Fraser Concedes Andrews May be Exempt from “Particular Matters” in Conflict of Interest Law

Fraser Concedes Andrews May be Exempt from “Particular Matters” in Conflict of Interest Law

Though the State Ethics Commission has failed to contact Genevieve Fraser regarding a filing she initiated several months ago concerning 2^nd Franklin District Representative Denise Andrews, Fraser is willing to concede that Andrews may not be in violation.  Fraser is one of six candidates vying for the newly redistricted 2^nd Franklin District in the fall election.  Both Andrews and Fraser reside in Orange.

At issue is Andrews’ co-sponsorship of legislation which might benefit the pharmaceutical company where she had been working in a management position. In September 2011, Andrews, a freshman legislator, began work in New Jersey for the Swiss-based pharmaceutical giant, Novartis, as a global head of human resources.

“Representative Andrews approached me recently and requested that I release a statement as soon as I hear from the Ethics Commission,” Fraser commented.  “Andrews stated she felt that she had done nothing wrong and had filed a disclosure indicating that she had accepted a position with Novartis.

“As a candidate challenging Andrews in the Democratic primary, I feel it is important to put the matter behind us.  Despite repeated attempts to reach the Ethic Commission, I’ve heard nothing,” Fraser said.  “But as I was filing my Statement of Financial Interest as a candidate, I happened upon summaries that clearly spell out differences between municipal officials – which I am, serving on three town boards in Orange – and state employees, which Andrews is as a state representative.”

“In both instances, under Section 6 of the MA General Laws chapter 268A on self-dealing and nepotism, the law states that participation as a state employee in “particular matters’ in which you, your immediate family, your business organization, or your future employer has a financial interest is prohibited.  However, there appears to be a further clause or exemption that representatives to the General Court fall under,” Fraser explained. 

 

"According to the conflict of interest law, ‘A state employee can participate in general legislation and home rule legislation even if she has a financial interest in such legislation, but state legislators and constitutional officers must file a disclosure if the matter will substantially affect their financial interests,’” Fraser continued.  “If Andrews filed such a disclosure, as she claims she has, she may not be guilty of conflict of interest, and I stand corrected.”

 

"It is interesting that when urged to pass ethics reform, legislators went after municipal officials. And lobbyists must register every minute of face time with legislators. Yet, legislators are exempt. Working for a major industry and supporting legislation that benefits them is like being a covert lobbyist. It may be legal, but is it truly ethical?" Fraser noted.

"Ethics reform closed and barred the front door, but by allowing an exemption of this magnitude for legislators, they kept the back door wide open and ready for business."