Ethics board investigating former conservation agent

By Jay Turner

The State Ethics Commission has launched a formal investigation into the business dealings of former Canton Conservation Agent Robert Murphy that focuses on his relationship to an engineering firm that provided paid services to several Canton projects while he was still employed by the town, according to a copy of a summons obtained by the Citizen.

The summons, which was served to the town clerk’s office last week and has the force of a court order, requires that the town turn over “any and all documents” from the start of 2010 to the end of 2012 showing Murphy’s relationship with M&M Engineering — an Easton-based firm that has been linked to at least eight Canton permit applications dating back to March 2010.

The documents requested in the summons, which must be submitted to the Ethics Commission office by July 26, include meeting minutes, agreements, letters, and emails, as well as applications, notices of intent, certificates of compliance, and any other document that lists M&M as the engineer. The summons further requests records pertaining to Danena Inc., a separate engineering firm operated by Murphy through which he provided conservation agent services to the town of Canton for 22 years.

In November 2012, the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to terminate the town’s contract with Danena Inc. “without cause,” according to then Selectmen Chairman Bob Burr.

However, just weeks earlier, members of the Canton Conservation Commission had met in executive session with Murphy and a representative of town counsel to discuss a possible conflict of interest involving M&M Engineering.

Sources say that ConCom members were shocked and dismayed to learn of Murphy’s alleged interest in M&M — to the point that four of the seven commission members were prepared to resign in protest unless Murphy either stepped down or was ordered to do so by the selectmen.

According to a copy of the meeting minutes obtained by the Citizen, Murphy allegedly neither recused himself from hearings involving the aforementioned properties, nor did he disclose to ConCom members the nature of his relationship with M&M Engineering.

Instead, ConCom members had discovered the alleged connection on their own a month earlier, citing corporate records that list Murphy as the president as well as a company phone number that was registered to a “Robert J. Murphy” in Easton.

According to the meeting minutes, town counsel Richard Hucksam told ConCom members that Murphy “admitted to being involved with M&M Engineering” starting in October 2011; however, he said the “facts remain unclear” as to the extent of Murphy’s role in the company.

ConCom members, according to the meeting minutes, determined that a “line had been crossed” with regard to the conflict of interest law and voted 5-2 to request Murphy’s resignation. A week later, members of ConCom reaffirmed their position in what sources say was a highly charged meeting with selectmen.

The joint meeting, which was attended by Murphy, ended in a stalemate after two selectmen (Victor Del Vecchio and Sal Salvatori) voted to support ConCom’s request and dismiss Murphy, two members (John Connolly and Avril Elkort) voted against the request, and one member (Burr) determined that he was not prepared to vote.

Sources say the two sides were scheduled to reconvene three days later; however, selectmen called off the meeting after being told that Murphy was planning to resign. Three weeks later, on December 4, selectmen announced the termination of the town’s contract with Danena Inc.

Multiple attempts by the Citizen to reach Murphy, both in January and again this month, were unsuccessful. However, in February he told the Boston Globe via email, “As much as I would like to speak on the matter, if only to defend myself, I cannot at this time.”

As for the ongoing investigation by the State Ethics Commission, neither the Canton selectmen nor a spokesperson for the Ethics Commission would comment on the matter, although the summons indicates that it has proceeded past the screening phase and has become a “preliminary inquiry” pursuant to a majority vote of the five-member commission.

During a preliminary inquiry, the commission’s Enforcement Division “conducts its investigation and can issue summonses to compel the production of documents and testimony under oath,” according to the Ethics Commission website at www.mass.gov.

The Enforcement Division will then report its findings to the commissioners, who vote on whether the conflict of interest law has been violated.

The commission can impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. The subject of an investigation is entitled to a public adjudicatory hearing and also has the right to appeal a decision directly to the Superior Court.

Share This Post

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=21685