By William Tauro
Back in 2003 during the Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay Administration, the Director of Finance Ed Bean is being accused that he intentionally misled Former Somerville Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay other department heads in leading them to believe that the city was so broke that there would be massive layoffs and drastic budget cuts.
Bean is being accused of allegedly hiding over $2,000,000.00 (Two million dollars) from the Gay Administration as well as from the taxpayers of Somerville in an attempt to sway the mayoral election in 2003 for then Alderman Joseph Curtatone to become mayor.
Bean allegedly carried this out during a meeting in the Mayors Office, when Mayor Dorothy Kelly Gay was looking into doing something about the dilapidated Somerville Public Safety Building and Engine 3’s Quarters.
The administration needed ¾ of a million dollars, to add a wing to the existing Police and Fire building and get the Somerville Fire Fighters out of a filthy old trailer.
When Bean told Department heads at the table about “NO MONEY”, Mayor Gay looked at Bean and others with disappointment and wisely said “It would be wrong to build a new wing for the fire deptpartment when there was strong indications that there would be layoffs, which made perfect sense, considering the city’s fiscal condition.”
The plans to help the fire dept were then put on the back burner.
Not long after this, the 2003 mayoral election took place and Mayor Curtatone took over in January.
After numerous meetings with the new Mayor Finance Director Ed Bean never again mentioned anything about the City having a fiscal crisis, infact, spending money was not a problem.
Ed Bean was Mayor Gay’s appointment prior to the election and had some loyalty to her administration (for giving him the job).
It was later discovered after the election and witnesses coming forward, that Bean was working behind Former Mayor Gay’s back to undermine her and all the while supporting then Alderman Curtatone for Mayor.
According to Department Head Joseph Voutour who was present at both the Gay as well as Curtatone meetings, “That deceitful conduct amounts to what is known as a ‘’BACK STABBER”. Because of these two things, he has committed crimes and should be charged with “FELONYS” and pay the price for his gains (as new auditor for Curtatone). Very disgraceful Conduct!”
Voutour also added “I don’t know how Ed Bean concealed the citys financial status, and gave Mayor Gay, myself, and a bunch of others department heads the impression of the city being broke.” “There was talk in the Mayors office of things being so bad that we all knew, pink slips were being thought of. This occurred about a month or so before the election, so no actual plans came to light of impending drastic budget cuts, including layoff. I do believe that Mayor Dot Gay trusted Ed Bean’s knowledge of the citys fiscal condition.”
“I don’t think that she had an everyday look at the citys bank accounts, which is very complex.
She had depended on her Ed Bean to be honest with her.”
Bean is also being accused of two more recent allegations during the Curtatone Administration stemming from 2003-2015 of Mishandling Municipal Funds as well that are still developing.
It is unclear at this time of how much of a total amount more of municipal funds in addition to the two million dollars from the Gay Administration that has been mishandled to date.
It is still very unclear at this time why Somerville Police Chief David Fallon hasn’t begun conducting an investigation nor has issued a criminal complaint on this case as of yet.
Calls made to Finance Director Ed Bean and Somerville’s Director of Communications Denise Taylor were not returned.
The penalty for misrepresentation of municipal funds in Massachusetts is as follows:Section 15: Dereliction of duty by members
Section 15. (1) Misappropriation of Funds. ? Any member who has been charged with the misappropriation of funds or property of any governmental unit in which or by which he is employed or was employed at the time of his retirement or termination of service, as the case may be, or of any system of which he is a member, and who files a written request therefor shall be granted a hearing by the board in accordance with the procedure set forth in subdivision (1) of section sixteen. If the board after the hearing finds the charges to be true, such member shall forfeit all rights under sections one to twenty-eight inclusive to a retirement allowance or to a return of his accumulated total deductions for himself and for his beneficiary, or to both, to the extent of the amount so found to be misappropriated and to the extent of the costs of the investigation, if any, as found by the board. He shall thereupon cease to be a member, except upon such terms and conditions as the board may determine including incarceration.
Whistleblower/Fraud, Waste and Abuse Information
State Whistleblower Protections
Public employees have whistleblower protection through Massachusetts law. Public employees who engage in the following activities are protected against retaliation:
• Disclosing, threatening to disclose, providing information, or objecting to any activity, practice, or policy that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of law, rule, or regulation, or poses a risk to public health, safety, or the environment.
Whistleblowers are protected from:
• Firing;
• Suspension;
• Demotion; and
• Any adverse employment action being taken as a reprisal
In addition, public employees have protection for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse to the Massachusetts Inspector General, as follows:
“Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority, take or threaten to take any action against any employees as a reprisal for making a complaint or disclosing information to the inspector general, unless the complaint was made or the information disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with willful disregard for its truth or falsity.” M.G.L. c. 12A, § 14(c).
Federal Whistleblower Protections
The Act, in Section 1553, provides additional whistleblower protection for recipients of Recovery Act (“stimulus”) funds who report fraud, waste, and abuse to federal or state authorities. The law protects employees of state and local governments receiving Recovery funds, as well as subcontractors and grantees.
Whistleblowers are protected from:
• Termination;
• Demotion; and
• Discrimination as a reprisal for making a disclosure