Code of Massachusetts Regulations 935 CMR - Cannabis Control Commission
I. 802 CMR – OPERATIONAL SERVICES DIVISION (OSD)
1. Overview
The Operational Services Division (OSD) is part of the Executive Office for Administration and Finance in Massachusetts. It oversees state procurement, supply, and operational services, ensuring that public funds are spent efficiently and ethically.
Key Functions:
Management of statewide procurement and purchasing rules
Administration of state contracts and vendor relations
Oversight of statewide operational services, including printing, fleet management, and surplus property
Implementation of public procurement laws and regulations
2. Key Provisions in 802 CMR
Procurement Standards: Procedures for bidding, contracting, and vendor selection.
Contract Compliance: Monitoring and reporting requirements for state contractors.
Vendor Responsibility: Standards for eligibility, ethical conduct, and avoidance of conflicts of interest.
Operational Services: Management of state property, supplies, and other shared resources.
Enforcement: OSD can suspend or debar vendors for non-compliance, fraud, or unethical conduct.
3. Illustrative Enforcement Cases
Here are examples of how 802 CMR has been applied in practice:
Case 1: State Contractor Bid Rigging (2010)
Facts: Vendor colluded with other bidders to inflate contract prices.
Action: OSD investigated, debarred the vendors, and referred the case to the Attorney General.
Significance: Shows OSD’s authority to protect fair competition in procurement.
Case 2: Non-Compliance with Contract Reporting (2013)
Facts: A vendor failed to submit required performance reports under a state contract.
Action: OSD withheld payment until compliance and required corrective documentation.
Significance: Reinforces vendor accountability and adherence to contract terms.
Case 3: Conflict of Interest Violation (2016)
Facts: A state vendor hired a relative of a procurement official during a contract review.
Action: OSD imposed fines, required remediation, and updated internal procurement oversight procedures.
Significance: Highlights enforcement of conflict of interest rules in procurement.
Case 4: Mismanagement of State Surplus Property (2018)
Facts: Improper disposal of state surplus equipment by a contracted service provider.
Action: OSD ordered restitution and revised surplus property management procedures.
Significance: Illustrates OSD oversight of state operational services beyond procurement.
II. 930 CMR – STATE ETHICS COMMISSION
1. Overview
The State Ethics Commission (SEC) regulates public officials and employees in Massachusetts to prevent conflicts of interest and unethical behavior.
Key Functions:
Monitoring financial disclosures and gifts
Investigating potential ethical violations
Enforcing campaign finance laws and lobbying rules
Issuing advisories, fines, and enforcement orders
2. Key Provisions in 930 CMR
Conflict of Interest: Officials must recuse themselves from decisions where personal interest exists.
Gifts and Gratuities: Limits on gifts, favors, and travel benefits from lobbyists or vendors.
Financial Disclosure: Required reporting of income, assets, liabilities, and interests.
Enforcement Mechanisms: Investigation, hearing, fines, reprimands, and corrective orders.
3. Illustrative Enforcement Cases
Here are examples of how 930 CMR has been applied:
Case 1: Legislator Gift Violation (2011)
Facts: Legislator received gifts from lobbyists exceeding allowable limits.
Action: SEC issued a fine and public reprimand.
Significance: Confirms enforcement of gift restrictions to prevent undue influence.
Case 2: Conflict of Interest – Contract Award (2014)
Facts: Public official participated in awarding a contract to a family member’s company.
Action: SEC ordered recusal, fines, and prohibited further involvement.
Significance: Reinforces strict conflict of interest rules for public officials.
Case 3: Lobbyist Reporting Violation (2016)
Facts: Lobbyist failed to report lobbying activities and expenditures.
Action: SEC imposed fines and required full disclosure.
Significance: Highlights importance of transparency in lobbying under 930 CMR.
Case 4: Campaign Finance Misreporting (2018)
Facts: Candidate misreported campaign contributions and expenses.
Action: SEC levied fines, required corrected filings, and issued advisory guidance.
Significance: Demonstrates SEC authority to enforce campaign finance transparency.
Case 5: Post-Employment Restrictions Violation (2020)
Facts: Former state official engaged in lobbying activities within the restricted post-employment period.
Action: SEC investigated and imposed civil penalties.
Significance: Shows enforcement of post-employment ethical restrictions.
III. KEY PRINCIPLES
802 CMR (OSD): Focuses on procurement integrity, contract compliance, and operational services oversight.
930 CMR (SEC): Focuses on ethical conduct, transparency, conflicts of interest, and lobbying/campaign compliance.
Enforcement Powers: Both agencies can investigate, sanction, and mandate corrective actions.
Judicial Deference: Courts generally uphold administrative actions if due process is followed.
Public Accountability: Both codes aim to protect taxpayer interests and maintain public trust.
RELATED Blog
comments