Opinion ID: 2651362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Retaliation and Ethics Complaints

Text: On October 2, 2009, four months following his campaigning activity, Pierce sent a letter to the Board claiming that Olsen had been retaliating against him ever since the election due to his support of Wool. Pierce cited a variety of forms of harassment starting in the weeks following the election. He reported that Olsen had reneged on his promise to make Pierce Deputy Chief, taken away Pierce's office and made him return his Department-issued cell phone, called Pierce and his wife greedy for volunteering for overtime, and publicly lashed out at Pierce and two other firefighters for failing to prepare for a memorial ceremony. While Olsen did not respond to Pierce's charges at the time, he later contended that he needed to re-purpose Pierce's office into new sleeping quarters due to space constraints and that it would be more efficient to turn Pierce's work cellphone into a department-wide phone for on-duty officers. The Board replied to Pierce with a letter indicating that his complaint did not conform to the grievance process prescribed by the Department's collective bargaining agreement and took no -7- further actions on his charges. Because Pierce's letter criticized Olsen's treatment of both Pierce and his wife, however, the Board did take the occasion to remind Pierce of his obligations under the Massachusetts ethics laws and to suggest that Pierce contact the Ethics Commission for an advisory opinion regarding his professional relationship with Jayne. On November 20, 2009, the Board sent its own letter to the Ethics Commission to request that the Commission conduct an evaluation of Pierce's potential conflict of interest, copying Pierce on the communication. Among other things, the letter informed the Commission that Pierce had regular supervisory authority over and day to day supervision of his wife, and that Pierce had participated in a disciplinary matter involving Jayne in April. The letter was signed by Mycock and Field, but not by Campbell, who had resigned the previous day. While the Ethics Commission considered the Board's letter, Pierce wrote the Board to request a formal exemption under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 19 for his and Jayne's joint employment in the Department. The letter estimated that Pierce supervised his wife on ten to twelve occasions per year. The Board declined to take up Pierce's request while it awaited a response from the Ethics Commission. On June 17, 2010, the Ethics Commission sent Pierce a confidential letter informing him that he appeared to be in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A, § 19. To remedy the -8- situation, the Commission suggested that Pierce should obtain an exemption, restructure his position so as to have no day-to-day supervision of Jayne, or either he or Jayne could resign. On June 24, 2010, Pierce replied to the Ethics Commission to clarify that he did not have day-to-day active supervision of his wife. In the same letter, on which Olsen was copied, Pierce suggested that the Board had refused to grant him an exemption in retaliation for certain unrelated claims that he and Jayne were pursuing against the Town of Cotuit. The Board responded directly to the Ethics Commission, again raising the issue of Pierce's supervision of Jayne and his involvement in her discipline and promotion. On June 18, 2010, presumably without knowledge of the letter Pierce had received from the Ethics Commission the previous day, Olsen notified Pierce of his intent to suspend him with pay. Olsen attributed his decision to an independent conclusion reached by the Board's counsel that Pierce was violating the state ethics law. He instituted the suspension following a hearing later that month. Subsequently, Olsen and the Board became aware of the Commission's June 17, 2010 letter. On November 29, 2010, after a hearing at which the letter was discussed, Olsen suspended Pierce without pay. Olsen again explained that his disciplinary action responded to Pierce's violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268A. On January 11, 2011, the Commission sent Pierce a final confidential letter, informing him that the Commission had found -9- facts sufficient to find reasonable cause to believe that Pierce was violating the ethics law. Two weeks later, the Commission responded directly to the Board regarding its November 20, 2009 complaint against Pierce. While noting that its decision does not necessarily mean that your complaint was without merit, the Commission determined that the matter does not warrant further investigation or the imposition of formal sanctions at this time. On April 20, 2011, despite the Commission's failure to impose sanctions, the Board chose to terminate Pierce's employment.