Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: Ritchie787

This is just horrible. A press release from the Ethics Commision web site: Another clown wants to abuse his power



February 5, 2008
State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division Alleges Former Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Superintendent Richard Bonavita Violated the Conflict of Interest Law

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, in an Order to Show Cause issued on January 31, 2008, alleges that former Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Operations Richard Bonavita repeatedly violated sections 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by directing a Sheriff’s Office mechanic to perform free automobile repairs for Bonavita and one of Bonavita’s immediate family members. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.
According to the Order to Show Cause, on several occasions beginning in February 2002, Bonavita directed an auto mechanic under his supervision to repair one of Bonavita’s immediate family member’s personal vehicles. The repairs included work on the vehicle’s windshield motor, timing belt, and CV shaft. Bonavita directed the mechanic to perform some of the repairs at the Sheriff’s Office, both during and after the mechanic’s regular work hours, using Sheriff’s Office facilities and equipment. Bonavita also directed the mechanic to perform repairs on a second vehicle owned by the family member after the mechanic’s work hours at Bonavita’s residence. On another occasion, Bonavita directed the mechanic to work on a third vehicle during his work hours at an automobile dealership prior to Bonavita’s purchase of the vehicle.
Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. The Enforcement Division alleges that Bonavita violated section 23(b)(2) by securing free automobile repairs worth $50 or more for himself and his family member from a subordinate employee.
Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties. The Enforcement Division alleges that Bonavita violated section 23(b)(3) by supervising the mechanic during and after the time that the mechanic performed free automobile repairs for Bonavita and his family member.

---

Posted by: Ritchie787

From the Cape cod Times:
By MATTHEW M. BURKE
STAFF WRITER
February 06, 2008
A former high-ranking official at the Barnstable County Sheriff's Office violated state conflict of interest law when he had a co-worker repair his car and another vehicle owned by a family member at no charge, according to a release from the state Ethics Commission.
Richard Bonavita, former deputy superintendent of operations, has not worked for the sheriff's office for the past seven months, according to sheriff's office spokesman Roy Lyons.
State panel findings

The state Ethics Commission found Richard Bonavita:

• Acted improperly when he had a sheriff's office mechanic work on a car he was purchasing.
• Also violated state law by having a mechanic repair a car owned by a family member at no charge.

The state ethics panel alleges that, sometime after February 2002, Bonavita had a sheriff's office mechanic perform free repairs to a red Chrysler LeBaron before Bonavita purchased the car. The ethics panel also cited work the mechanic performed on a green Hyundai owned by a Bonavita family member.
The law prohibits a public employee from using his or her position to garner benefits for himself or for others in substantial value that are not properly available to other citizens.
The Ethics Commission has issued a so-called order to show cause and has 90 days from the date of the order to schedule a public hearing. No hearing date had been set as of yesterday.
The ethics panel has the authority to impose civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation of the state's ethics law.
Before Bonavita left his job, he had been out of work on disability for more than a year starting in February 2005, collecting his $85,000 county salary through workers' compensation.
Bonavita declined to comment when reached last night at his West Barnstable home.
This is not the first time Bonavita has come under fire.
In 2006, the Times published stories about Bonavita working at a police supply store while collecting his entire salary through workers' compensation. No charges were ever filed.
Later in 2006, he was cited in a 15-count complaint drafted by the Ethics Commission on a range of alleged abuses of power, from taking equipment from the sheriff's office to supplying low-cost inmate labor to businesses in return for gifts.
"This office has provided documentation requested by the commission in its investigation of this matter," Lyons said yesterday of the ethics probe. "We're cooperating and will continue to cooperate."
Lyons said Bonavita was a "pleasant" man while they worked together.
"If it turns out badly, in no way, shape or form is that indicative of the kind of people we have working here," he said. "But I'm not prejudging him."
The ethics panel's show cause order states that Bonavita served as the assistant deputy superintendent of operations, which oversees the maintenance department, from 1997 to June 2003.
The commission alleges that beginning in February 2002, Bonavita instructed a sheriff's office mechanic to repair a vehicle belonging to an immediate family member during and after work hours, using sheriff's department facilities and equipment. Repairs included work on a windshield motor and timing belt. Each repair was estimated at more than $50.
Bonavita also allegedly had the mechanic repair a different vehicle for the same family member after work hours at Bonavita's residence.
In addition, the commission alleges Bonavita had the mechanic perform repairs on a LeBaron at a dealership before he bought the car.
Ethics Commission executive director Karen Nober said yesterday that the case against Bonavita is a civil matter and has no possibility of jail time if he is found to have violated state ethics law.
When an ethics hearing is held, it will be similar to a criminal proceeding, but a state ethics commissioner will act as judge. A lawyer for the ethics panel will present evidence against Bonavita, who will also be represented by a lawyer, Nober said.
Nober declined to confirm or deny whether the Ethics Commission had looked into any of the 15 complaints raised in 2006, or whether there would be more charges.
Bonavita yesterday referred all questions to his lawyer, Jeremy Carter of Hyannis, who was not available for comment.
Matthew M. Burke can be reached at mburke@capecodonline.com.

---

Posted by: yah-right

Hey Ritchie 787 do you know this guy?, I have read this article and stated it was alleged. The guy was not found guilty, if he is then your right, but I don't believe everything I read thats why I will wait to comment until the hearing is over and the whole story is told!!!!.

---

Posted by: lawdog671

I don't see a comment from him anywhere....just the newspaper article...you reading something different??

---

Posted by: yah-right

Yes He Did At The Very Top Of Article First Page. I'm Not Saying He Is Wrong But At Least Wait Until The Hearing And All The Evidence Is Put On The Table!!!!!

---

Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

I did'nt know we were in a court of law here

---

Posted by: yah-right

All I Meant Was Lets Give One Of Our Own The Benefiet Until All The Evidence Is In. Why Condem Him On Just Allegations?

---

Posted by: Wolfman

Dude Why Do You Have To Capitalize Every Word, It Doesn't Make Your Posts Any Easier To Read And Actually Will Likely Result In People Ignoring You. Just Sayin'.

---

Posted by: sherifflittle

dont we have anything else better to do guys than argue on a message board...honestly...

---

Posted by: Ritchie787

Quote:

Originally Posted by yah-right All I Meant Was Lets Give One Of Our Own The Benefiet Until All The Evidence Is In. Why Condem Him On Just Allegations?

Let me just say this. If you think this guy is one of OUR own, you are sadly mistaken. He is a complete loser and dirtbag. There are so many ethics complaints against him, its ridiculas. There can be no lower form of life than someone who abuses his badge and power the way this scum did. I actually would like to hear from some of the guys in Deedham, I know he worked there Middlesex and Plymouth. They said he literally got ran out of each one for being a duche bag.

Guess Cummings should have been a better investigator before he promoted him.

Why do you cap every word ? very strange, but good luck with it if it works for ya.

---

Posted by: 94c

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ritchie787 The state Ethics Commission found Richard Bonavita: Acted improperly when he had a sheriff's office mechanic work on a car he was purchasing. Also violated state law by having a mechanic repair a car owned by a family member at no charge. Before Bonavita left his job, he had been out of work on disability for more than a year starting in February 2005, collecting his $85,000 county salary through workers' compensation. In 2006, the Times published stories about Bonavita working at a police supply store while collecting his entire salary through workers' compensation. No charges were ever filed. Later in 2006, he was cited in a 15-count complaint drafted by the Ethics Commission on a range of alleged abuses of power, from taking equipment from the sheriff's office to supplying low-cost inmate labor to businesses in return for gifts.

A box of donuts says we don't have to wait for the facts to come out. He'll take a plea.

That's the problem with hacks, the longer they survive the more they feel they're entitled to.

---

Posted by: Ritchie787

Amazingly fitting that you chose a box of dounuts to bet on this guy. He's seen at least a few hundred dozen in the past month.
How Bout it Bonavita? a few too many dougnuts this month ?

---

Posted by: yah-right

Look I did not write about this article to get into an arguement or a name calling match. Wow! I'm sorry if you do not like this guy, I don't know what he eats and frankly do not care. I made a simple comment thats all, I've heard things from the two guys that I know that works there, but I did not put them out there on this web, because I do not know if they are true or not. They are just second hand info regarding the guy they think is behind the allegations. If I made any one upset it was not my intent. I just believe in getting all the facts before I condem someone whether I like someone or not. It's bad enough that most times when you where a badge you become a target automaticaly.

---

Posted by: Ritchie787

It should make no difference who brought the allegations. The only thing that matters is that the Mass State Ethics Commision put a press release on thier web site that this sht bum has basiclly been stealing time from the county. He is who makes every law enforcement officer get a bad name. It should also be noted that the guy does not work there anymore. All of my sources say that, as in the past, he not only wore out his welcome, but they were sick and tired of his abuse towards staff. Obviously, abuse of power as well.
And for the record, I applaud the person that broght the allegations foward, it took courage and guts to stand up for something that was terriblly wrong.

---

Posted by: yah-right

Okay fair enough but today while I was trying to pick up my clothes at a local place I ran into 4 guys that where there picking up some stuff I guess they are on IPS ?and I told them about this exchange and they all told me that this whole thing was basically a freak show.

That Bonovito was a tough guy to work for but that the people behind the allegations where worse I guess one guy when he first started had a old unmarked cruiser he bought fixed up with a cage in the back wig wags in the front and tinted windows and would ride around on his off time in plain clothes with his badge on his belt like he was under cover !. Hello! and he was the guy the paper did an article about that he bought an illegal taser, sold fake oakleys on line. Thats sound a little crazy to me. Another guy was I think a Lt maybe higher and he was rumored to be doing another feamle supervisor who was married to another guy there all working on the same shift That place sounds GONE! and that the feamle in question just always bangs in sick and lost I think they said her gold badge whatever that means. Oh and that the two guys aren't working there anymore one just quit after the article came out in the paper and the other I think they said retired I guess the woman is still there they said some more things about them but I do not want to be to graphic. So who do you believe when you hear crap like this it sounds like they are all chit bums as you put it.

---

Posted by: lawdog671

I think that if those are the characters of the people sayng HE is a douche...then I have to think it takes one to know one...and if they're calling him one, then he has to be the super douche everyone says he is. And if the Ethics Commission has posted it, I am assuming that they did an invest prior to it, so it is what it is. I gotta be honest, I can't say that this is a tremendous suprise to me...

---

Posted by: chiefwiggum

I find it hard to believe that any of these Ethics violations would be going on in a Sheriff's Dept!!

---

Posted by: Ritchie787

hey Bonavita, I mean Yea-Right,, They said you would be the only loser to come on here and defend himself, they also said you would try and slander the people you thought fingered you. Funny how the original posts were backed up by press releases and News reports. Then you come along and post your own rumors and inuendues. Nice try Richard Bonavita but we all know the truth about you. and wasn t that the same guy that banged your wife before you ever laid a glove on it?? So Rich, how does it taste;.
by the way how much is this costing you to defend your good name?? hope when you loose it was worth it. Any luck finding a job yet? or is burning out couches a full time effort.

---

Posted by: yah-right

Hey don't insult me I would not say that you where right that he was chit bum as you intelligently put it, boy are you paranoid. It makes me wonder are you one of the ones the guys we where speaking of. If you have friends up there ask around they will tell you who was talking at that store. Just keep your paranoid insults to yourself.

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

Take it to pm's or e-mail Harry Moderator

---

Posted by: Ritchie787

Nice article found in "The Cape Cod Voice"

Send us your comments - Email this story - Cape Cod Voice Home
Call the sheriff: The most outrageous campaign manager of all is Michael O'Keefe's

Our look at campaign managers in the state rep races this issue is meant to be just one more way of finding insight into the candidates, their networks and priorities. After all, a politician is only as good as the people in his or her orbit.
And so we'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge the most telling, and outrageous, campaign manager/candidate relationship in this political season:
Barnstable County Sheriff James Cummings heading the re-election campaign of District Attorney Michael O'Keefe.
O'Keefe is running unopposed, which in itself is a sad state of affairs. Our district attorney has proven himself unfit for the job, both professionally and personally; professionally by trying to coerce DNA samples from every able-bodied man in an entire Cape Cod town (supposedly to solve a crime for which he already had the evidence he wanted in hand), personally by tawdry attempts to parlay his position and privileged information into a sexual relationship with a woman writer.
Now, by having "Jimmy" Cummings as the symbolic head of his opponent-less campaign, O'Keefe has once again shown bad judgment, and disdain for both his office and the public.
O'Keefe and Cummings are Republicans, inheritors of a long, honored tradition around here that has been eroded both by more liberal newcomers and the party's own weakness. Their relationship in this election season is another example of the latter.
Here's the problem:
Sheriff Cummings' department, to put it mildly, is in deep disarray. District Attorney O'Keefe should be investigating everything about it, top to bottom, cooperating with a Massachusetts State Ethics Commission probe into corruption and conflict of interest, and prosecuting deputies already accused of crimes.
Yet, for all the world to see, O'Keefe retains Cummings at the head of his re-election campaign, making the sheriff his most trusted adviser and public figurehead.
We'll ask the rhetorical question: What kind of message does that send both within government and to the public at large?
We'll answer that rhetorical question: The DA is broadcasting, "The sheriff is my friend, the sheriff has my protection."
He may deserve friendship, about that we cannot judge. But he doesn't deserve protection.
We do.
Let's start with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission investigation:
From what we can tell -- mostly from fine investigative reporting by the daily Cape Cod Times -- the ethics commission is responding to a number of charges arising from within the sheriff's own department. One of them is that during work hours, a top Cummings deputy told a corrections officer whose family owns a septic service company to arrange for septic work on the deputy's home in West Barnstable.
The top deputy, Richard Bonavita, reportedly also has been accused of overstepping his authority in more than a dozen situations, such as supplying cheap inmate labor to a local business in return for gifts, and taking equipment from the county for personal use. Bonavita has been out of service, on worker's compensation, for more than 18 months, yet was seen working at a local police supply store during the time he supposedly has been incapacitated, and collecting.
Meanwhile, the corrections officer whose family owns the septic company, Michael T. Robinson, was himself arrested in late August, charged with shoplifting out of two stores in the Cape Cod Mall. Robinson was been a deputy sheriff since 2003; turns out, again according to the Times, that since 1989, his driver's license has been suspended repeatedly, and he's been ticketed for speeding eight times.
We should mention that Robinson is the fifth -- that's right, fifth -- deputy sheriff arrested this calendar year. As of mid-September, one had reached a plea bargain with prosecutors (meaning O'Keefe's office). Two had been cleared of charges ("prosecuted" by O'Keefe's office). Two were awaiting trial.
One of the two cleared, Robert Montalto, charged with drunk driving when he allegedly slammed into three cars in South Yarmouth, was found innocent mainly because the prosecution could not prove beyond doubt that Montalto was driving the car at the time. After all, it was registered to his brother Stephen -- who, by the way, also is a deputy sheriff in Cummings' department.
Montalto has been reinstated, as has another officer acquitted of domestic abuse.
Just for context, one of the two officers still facing charges as of mid-September, Gregory W. DeLuca, who allegedly assaulted his girlfriend in early July, reportedly fought off four police officers and four Taser blasts before submitting. As the melee proceeded, DeLuca reportedly yelled, "I'm a [expletive] cop! You can't do this!" After being arrested for assault and battery, as well as assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest, DeLuca was released on bail.
Bail was $40.
It's not up to us to establish whether there has been abuse of power in Sheriff Cummings' domain, or corruption, or why five deputy sheriffs (supposedly checked out before they were hired) have been arrested on everything from shoplifting to drunk driving to weapons violations to assault and domestic abuse. It's not up to us to find out whether the sheriff's former right-hand man has violated worker's compensation law, or used his office for personal gain. And it's not up to us to find out whether Cummings knew about these abuses, participated or even profited from them.
That should be up to the top law enforcement official on the peninsula, our champion, our watchdog. And that, so the civics books say, is Michael O'Keefe.
There is no way O'Keefe can investigate, let alone prosecute, his campaign manager. His office has no credibility in this regard, no arm's length relationship. Any district attorney with an iota of respect for the public and office would have acknowledged that, and removed Cummings from the position -- if only to at least gloss over the outrageous appearance of conflict of interest, even if behind the scenes he was doing his business-as-usual, good-old-boy backslap.
But you can almost hear the words forming in the mind of this political, parochial, and insecure DA, having created yet more proof of his unwillingness to separate personal interest from public responsibilities:
"Hey, no big deal. I'm running unopposed."
All materials on this site copyright 2001-2006 by The Cape Cod Voice, all rights reserved.

---

Posted by: pahapoika

and lost I think they said her gold badge whatever that means.

gold stars are for deputies , silver for correction officers

just curios , how big is the circulation for the cape cod voice and what is their keen interest in the Barnstable Sheriff's Office ?

---

Posted by: Ritchie787

Thier interest is simple, they clearly state in the article the recognition of corruption within the Sheriff's Department. The Cape Cod Times recognizes this as well, but I believe find it politiclly incorrect to print it as the Voice did. They were very stong statements, and the facts are glaring.
The Sheriff in his retaliation to whom ever wrote the complaint, dreamt up a new policy to discipline anyone who uses 6 or more days of sick time in a calendar year. The penalties ranged from suspentions, to taking thier gold badges as a way to publicly embarass the officer. They were very inconsistant with the sanctions as to how much of a good ole boy you were or were not.
With the union president in thier back pocket they got away with it.

---

Posted by: pahapoika

the few people i've met seem OK and having a retired trooper for sheriff should be an improvement over some of the hacks that are running other county departments in the state

---

Posted by: Ritchie787

Not so, its all in the article. Cummings is one of the biggest political hacks in the state. He's covered up more crap in that department, just so he doesn't look bad. You would have to ask the biggest question, He's known about the ethics complaint against Bonavita for more than 3 years, as a former investigator, why wouldn t he conduct his own and fire the shit bum.
Bonavita had more complaints against him by staff of harrassment, with that and the ethics complaint he should have been fired. Instead gave him a medical retirement with a signed paper not to talk bad about Cummings.
Think again if you think he's better than any other Sheriff. More like a born liar.

---

Posted by: Ritchie787

Corruption of Sheriffs

and Jim Cummings in particular.

e Official Website of the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission Mass.Gov
Massachusetts State Ethics Commission

• State Ethics Commission Home
• Mass.Gov Home
• State Agencies
• State Online Services

In Massachusetts State Ethics Commission In Mass.Gov Search
PRESS RELEASES

(Full text of enforcement actions is available upon request.
To request a copy, call the State Ethics Commission at 617-371-9500.)

February 5, 2008
State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division Alleges Former Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Superintendent Richard Bonavita Violated the Conflict of Interest Law

The Massachusetts State Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, in an Order to Show Cause issued on January 31, 2008, alleges that former Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Operations Richard Bonavita repeatedly violated sections 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of G.L. c. 268A, the state’s conflict of interest law, by directing a Sheriff’s Office mechanic to perform free automobile repairs for Bonavita and one of Bonavita’s immediate family members. A public hearing will be scheduled within 90 days.
According to the Order to Show Cause, on several occasions beginning in February 2002, Bonavita directed an auto mechanic under his supervision to repair one of Bonavita’s immediate family member’s personal vehicles. The repairs included work on the vehicle’s windshield motor, timing belt, and CV shaft. Bonavita directed the mechanic to perform some of the repairs at the Sheriff’s Office, both during and after the mechanic’s regular work hours, using Sheriff’s Office facilities and equipment. Bonavita also directed the mechanic to perform repairs on a second vehicle owned by the family member after the mechanic’s work hours at Bonavita’s residence. On another occasion, Bonavita directed the mechanic to work on a third vehicle during his work hours at an automobile dealership prior to Bonavita’s purchase of the vehicle.
Section 23(b)(2) of the conflict law prohibits a public employee from using or attempting to use his position to secure for himself or others an unwarranted privilege of substantial value not properly available to similarly situated individuals. The Enforcement Division alleges that Bonavita violated section 23(b)(2) by securing free automobile repairs worth $50 or more for himself and his family member from a subordinate employee.
Section 23(b)(3) of the conflict law prohibits a public official from knowingly or with reason to know acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that anyone can improperly influence or unduly enjoy the public employee’s favor in the performance of his official duties. The Enforcement Division alleges that Bonavita violated section 23(b)(3) by supervising the mechanic during and after the time that the mechanic performed free automobile repairs for Bonavita and his family member.

Send us your comments - Email this story - Cape Cod Voice Home
Call the sheriff: The most outrageous campaign manager of all is Michael O'Keefe's

Our look at campaign managers in the state rep races this issue is meant to be just one more way of finding insight into the candidates, their networks and priorities. After all, a politician is only as good as the people in his or her orbit.
And so we'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge the most telling, and outrageous, campaign manager/candidate relationship in this political season:
Barnstable County Sheriff James Cummings heading the re-election campaign of District Attorney Michael O'Keefe.
O'Keefe is running unopposed, which in itself is a sad state of affairs. Our district attorney has proven himself unfit for the job, both professionally and personally; professionally by trying to coerce DNA samples from every able-bodied man in an entire Cape Cod town (supposedly to solve a crime for which he already had the evidence he wanted in hand), personally by tawdry attempts to parlay his position and privileged information into a sexual relationship with a woman writer.
Now, by having "Jimmy" Cummings as the symbolic head of his opponent-less campaign, O'Keefe has once again shown bad judgment, and disdain for both his office and the public.
O'Keefe and Cummings are Republicans, inheritors of a long, honored tradition around here that has been eroded both by more liberal newcomers and the party's own weakness. Their relationship in this election season is another example of the latter.
Here's the problem:
Sheriff Cummings' department, to put it mildly, is in deep disarray. District Attorney O'Keefe should be investigating everything about it, top to bottom, cooperating with a Massachusetts State Ethics Commission probe into corruption and conflict of interest, and prosecuting deputies already accused of crimes.
Yet, for all the world to see, O'Keefe retains Cummings at the head of his re-election campaign, making the sheriff his most trusted adviser and public figurehead.
We'll ask the rhetorical question: What kind of message does that send both within government and to the public at large?
We'll answer that rhetorical question: The DA is broadcasting, "The sheriff is my friend, the sheriff has my protection."
He may deserve friendship, about that we cannot judge. But he doesn't deserve protection.
We do.
Let's start with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission investigation:
From what we can tell -- mostly from fine investigative reporting by the daily Cape Cod Times -- the ethics commission is responding to a number of charges arising from within the sheriff's own department. One of them is that during work hours, a top Cummings deputy told a corrections officer whose family owns a septic service company to arrange for septic work on the deputy's home in West Barnstable.
The top deputy, Richard Bonavita, reportedly also has been accused of overstepping his authority in more than a dozen situations, such as supplying cheap inmate labor to a local business in return for gifts, and taking equipment from the county for personal use. Bonavita has been out of service, on worker's compensation, for more than 18 months, yet was seen working at a local police supply store during the time he supposedly has been incapacitated, and collecting.
Meanwhile, the corrections officer whose family owns the septic company, Michael T. Robinson, was himself arrested in late August, charged with shoplifting out of two stores in the Cape Cod Mall. Robinson was been a deputy sheriff since 2003; turns out, again according to the Times, that since 1989, his driver's license has been suspended repeatedly, and he's been ticketed for speeding eight times.
We should mention that Robinson is the fifth -- that's right, fifth -- deputy sheriff arrested this calendar year. As of mid-September, one had reached a plea bargain with prosecutors (meaning O'Keefe's office). Two had been cleared of charges ("prosecuted" by O'Keefe's office). Two were awaiting trial.
One of the two cleared, Robert Montalto, charged with drunk driving when he allegedly slammed into three cars in South Yarmouth, was found innocent mainly because the prosecution could not prove beyond doubt that Montalto was driving the car at the time. After all, it was registered to his brother Stephen -- who, by the way, also is a deputy sheriff in Cummings' department.
Montalto has been reinstated, as has another officer acquitted of domestic abuse.
Just for context, one of the two officers still facing charges as of mid-September, Gregory W. DeLuca, who allegedly assaulted his girlfriend in early July, reportedly fought off four police officers and four Taser blasts before submitting. As the melee proceeded, DeLuca reportedly yelled, "I'm a [expletive] cop! You can't do this!" After being arrested for assault and battery, as well as assault and battery on a police officer and resisting arrest, DeLuca was released on bail.
Bail was $40.
It's not up to us to establish whether there has been abuse of power in Sheriff Cummings' domain, or corruption, or why five deputy sheriffs (supposedly checked out before they were hired) have been arrested on everything from shoplifting to drunk driving to weapons violations to assault and domestic abuse. It's not up to us to find out whether the sheriff's former right-hand man has violated worker's compensation law, or used his office for personal gain. And it's not up to us to find out whether Cummings knew about these abuses, participated or even profited from them.
That should be up to the top law enforcement official on the peninsula, our champion, our watchdog. And that, so the civics books say, is Michael O'Keefe.
There is no way O'Keefe can investigate, let alone prosecute, his campaign manager. His office has no credibility in this regard, no arm's length relationship. Any district attorney with an iota of respect for the public and office would have acknowledged that, and removed Cummings from the position -- if only to at least gloss over the outrageous appearance of conflict of interest, even if behind the scenes he was doing his business-as-usual, good-old-boy backslap.
But you can almost hear the words forming in the mind of this political, parochial, and insecure DA, having created yet more proof of his unwillingness to separate personal interest from public responsibilities:
"Hey, no big deal. I'm running unopposed."
All materials on this site copyright 2001-2006 by The Cape Cod Voice, all rights reserved. Reproduction by permission only.

---

Posted by: chiefwiggum

Nobody cares what the Sheriff does.

---

Posted by: sherifflittle

hey CAP THIS!...mmwwwaaaaa

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser