The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission assessed civil penalties of $4,000 each against Harvard School Superintendent Thomas Jefferson and former School Committee member Paul Wormser for violations of the state’s conflict-of-interest law. These amounts are the maximum penalty allowed under state law at the time of the violation.
According to a press release from the commission’s Communication Division Chief David Giannotti, the commission found that both men had “circumvented established procedures” in arranging tuition reimbursements for Wormer’s child’s placement in a private school. The commission noted in its decision, “[W]e find that the reimbursement was unwarranted because of the procedure that was followed, without making any determination about the propriety of the result that was reached.”
The commission’s decision reviewed the chronology of events, from Wormser’s increasing dissatisfaction with the special education services offered by the Harvard schools at that time, through his decision to withdraw his child from the public schools, and his decision to seek reimbursement for part of the costs of a private school placement. The commission concluded that, by discussing the matter with superintendents Mirhan Keoseian and Jefferson, “Wormser repeatedly took advantage of official access that he had as School Committee chair to superintendents under his authority to make them focus attention on his personal requests for tuition reimbursements.”
The commission also concluded that both Wormser and Jefferson were obligated to disclose publicly that they were engaged in negotiating the reimbursements. Failing that disclosure, the commission said, Wormser should have recused himself from participating in Jefferson’s performance review.
With regard to Jefferson, the commission found that he authorized the reimbursement “through a procedure that, if not unprecedented, was far from typical.” Applying principles from previous cases, the commission ruled that deviating from usual procedures can constitute “the basis for finding that a privilege was unwarranted.” In reaching that conclusion, the commission said it relied on the testimony of former Special Education Director Charles Horn.
The commission rejected Jefferson’s argument that he could not disclose the negotiations because doing so would violate state and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of student information. The commission concluded that “Jefferson’s meticulous compliance with laws concerning student confidentiality did not excuse his total disregard for the requirements of the conflict-of-interest law.”
“Public employees may not use their positions to bypass established procedures to secure private benefits for themselves or their superiors,” stated Commission Executive Director Karen L. Nober. “A School Committee member who is the parent of a special needs student must follow the same process as any other parent of a special needs student in seeking reimbursement of private school tuition. In addition, any private deals or negotiations between a School Committee member and a superintendent, a superior and a subordinate, must be disclosed publicly by each employee before he engages in any official action that would raise even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
