Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
I’m no lawyer, but this guy is:
Last, night, that attorney appeared in City Hall before the License Commission.
Raymond Weicker, the former license commissioner, served as the attorney for Brian’s Ivy Hall and Hayhurst. Weicker said he was “disgusted” the board decided to take action regarding the events on Dec. 21 because he said the club was not informed the board intended to take disciplinary action.
Watch the proceeding here: http://blip.tv/ltc-license-commission/episode-6542718
And by “former license commissioner,” the Blog of Record means, as of August 16, 2012. We know this because Ray Weicker went out with a bang!
It is with a sense of both relief and regret that I have tendered my resignation, as requested by Manager Bernard F. Lynch. I feel that at this point in time, with only 7 months left on my appointment, our respective approaches, investment in and commitment to the City of Lowell are too divergent and incompatible.
Like I said, I’m no lawyer. It just looks fishy, that a former License Commissioner can represent clients in front of the same LC that s/he served. In Washington DC, we hear of Congresscritters becoming lobbyists, getting rich off the network they have built, capitalizing on whatever influence peddling they can get away with. Lowell isn’t DC. I should hope that we would have some integrity.
So, I looked up the law that I think applies. As best as I can discern, it all comes down to this blurt: in connection with any particular matter  that is of concern to the municipality
“Particular matter,” any judicial or other proceeding, application, submission, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, decision, determination, finding, but excluding enactment of general legislation by the general court and petitions of cities, towns, counties and districts for special laws related to their governmental organizations, powers, duties, finances and property. G.L. c. 268A, § 1(k).
If the tolerance for the sort of things is so giving, that Weicker can represent clients because he is tending to a specific complaint, never before the current LC? I will be flabbergasted. Especially, since rulings by the LC are often incremental, based on past behavior.
Massachusetts G.L. c. 268A, the conflict of interest law, continues to apply to municipal employees, and in some cases their partners, even after the employees leave public service. Section 18 of the law deals with former municipal employees, and is designed to prevent municipal employees from making official judgments with an eye toward their personal future interests, or from profiting by their participation in particular decisions or controversies after they leave municipal service. Furthermore, the law keeps former employees from misusing their past friendships and associations within government to derive an unfair advantage for themselves or others. The law does not prohibit former employees from using expertise gained while employed by the municipality.
In certain instances the law also prohibits former employees from referring to their partners matters in which they themselves are prohibited from participating.
Section 18(a) — Restriction from Participation in Particular Matters
Section 18(a) prohibits former municipal employees from acting as agent or attorney for, or directly or indirectly receiving compensation from, anyone other than their city, town or municipal agency in connection with any particular matter  that is of concern to the municipality and in which they participated  as municipal employees. Thus, if you actually participated in a particular matter, you can never become involved in that same matter after you leave municipal service for anyone other than the city or town.
Whether former municipal employees are affected by this section is determined by whether they participated, personally and substantially, as municipal employees in a particular matter such as a recommendation, decision, application or contract.
Section 18(b) — One Year Restriction on Appearance Involving Matters over which Former Employees had Official Responsibility
Section 18(b) focuses on matters over which former municipal employees exercised authority. Section 18(b) prohibits former municipal employees, for one year, from personally appearing before any municipal agency as an agent or attorney for anyone other than the city or town in connection with a particular matter that concerns the municipality and where the matter was under their official responsibility  within two years prior to their termination from municipal service. In other words, this section operates prospectively as a one year ban on former municipal employees’ personal appearances in connection with matters under their authority for the two years prior to their leaving municipal service.
Under this section, municipal employees’ official responsibilities would include particular matters that they delegated to a subordinate, as well as matters in which they abstained from participation. A personal appearance includes not only the physical appearance of former municipal employees before their former boards or agencies, but also includes telephone calls or correspondence to their former municipal agencies made on behalf of any private client.
Section 18(c) — Application of Certain Restrictions to the Partners of Former Municipal Employees
Section 18(c) extends certain prohibitions of § 18 to the partners of former municipal employees. This section prohibits a partner of former municipal employees, for one year after the termination of the worker’s municipal employment, from knowingly engaging in any activity the former municipal employees are prohibited from doing under § 18(a). In other words, if former municipal employees are prohibited from engaging in certain activity under § 18(a), then their partners are similarly prohibited for one year from engaging in the same activity. This prohibition applies to the partners even where their participation predated the former employees’ participation.
The term “partner” for the purposes of § 18 has been defined by the Commission to include a member of a group of lawyers who by their conduct give the appearance of being partners. The term “partner” is not restricted to those who enter into formal partnership agreements: it may also apply to individuals who join formally or informally in a common business venture. In determining whether a partnership arrangement exists, the Commission looks to the substance of the individuals’ relationship rather than the term used to describe that arrangement.
[powered by WordPress.]
|« Feb||Apr »|
41 queries. 0.641 seconds