Scott This was an enforcement action alleging that 
the delendatus engaged in unauthori/ed, uiuegistered and deceptive charitable solicitations in the 



232 



R[X;iONA[ oil ICHS \Xi.;s I TRN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

afrcrinath ot'thc')/! 1 tragedy. In March. 2004. jiulgnifiu wascntcrrd for thf{ 'ornnumwcaltli 

and thf dckMidants were -Milered to [\iy S^.'^OO in a c ivil penalty. 'I"he defeml.iiits tlid not comply 
vvirh the Court Order and hiiled to pa^■ the civil penalty. A.s a result, a ccmtempt tompLiinr was 
hied in Superior C^ourt which resulted ni the pa\'ineiu of" the oiiist.mdin^: penalts' hi hill prior 
to the heating date. 

• Commonweaiih v. Wheel Estates and Morgan Management This housingdistrimination 
case arises our of allegations that the operator of Wheel Kstates. a inohile home park in North 
Adams, Massachusetts, discriminated against residents of the park on the basis ottheir disahilitv 
by Failing to make rca.sonable modifications to the common areas of the park in order to 
provide them with access to these areas. Following mediation and extensive negotiations, the 
defendants entered into a settlement agieemetu which required them to make all of the requested 
modifications to the common areas of the park and also required thetii to pay monetar\- damages 
to the intervening plaintiffs. 

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 

• Laidlaw Transportation This case arose out of a complaint filed by Shrewsbury bus drivers 
that led to a state-wide review of the prevailing wage contracts of this employer. C^ivil penalties 
and lestiiutioti in the ainouiu of $1,125,937 was paid to 322 emplo\'ees for failure to pay the 
prevailing wage rate in five communities. 

• James A. Curran Construction This case involved allegations of longstanding failure to 
pay prevailing wages and file certified payroll records against a Holyoke General Contractor 
who has worked almost exclusively with the City of Holyoke. Criminal charges were filed in 
Holyoke District Court. The defendanr/etnployer agreed to pa\' restitution to fifteen employees 
in the amount $379,000. The employer also received six tnotirhs piobation. 

• Best Western Sovereign Hotel -West Springfield In this case, the emphner distributed tips 
to supervisory and managerial staff in violation of the state's tip pooling statute. Restitution in 
the amount of $26,421 .76 was paid to 30 employees for violation of the tip pooling law and a 
civil penalty in the amount of $1,100 was also paid. 

CRIMINAL BUREAU 

• Commonwealth v. Boddiford, -Searles and Ca>'nor litis armed robbery case developed 
afi:er two men armed with loaded guns, and another armed with a bottle, robbed an imdercover 
State Trooper who was posing as a drug dealer looking to purchase oxycontin. Immediately 
afi:er the robbery, other officers who were assisting the undercover officer in the investigation. 



233 



REGIONAL OFFICES 



WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 



stopped the getaway car with the robbers in it and arrested them. 1 he pohce recovered the 
$3,500 tiiken from the officer as well as the two loaded firearms. The defendants pled guilt}' 
and were sentenced to state prison for various terms. The getaway driver received a two and 
one-haif year House of Correction sentence with three years of probation. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARIES 



BUSINESS & LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 



Fair Labor and Business Practices Division 

Non-Payment of Wages and Prevailing Wage Monies 



COMBINED CASES CASES 

QTR. RESTITUTION* OPENED CLOSED CALLS WALIGNS 



1st 


$120,277 


141 


144 


2,264 


75 


2nd 


$117,426 


146 


157 


1,939 


54 


3rd 


$64,036 


164 


169 


1,980 


39 


4th 


$1,732,575 


164 


159 


2,116 


47 


Total 


$2,034,314 


615 


629 


8,299 


215 



*Cotnbined restitution includes penalties and fines 



PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 

Unit Statistics 

Outreach Events 

Civil Rights Complaints Received 

Civil Rights Inquiries 

Consumer Calls Received 

Written Consumer C>)mplaints 

Money Saved Consumers / Restitution 



per 



35 
7 
33 

3,789 
223 
$ 68,265.48 



234 



REGIONAL or r ICES 



NXTSILRN VtA-SSACHL'SriTS DIVISION 



( ase Statistics 

Civil Righi.i l.)iviMuii; 

Pending Housing Discrimination cases 9 

Settlements and (Consent Judgment achieved in } lousing 

Discrimination cases , t.ists st-idcd 

Pending Massachusetts Civil Rights Actions (MCRA) 

Pending MC^RA Investigations 4 

Public Cihatiiie.') DiviMoii: 

Pending Public Charities Cases 

Petiding Public Charities Investigations 2 

Coti^umci: rtorarioa Aniitni.'ir Diyj.sioii: 

Pending Consuriier Cases 5 

Pending C>)nsiU7ier Investigations 7 

GOVERNMENT BUREAU 

As of June 30. 2006, there were a total of 16S Covernment Bureau cases consisting of 109 Trial 
Division cases and 56 Administrative Law Division cases pending in the WMAS Division. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, 67 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, 
two 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 2006. 79 cases were closed by division staff 

MUNICIPAL LAW UNIT 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Municipal law L'nit reviewed 712 getieral by-laws, of which 627 
(8.0%) 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, 14 

235 



REGIONAL OFFICES WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

(1.3%) were approved with partial deletion, two (0.2%) were disapproved, two (0.2%) were returned 
with a findint^ that no action by the Attorney General was required by state law, and 30 (2.8%) received 
cautions; six historic district by-laws, all were approved; 13 charter amendments, all of which were 
found to be consistent with state law. 

CRIMINAL BUREAU 

During Fiscal Year 2006, there were 1 1 Criminal Cases and eight Criminal Investigations pending 
in the Criminal Bureau. 

SIGNIFICANT INITL4TIVES, EFFORTS, AND ACTIVITIES 



Government Bureau-Civil Defensive Litigation The WM,\S Division continued to provide the 
highest quality of legal representation to agencies and individual state employees named as defendants 
in civil lawsuits. During Fiscal Year 2006 there were 165 civil defensive litigation matters pending in 
the division. 

Public Protection Bureau The Attorney GeneraFs WMAS Division continued to meet its 
statutory responsibilities to affirmatively prosecute housing discrimination actions throughout Western 
Massachusetts and obtained settlement agreements in three housing discrimination cases. The division, 
additionally, fielded numerous civil rights complaints fi-om the public. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the Western Mass. Division 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, hariissment, hate crim,e and civil rights violations. 

Through the elforts of the Divisions Consumer Liaison, as well as the efforts of the civil investigative 
stall, and the local consumer protection programs which are fimded through the office, the needs of 
consumers throughout the region were effectively met. Additionally, the Division continued to advance 
the Attorney GeneraFs 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. 



236 



REGIONAL OFFICES 



C;i-NTRAl MASSAC HI suns DIVISION 



OUTRHACH, LDUCAl ION, AND I RAINING 

During Fiscal Year 2006, .stalTin the WMAS agion.il offin- wen- actively engaged in .ulvancinp 
luiiiieious AGO cioss-hureau initiatives aiul trainings. Division stafTailvatieed the Attorncv Cicncral's 
child protection and school safety priorities by providing the Springfield Piihlic School System with 
civil rights training programs lor school personnel. Se\eral memhers of the staff [)articipated in .1 variety 
of community programs, including the 37th anniversary year of the Springfield School Volunteers 
i'rogram. The Division Chief actively participated in the development of a community-bised Weed 
& Seed Initiative which is targeting the K'lason Square section of Springfield for crime reduction aiu\ 
neighborhood revitalization. 1 he Attorney Cienerals Abandoned Housing Project is also contributing 
to this initiative, as well as a housing initiative in Holyoke that is conneeted with the Holvoke Weed & 
Seed Project. WMAS staff also participated at the local level in the Attorney Gcnerais Office Holiday 
Toy and Food Drive by coordinating a clothing and food drive, as well as a holida\' tov drive to Ixnefit 
ARCH, the YWCAs domestic violence shelter program. Additionally, addressing the needs of elder 
consumers was designated as a priority of the Public Protection Bureau, Regional staff advanced this 
priority by conducting numerous training and preveiuion programs for area seniors and elder service 
providers. 

In order to foster communication and cooperation among local law enforcement and social service 
agencies, staff actively participate in Springfield's Cit}'-Wide Violence Prevention Task Force. Staff also 
actively fostered our offices relationship with the local legal community through participation in the 
Women's Bar Association and the Hampden County Bar Association. I'he division also coordinates 3 
legal internship program with area law schools. Additionally, staffin the Municipal 1 aw Unit continued 
to provide numerous training and educational programs for towns and municipalities throughout 
western Massachusetts. 

Division staff also actively participated in numerous professional development training programs 
presented by the Attorney Generals Institute as both faculty and attendees. 

CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 



The Centtiil Massachusetts (CMAS) Divisioti is a regional office located at One F.xchatige Place in 
Worcester. The CMAS Division is comprised of lawyers, inspectors, and admini.strative staff committed 
to promoting Attorney General Ibm Reillys initiatives in the central Massachusetts region and responding 
to the specific needs of Worcester County residents. During Fiscal Year 2006. the C:MAS Division was 
composed of members of several of the Attorney General's bureaus and divisions, inchidmg the Business 

237 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

& Labor Protection Bureau's Fair Labor and Business Practices Division; the Public Protection Bureau's 
Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division and Civil Rights Division; and the Covernment Bureau's 
Trial Division. In addition to handling cases, the division responds to numerous calls and in-person 
visits from Worcester County residents seeking information about consumer rights, mediation services, 
and assistance with wage and hour coniplaints. Lhe division also conducts educational outreach and 
training on consumer, civil rights, and labor issues. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the following staff members worked in the CIV'L\S Division: Rosidyn 
Garbose, Chief; Saivatore Giorlandino, Assistant Attorney General, Trial Division; Charisma Lam, 
Assistant Attorney General, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division; Jennifer Laverty, Assistant 
Attorney General, Trial and Civil Rights Divisions; James Gentile, Investigator, Public Protection Bureau; 
Ayham Bahnassi, Consumer Mediator; Public Protection Bureau; Edward Horniak, Alex Guardiola, 
Michael Cantwell, and Ron Cabezas, Inspectors, Fair Labor and Business Practices Division; Lillian 
Cox, Administrative Assistant; and Eileen Hernandez Cole, Legal Secretaiy. 

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 



The Attorney General's CMAS Division continued to provide the highest quality of legal 
representation to state agencies and individuiil state employees required to respond to litigation filed 
by members of the public. Idighlights of the Government Bureau cases handled by CKiAS staff in the 
Fiscal Year 2006 include: 

GOVERN \4ENT BUREAU 

• Smith V. Massachusetts Highway Department (Worcester Superior Court) A ptoperty 
owner claimed that the salt from Massachusetts Highway Department CMHD") snow removal 
trucks polluted her water well and sought damages under nuisance and trespass theories. The 
case was favorably settled by MliD agreeing to construct a new water well for the plaintiff and 
paying her $20,000. 

• Jouvelakas v. Minnehan, et al . {U.S. District Court) Settlement of federal civil rights suit 
against various State Troopers and State Police management personnel. The plaintiff was the 
mother of a boy who, at age 14, stole his parents car and took it for a 60+ mile joy ride on 1-93 
from New Hampshire to Massachusetts at speeds of 100 to 125 miles per hour. State Troopers 
Minnehan and Sullivan apprehended him. The boy contended that the Iroopers beat him 
severely and brought a civil rights action against several State Police Officers and'Fhomas Foley, 



238 



REGIONAL OFFICES ( i \TRAL MASSACHLSETl S DIVISION 



the rctiixd ( "oloncl of the State Police. The boy pled giiihy in Juvenile (loiirt on various 1 1 imin.il 
charges regaaiiiii; the itKicleiu. 1 lie case was lavorahlv settled after mediation. 

• Recycle Technology v. lenscent. LLC and Department o( IinironnKtiial i'rotection 
("PEP") (Worcester Superior C\)urr) This ca.sc was a business dispute between two rivals in 
the hazardous WiLste recycling business. In April 2005, the Worcester office ofl )l- 1' granted the 
plaintiffa permit to recycle asphalt and the defendaiu-iiuervener Jensceni. I l.C, ("Jenscent") 
blocked the permit by filing a frivcilous administrative a[)[val with DKP. The Superior (,"ourt 
granted DEP's request that the plaintiff be conditional!)- (xrmitted to tondutt its operations ( 1 ) 
pending final resolution of the administrative appellate process, and (2) subiect to continued 
regulation by DEP. The Superior Court strongly agreed with DEP's position, and ruled that 
Jenscetu had made intentional material misrepresentations H) ilie C'ourt. Jenscent s motion for 
reconsideration of the Courts decision was denied. 

• Butler V. State Police (Worcester Superior Court) This case was a personal injur\- suit arising 
from an April 1997 collision between a State Police cruiser and the plaintiff's vehicle. Case 
settled favorably for $12,500 where initial demand had been for $100,000. 

• Brownson v. Department of Social Services (Worcester Superior Court) Plaintiff brought 
suit seeking unpaid wages and personal time from DSS after leaving the agency's employment. 
The matter was favorably settled for $742.91, where plaintiff's initial demand iiichnled treble 
damages pursuant to the statute. 

• Fennick V. Staco, et al . (Suffolk Superior Court) Plaintiff brought suit against Massachusetts 
State Police ("MSP") and others for illegally accessing plaintiffs CORI information. The Court 
granted MSP s motion to dismiss complaint because the state trooper, who was court marshaled 
for accessing the CORI records in question, was acting outside the scope of his employment, 
and additionally, MSP had immunity for the iiueniional tort claim. 

• Worldwide v. Massachusetts State Police (Middlesex Superior Court) Plaintiff alleged 
battery by a state trooper and an illegal traffic stop. The Court granted MSP's mcnion to dismiss 
the complaint because the state has immunit}- from intentional torts and entered judgment for 
the Commonwealth. 

• Worldwide V. Commonwealth (Middlesex Superior Court) Plaintiff alleged he was illegally 
denied a limousine permit. The Court granted the Commonwealths motion to dismiss the 
complaint because the Commonwealth is only liable for wrongful acts ot its empUn-ecs and 



239 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

the permit decision was made by the Cit)' of Cambridge. Court entered judgment for the 
Commonwealth. 

• Cruz V. Spencer (Worcester Superior Court) Plaintiffs (six pro se prisoners) claimed UMass 
Medical School ("UiVlass") negligently provided medical care. After the claim was dismissed on a 
morion to dismiss. Plaintiff Cruz attempted to file a second amended complaint to assert contract 
and tort claims against UMass. Court denied the motion based upon UMass' opposition. 

• Sa\\yer v. Fiichburg State College ("FSC") (Worcester Superior Court) Plaintiff Wiis raped 
on a public roadway adjacent to the college and brought suit against FSC alleging negligence 
and breach of contract for the colleges failure to provide her an escort to her vehicle. Matter 
was favorably settled for S 18,000 where initial demand had been $100,000. 

• Harris v. Dr. Soionion Carter Mental Health Center, et al . (Suffolk Superior C'ourt) Plaintiff 
alleged negligence on the part of Department of Mental Health in connection with injuries he 
suffered when he was at the Center and fell in the locker room, re-injuring the leg which had 
brought him to the facility for physical therapy. Matter favorably settled for $20,000. 

PUBLIC PROIECnON BUREAU 

In Fiscal Year 2006, the CMAS Division added to the staff a full-time consumer mediator. This 
provided consumers vs'ho contacted the Worcester Office with timely and reliable information about 
their consumer rights, as well as prompt complaint resolution. In this first year this service was offered, 
the Office recovered over $71,000 in restitution for consumers. Additionally, the AAG and Public 
Protection Bureau Civil Investigator handled numerous ongoing investigations into companies and 
industries against which we received consumer complaints. Staff also handled the following consumer 
cases: 

• Commonwealth v. Riverside Leasing &: Auto Sales, Inc., et al. (Worcester Superior 
Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Court) CMAS staff contirmed to vigorously litigate this consumer 
protection case against Riverside Mitsubishi and its owners and managers, Daryl, Todd, and 
Brcnda Rivernidcr ("the Riverniders"), 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: failing to pay off loans on traded in vehicles; 
failing to provide consiuners with titles to purchased vehicles; failing to pay off original car 
loans after refinancing; and failing to purchase extended warranties paid for by consumers. 
During Fiscal Year 2006, the case was settled pursuant to a consent judgment approved by the 
Superior Court on September 14, 2005. The Consent Judgment requires the Riverniders to 



240 



Rl GlONAl OfUCl S ( I \ FRAI MASSACIUISHTTS DIVISION 



pay the Commonwealth a total of ."fJSSO.OOO in consumer restitiiii(.n. $iS().0()0 oC which was 
paid up front. The Riverniders are ohh^ateil to pa\- an adihtional SIOO.OOO ni restiturion in 
September 2006, and another $100,000 a year huer. with h«)th payments secured by mortgages 
on Darryl and Brcnda Rivcrniders' home in Ht. Lauderdale, hlorida. In adilition, the Oinsent 
judgment prohibits Darryl Ami Hrenda Rivernider from owning, managing, oi working for 
any car dealership in the ( "ommonwcalrh. Todd Rivernider is prohibited from owning a tar 
dealership in Massachusetts. If the Riverniders fail t(» comply with the terms of the (lonscnt 
Judgment, Darrv'l and Brenda Rivernider will face $200,000 in penalties, and Todd Rivernider 
will face $100,000. 

• Commonwealth v. Adventure World, Inc., et ai. (Middlesex Superior ( ^ourt. U.S. 
Bankruptcy Court) The CM.AS Division continued litigating lase filed in May 2004, agamsi 
related corporate entities and owners and managers of Adventure World for unfair and tieceptive 
practices in connection with their sale of recreational vehicles. The defendants' .illegcd unlawful 
acts and practices included: failing to pay off loans on traded in recreational vehicles; failing to 
provide consumers with titles to purchased recreational vehicles; failing to pavofForiginal loans 
after refinancing; and failing to purchase extended warranties paid for by consumers. After the 
three corporate defendants and David Hirsch filed for bankruptcy, the ComnKMiwcalth filed 
proofs of claim in U.S. Bankruptcy Court seeking restitution on behalf of injured consumers. 
The Commonwealth also filed a complaint in U.S. Bankruptcy Court to determine the 
dischargeability of the anticipated judgment against l^fendants" in the Middlesex Superior 
Court. It is anticipated that consumers will receive a substantial portion of restitution owed 
them, including a group of consimiers whose claims, or portions thereof will be considered 
priority . These consumers will be etuiiled to an interim distribution. 

• Commonwealth v. Blackstone Valley Investment. LLC, et al. (Worcester Superior Court) 
After several months of investigation into allegations that Blackstone swindled a mentally 
impaired woman out of her home and an elderly woman out of some property, the CM/\S 
Division filed a complaint against this business and its principals on May S, 200S. ( >n Jime 2. 
2005, the Court allowed in part and denied in part the C^ommonwcalths motion for preliminar\- 
injunction, preventing defendants from transf~erring the mentally impaired woman's house until 
this matter was resolved. Agreement in principal has been reached where defendants svill pay 
restitution of $40,000. 

• Work Out World Work Our World in Worcester, which was owned by SIX Fitness. 1 I.C. 
closed on Monday, August 8, 2005. Ihe CMAS Division received mmierous complaints from 



241 



REGIONAL OFFICES CENTR.AL MASSAC Ft USETTS DIVISION 

consumers regarding the company's Failure to refund prepaid membership fees and enrollment 
fees. Cfy'LA-S negotiated with STX Fitness, LLC to ensure that consumers received refunds of 
prepaid membership fees and prorated refunds of enrollment fees paid within six months of 
the facility closing. 

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 

For Fiscal Year 2006 Fair Labor and Business Protection cases and statistics, please refer to the Fiscal 
Year 2006 Report of the Business and Labor Protection Bureau. It is estimated that employees assigned 
to the CM'\S Division recovered $209,263 in unpaid wages for Central Massachusetts employees (either 
paid directly or through the Office) in Fiscal Year 2006. 

IELEPHX}..NE.CALLSANDWALKTNS.VIiITS 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the CMAS Division received an estimated 6,469 telephone inquiries and 
302 walk-in visitors seeking assistance. Approximately 2,898 of the telephone calls and 148 walk-ins 
inquired about labor-related issues. Approximately 2,532 ol: the telephone calls and 127 walk-in visitors 
inquired about consumer issues. Approximately 1,039 of the telephone calls and 27 walk-in visitors 
incjuiied about miscellaneous issues and were directed to other agencies. 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 



In Fiscal Year 2006, CMAS staff continued to participate in numerous outreach, education, and 
training oppoi tunities to benefit Worcester County residents and businesses. 

SIGNIFICANT ONGOING INITIATIVES 

• Committees The Division Chief continued contributing as a member of the City Managers 
Task Force on Hate Crime and Bias (including working to get Worcester certified as a No 
Place for Hare community); the Mayor's At-Risk Youth Task Force; the Mayor's Brownfields 
Project; the State's Occupational Health Surveillance Project Advisory Board; and the ACO's 
Elder Issues Committee. 

• Worcester County Elder Abuse Roundtable Staff worked in coordination with District 
Attorney John Conte's Office to continue convening a roundtable which includes a range of 
professionals who deal with elder abuse from differing perspectives, including law enforcement, 
elder protective services, legal services, domestic abuse and sexual assault specialists, and the 



242 



Rl GIONAL OrnCB ( :i.:\ IR^M MASSACI II SETTS t)IVISION 



courts. I he j^roup has siKevssfull\' put i()i;ithci written rn.ucrials and a network ofs[H.-akcrs on 
elder abuse issues to provide the eoinnuuui) with the necessary fools to efteciivelv recognize. 
investigate, and prosecute crimes against the elderly and to an! the various tlistiplitus to better 
luiderstand the critical role each plays in the process. 

IMmiNG 

Civil Rights trainings on Bullying, Hara.ssnient and Hate Oiines were conducted for staff and 
administrators at the following Worcester (bounty schools: Narragan.sett. West Boylston. Tant.iM^ua. 
Fitchburg/I.eominsrer, and Blackstone Valley. 

Elder Fraud trainings and conferences were conducted at the Worcester Senior (.enter, .Auburn 
Senior Center, Milford Senior Center, Centio Las Americas, Worcester (in Spanish), doklen Agers 
Club, and American .^association of Retired Professionals in Framingham. 

Identity Theft programs were presented at the Retired Educators Association in Auburn, UMass 
Medical by Board of Registration in Medicine, Beth Israel Synagogue, Worcester Public Librar}', Women 
Educators Association, Age Center of Worcester, and Webster Five Cents Bank. 

Home Improvement piesentations were made at the Digital Oedit L'nion ("DCU") C-enter Spring 
Home Show in Worcester. 

Children Youth and Conimunities Division .staff presented a diversity traimng at Burncoai High 
School's Unity Day. 

A presentation was made on the ACOs Brow^nsfield Project to the Worcester xVlayors BrownsHeld 
Task Force. 

A labor presentation was made to retired CT.Os at a Worcester Chamber of C^ommcrce program 
offering free counseling to small businesses. 

A presentation on Child Labor laws wa.s made to a Millbury High School class. 

OUTREACH 

• SCORE (Student ConHict Resolution Experts) Program at BuriKoat High School - Division 
Chief conducted swearing in ceremony for new peer mediators 



Americas National Night Out in Crafton 



243 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTH EASTERN MASSACH lJSET'i\S DIVISION 

SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

The Southeastern Massachusetts (SEMA) Division located at 105 WiUiam Street, New Bedford, 
one of Attorney General Tom Reillys three regional offices, is committed to promoting the Office's 
initiatives in the southeastern Miissachusetts region. The SEMA Division consists of attorneys, inspectors, 
mediators, and administrative staff that vv'ork through the Business and Labor Protection Bureaus 
Fair Labor and Business Practices L')ivision; the Public Protection Bureau's Civil Rights Division and 
Consumer Protection Division; the Government Bureaus Administrative Lavs^ Division and Trial Division 
and whom handle a wide range of matters from various areas ot the Attorney General's Office. 

During Fiscal Year 2006, SF MA staff included: Jim Sweeney, Chief; Ceci!e Byrne; Dora Camara; 
Paul Gordon, Jonathan Groux; Diane Lopes Flaherty; Anita Maietta; Timothy McGuire; Patricia 
Medeiros; Stephen Marshalek; Mario Paiva: and Patricia Tapper. 



SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES 



The foHowing provides an overview of cases imdertaken by SEMA staff during Fiscal Year 2006. 

GOVERNMENT BUREALJ 

AFFIQRDABLE HOUSING 

• 9 North Walker Street Development, Inc./Kelly Deveiopmeni Company, LLC v. fiousing 
Appeals Corrmiittee, et al. (Bristol Superior Court) The Court upheld the Housing Appeals 
Committees standard for determining when a local zoning appeals board's decision to reduce 
the number of affordable housing units that a developer seeks to build becomes a "denial " of the 
developer's request. The "denial" of a developer's request triggers a much more difficult burden 
of proof for a zoning board of appeals when a boards decision is appealed. 

A BANDONED l-IOUSINC; 

• Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Jeanine Flaherty , in her 
official capacity as the Executive Director of the Board of Health for the City of Taunton 
v. Carol Rebello (Plousing Court/Southeast Division) The Office, in conjunction with the 
Git)' of Taunton, brought a receivership petition to force the owner of a home in a residential 
neighborhood in Taunton to clean up the properr)'. The home had a ninnber of significant 
health and safety violations that were a hazard to the neighborhood and to children in the area. 
After the petition was brought, the owner fixed and cleaned up the propert)', eliminating the 
health and safety violations and improving the neighborhood. 

244 



REGIONAL Ol I ICIS MXri HFASTF.RN MASSACHUSRTTS DIVISION 

HOUSING 

• Thomas D. Rogers, Ir. v. New Bedford I lousing Authority, et al. (I^msk.I Supt ik.i i Iii..n 
appeal under \4.(i.l.. c. 3()A, the C;ourt upheld .1 ilccision ofrhc- Department of Housuig and 
C'omniuniry Development that the plaituilVwas not (jualihed for state housing assistaiKt-. 

CHllDRFN ANDFAMll.lF.S 

• Ralph Wilson v. Depart ment oF Social Services ( Bristol Supcrior/MA Appeals) I he ( .ourt 
upheld rhc finding; of the 1 )epartment of Social Services that there was lexsonahle cause to believe 
diar the plaintiff, a public school teacher, physically abused one of his students. 

• G ale White v. Department of Social Services (Barnstable Superior) The ( ^ouri ufihelil the 
finding b\' the Departnient of Social Services of abuse bv plaintiff against her daughter. 

EMPLOYMENT 

• Fall River Firefighters Local 1314, I.A.F.F., et al. v. City of Fall River, et al. (Sufifolk 

Superior/ .\4A Appeals) The Appeals C>ourt affirmed the Cit)' of F.1II River's dismissal of a Hall 
River firefighter for his unauthorized absence from his job. 

PRO FESSI ONAL LICENSURE 

• Antonio Sarantos d/b/a TJ Gupez v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC) 

(Bristol Superior) The Court upheld the suspension of the plaintiff's liquor license h)r serving 
alcohol in an unlicensed area and serving alcohol to someone under the age of 21 . 

• Moonshine Pub, Inc. d/b/a Fogland Bar &: Grill v. Alcoholic Beverages Control 
Commission, et al. (Bristol Superior) The CJourt upheld a 90-da)'suspcnsioti of the plaiiniff s 
liquor license for after drugs were found in the bar. 

REGISTRY/PUBLIC SAFETY 

• Ronald Ormsby v. Registry of Motor Vehicles (Barnstable Superior C^ourti I he Ourt 
upheld the lifetime suspension of the plaintiff's driver license afier he was convicted for o|H.-raf ing 
under the infiuence in an accident that resulted in a death. 

• Richard Moore v. Registry of Motor Vehicles (Nantucket Superior Court) The Court 
upheld the suspension of the plaintiffs driver's license upon his second conviction for operating 
under the influence. 



245 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

TORTS 

• David P. and Denise Hartnett, as co-administrators of the estate of Melissa Hartnett v. 
Commonvvealih of Massachusetts, and City of New Bedford (Briscol Superior CJ!ourt) In a 
case involving an accident in which a car plunged through a raihng and over the side of the 
Acushner River Bridge in New Bedford and a passenger died, the Appeals Court upheld sumniary 
judgment for the Commonwealth. The Appeals Court found that the Commonwealth could 
not be held liable for failing to install a railing sufficient to prevent the car from crashing through 
and over the side of the bridge. 

• Viola Norkus v. Department of vState Police (Suffolk Superior Comr) The jury returned 
a defense verdict in a case brought by a pedestrian who was struck by a State Police cruiser. 

CONTR.-\CTS 

• LeVangie Electric Co., Inc. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Norfolk Superior Court) 
The general contractor on a public construction project sought over $400,000 in claims. After 
mediation, the case settled for $250,000, resulting in a savings to the Commonwealth of over 
$150,000. 

• C. White Marine Co., Inc. v. Commonwealt h of Massachusetts (Norfolk Superior) 1 he 
contractor for construction of a pier and floating dock at Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor 
sued the Commonwealth h)r a total of approximately $1.15 million for a series of claims arising 
out of the construction and design of the project. The Commonwealth brought the designer 
into the case. Following an extensive mediation process, the case settled, resulting in savings 
to the Commonwealth of more than $500,000. 

LAND COURT 

• Doyle, Trustee of Four Ninety Four NEB Realt>^ Trust v. Commonwealth, et al. (Supreme 
Judicial Court) The SJC upheld the authority of a Land Court judge to review the validity of 
a of a certificate ol tide to registered land to correct any error or omission made in entering a 
certificate. The SJC iound in this case that a realty trust's transfer certificate of title had been 
issued in error and was invalid, thereby upholding the public's right of access through the right 
of way to a public beach. 

BUSINE:SS and labor protection BUREAU 

WAX^EANDHOUR 

• S.P Terenzio Electrical Contractors, Inc. The company was required to pay $7,884 in 
wages and penalties for failing to properly classif)' and pay employees and failing to keep true 
and accurate payrolls. 

246 



rb;ionai. orriccs m )u i urASTF.RN massa( .hi;sktts [hvision 



• Coastline Building I Ik company was rcciuiad to pay $4,700 in wages that it had failed 

to pay its employees and was cited with a S2.()()() penalty. 

• Lampasona Concrete The company was leijnired to repay ap[Hoxniiarelv $74,000 in 
overtime wages that ir had failetl to pay its employees over a two \x.n period. 

• Jameson Construction The company was iei|uireil to pay S4. 336 in wapts and penalties 

for failing to pav regular and overtime wages. 

• USSMASS Battleship Cove The compan\' agreed to pay employees $3 1 ,900 to maintenance 

employees who had not been paid for overtime work. 

• South Attleboro Marine, Inc. The company agreed to pay employees $ 1 5,790 in overtime 
pay thar it had failed to pay. 

PUBLIC PROTECTION BUREAU 

CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ANTITRUST DIVISION 

• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. JefFrey Deyo, individually and as owner of Enjoyable 
Journeys Bus Lines, Corp. and Enjoyable Journeys Bus Lines Corp. (Bristol Superior) A 
preliminaiy inunction was obtained against a bus tour compan\- that had gone out of business 
abrupih' and failed to return consumer deposits. 

• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. William P. King, jr., individually and as owner of 
South Co a st Fence Inc . (Bristol Superior) A preliminary injunction was obtained against a 
fence company chat was taking deposits on numerous fencing projects but not perh)rming the 
work or refunding the monies. 

CIVIL RIGHTS 

• Commonwealth v. Sharon Brunelle (Bristol Superior) Prelimillar^• auA permaneiu 
injunctions were obtained under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Aet for verbal threats and 
harassment against two men on the grounds of sexual orientation. 

CONSU M ER MEDIATION 

• The SEMA Division mediated 300 consumer complauus during biscal Year 2006. Typical 
areas of complaints are home improvement contracting, automobile sales, debt collenioti and 
retail sales. Several examples are as follows: 



247 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

AUTO SALES AND REPAIR 

• Executive Mitsubishi The SEMA Division obtained a refund of $18,324.45 for a 
consumer who obtained a vehicle that had been incorrectly listed on the dealers purchase and 
sale agreement. 

• Oliver Used Car The SEMA Division assisted a consumer in obtaining a valid check 
of S$3,500 for a vehicle that the dealership purchased from the consumer with a post-dated 
check. 

RETAIL 

• Statewide Windows, Inc. The SEMA Division obtained a credit of $13,466.97 for a 
consumer who had charged and cancelled a custom made window order, 

• Wholesale Floor Covering Through the SEMA Division's mediation, a consumer was 
able to obtain a full refund of Si, 000 that the consumer had placed as a deposit on flooring 
that she later wished to cancel. 

l:>ebi collection 

• Merchants Credit The SEMA Division convinced a debt collection company to stop 
pursuing a $818.52 debt because the creditor could not validate the debt. 

OiHER 

• Jennifer Convertible I'he SEMA Division mediated a dispute berween the merchant 
and a consumer who had purchased a sofa set that was defective. She was issued a refund of 
$1,629.99 

• Kaplan Furniture Store, Inc. The SEMA Division mediated and obtained a refund of $786 
for a consumer that had purchased a defective recliner. 



STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

GOVERNMENT BUREAU 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the SEMA Division was assigned 21 and closed 26 Administrative Law- 
Cases and assigned 14 and closed six Trial Division Cases. At the end of Fiscal Year 2006, there were 
30 Administrative Law and 25 Trial Division cases pending in the SEMi\. Division. Cases handled by 
the SEMA Division resulted approximately $ I million in savings for the Commonwealth. 



248 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTI IFASTFF<\ MAS«;A( HISFTTS DIVISION 

BUSINESS AND LABOR PROTECTION BUREAU 

FAIR LABOR AND BUSINESS PRACIICF.S 

Rt'srirurion Recovered S440.936.17 
Calls 617') 

Form;il ConipLiiius Filed 46S 

Cases Closed 599 

Civil Citations Lssued 13 

PUBLIC PROTECT I ON BUREAU 

CONSUMER PROTEC i ION AND ANTITRUST 

During Fiscal Year 2006, the SEMA Division brought ;ifhrinaiive litigation action in two civil cases 
against businesses for violations of consumer protection and antitrust laws. Three remain pending. 

CIVIL RIGHTS 

Five complaints in the area of civil rights were received and reviewed by SENL^V stall- during Fiscal 
Year 2006. Affirmative litigation was brought in three matters for violations of the Massachusetts (a\il 
Rights Act. Six civil rights cases remain pending at the end of Fiscal Year 2006. 

CONSUMER MEDIATION 

Complaints representing violations of M.C.L. C.93A in the areas of home improvement (22%), 
automobile sales (13%), debt collection (9%); and retail sales (9%) were the most prevalent in 
.southeastern Kiassachusetts. 

Consumer Restitution Recovered thru mediation $47,983.95 

Consumer ComplaiuLs Received 298 

Consumer Complaints Mediated 300 

Consumer Calls 3.5; 7 

Many of the consumer calls result in providing informati(Mi to the consumets or referrals to other 
government agencies or private lawyers for a.ssistancc. Providing information and voluntar>' telephone 



mediation continues to be the most effective method to provide assistance to the public 



blic we ser\'e. 



249 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING 

Assistant Attorney General Steve Marshalek sat as a hearings officer with the Registry of Motor 
Vehicle's Board of Appeals several times each month. SEMA staff participated in a number of AG 
Institute programs, contitming education programs such as a Trial Advocacy Program at New England 
School of Law and office-wide conmiittees, such as the Elder Issues Committee. The Michael S. Dukakis 
Public Service intern program through the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth sponsored an intern 
m the SEMA office, Adam Ouellette. 

YOUTH 

During Fiscal Year 2006, and since 2002, the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office has been a 
collaborating partner in New Bedford Public Schools Youth Court program. Assistant Attorney General 
Patricia Medeiros continued to train students to serve as prosecutors and defense counsel and served on 
the advisory board of this juvenile diversion program recognized by the National Youth Court Center. 
Assistant Attorneys General Timothy McGuire, Stephen Marshalek and Jim Sweeney assisted with 
training and volunteered as judges. 

SEMA staff was part of the executive planning committee and presented a workshop on conflict 
resolution at New Bedford Public School's Fourth Annual Youth Summit. The community collaborative 
initiative offers speakers, presentations, and activities to empower youth. 

SEMA staff assisted 14 students for a third year in their Summer of Work and Learning Project with 
the production of a television segment aired on local cable TV, filmed at the SEM,'\ Office, on topics 
relating to young workers, )X)ung consumers, and the function of the regional Office of the Attorney 
General. The students intervievs'ed SEMA staff as they learned to compile and edit the television segment. 
The Project's goal was to combine the benefits of classroom learning with on-the-job experience and to 
assist high school seniors in passing the MCAS. 

EL[)1-:R 

During Fiscal Year 2006, SEMA staff continued to nerwork with the southeastern Massachusetts 
regions' elder advocates and care givers and lo provide information to seniors on issues such as scams 
and fraud, home improvement contracting and identity theft. 

Division Chief Jim Sweeney moderated, and SEMA. staff assisted in organizing and participating in 
the AG s Elder Fraud Conference at the Taunton Council on Aging. The Conflsrence was sponsored by 
the Attorney General's Office, the Bristol County District Attorney's Office, and the Cit)^ of Taunton. 
1 he program focused on protecting elders and their families i'vom fraud and scams. 



250 



REGIONAL OFFICES SOUl HKAM IR\ MASSAlJU.'Sf- 11 S DIVISION 

Consumer Mctliator/Outrcuh ( ooieliiiiiior Diaiic I opts I I.i1kh\ spoke .itiJ provided information 
to .1 number ofi^roups about sakmi.irtling against consiwner frauds and scams targetinj; elders. Among 
the programs and places that she spoke were: the 5th Annual Afriean-Ameritan ("ommunity Horuni 
for Families, care givers, and people concerned about memory loss; die Acushnet (!ouncil on Aging 
and Fairlunen Council on Aging on a vveekl)- basis; a workshop at the laber Mills elderly residence; an 
Elder Triad conference at Barnstable County Correctional Facility sponsored by the Barnstable Couniv 
Sheriff's OfBce; and a Safety and Wellness Fair held at the Bridgewarcr Senior (>enter to elders, safety 
professionals, local elected officials, and social service providers sponsored by the Bridgcwater TRIAD 
S.A.L.T (Senior and I -aw Enforcement Ibgether) 

Assistant Attorney Cieneral Patricia Medeiros spoke at and provided information packets, entirelv 
in Portuguese for 200 elders, at the 3rd annual Portuguese Elder Conference "Know Your Rights 111 
in New Bedford. 

CONSUMER 

Consumer Mediator/Outreach Coordinator Diane Lopes Flaherty presented workshop on home 
improvement contractiiig at the 2005 Home Show sponsored by the Plymouth Area Chamber of 
Commerce and provided an educational seminar for building inspectors of the Massachusetts Building 
Officials Association. She also regularly attended meetings with local consumer advocates such as local 
consumer protection ofiices and the Consumer Coalition. Diane also made presentations on consumer 
rights and consumer issues to the National Association of Retired and Federal Fjnployees (NARFE), 
the Seven Hills Behavioral Center, and Portuguese and Spanish speaking students attending the ( Jty 
of New Bedford Health and Human Services English as a Second Language program. 

SF-MA staff displayed and distributed consumer information at North Dartmouth Mall, at the 
lociil United States Post Office, and at the New Bedford Public Library during National Consumer 
Protection Week 2006. 

SEMA staff provided resources and answered questions at DTE Public Hearings on gas price 
increases with NSTAR in New Bedford and NE Gas in Fall River where testimony on behalf of the 
Attorney General was presented. 

CCMMUNITY 

SEMA staff participated in several events sponsored by the New Bedford Prevention Partnership, 
a local non-profit organization dedicated to promoting prevention and treatment initiatives related 
to substance abuse, violence and crime events. Thixse events included National Night Out and Cool 
Nights, a summertime youth activiry. 



251 



REGIONAL OryiCES SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION 

SEMA stciFFalso parricipated in a series of "Big Ideas" forums in New Bedford. The forums were 
initiated by incoming Mayor Scott Lang and a local neighborhood group to solicit ideas from the 
communit)' on how to improve New Bedford. 

SEiVIA staff were members of New Bedford's Housing lask Force, working with the City to make 
improvements in abandoned or dilapidated housing in the ciry. 

WORKERS' RK".HTS 

Assistant Attorney General Anita Maietta spoke regarding the rights of foreign workers in the 
United States at a 'Foreign Workers Resource Forum' in Hyannis and regarding youth employment at 
a "Employing Youitg Workers in iVlassachusetts" training in Orleans sponsored by the Dennis Chamber 
of Commerce. 



2.S2 




F 



^