This Moment in Corruption: The Case of the Larcenous Postal Supervisor

Federal authorities have made known the story of a longtime U.S. Postal Service employee who developed something on the side in the cocaine trade.

The Office of Acting U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Nathaniel R. Mendell announced Oct. 22 that Shawn M. Herron, 44, a resident of Whitman, has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute and one count of theft of mail by a postal employee.

A press release from Mendell's office states that Herron has been employed with the Postal Service since 2005 and has served as Supervisor of Customer Service at the Canton Post Office and, more recently, as Manager of Customer Services at the Fall River Post Office (FPO).

"Herron tracked packages he suspected of containing narcotics," the release says, "and, rather than dealing with them appropriately, opened them and stole the contents.  Specifically, Herron profiled priority parcels from Puerto Rico and West Coast states, as well as parcels flagged by law enforcement as potentially containing illegal narcotics, and then removed them from the mail stream."

The release continues, "Herron tracked the suspected parcels through Postal Service databases and monitored their arrival at the FPO.  After their arrival, Herron located the parcels and brought them to his personal office space, where he stole the narcotics for distribution."

Herron is looking at some serious punishment.

The distribution charge provides for a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, five years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $500,000.

The theft of mail charge carries a prison sentence of up to five years, three years of supervised release, and a $250,000 fine.

COVID Recovery Bill Notable for Its Broad Scope and Slow Motion

SECOND OF TWO PARTS 

On June 28, Governor Charlie Baker submitted to the legislature An Act Relative to Immediate COVID Recovery Needs, saying he wanted to use $2.915 billion of direct federal aid to address "urgent hardships and challenges" facing those hit hard by the pandemic, including "communities of color and low-wage workers."

Line Item 1599-2032 in this bill, now designated House Bill 3922, calls for $400 million in grants for municipal water and sewer infrastructure improvements.  It specifies that grants be used to remediate "combined sewer overflow into waterways, including projects to improve water quality in the Merrimack River."

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) happen during heavy rainstorms in some communities with old underground pipes handling both rainwater run-off and sewage.  When run-off and sewage reach the pipes' capacity limits, water system operators direct the overflows to natural waterways; otherwise, sewage would  back up into homes, businesses and other structures, to devastating effect.

The problem is particularly acute along the Merrimack River, a drinking water source for communities like Lowell, Methuen, Andover, Tewksbury and Lawrence.  Hundreds of millions of gallons of raw sewage are diverted every year into the river because of CSOs.  

Baker's bill is a Godsend to those living along the Merrimack or in one of the communities that take their drinking water from it.  If it only cleaned up the Merrimack, it would be a monumental achievement...but there's so much more it would do. 

HB3922 proposes new spending in multiple areas, including the following:

• $300 million to support expanded homeownership opportunities, focusing on first-time homebuyers who reside in municipalities disproportionately impacted by COVID.
• $200 million to support housing production and related efforts that seek to help communities of color "build wealth by promoting homeownership among residents of disproportionately impacted municipalities."
• $200 million to produce rental housing and provide increased housing options to workers and residents of disproportionately impacted municipalities.
• $300 million to finance the statewide production of housing for veterans and senior citizens.
• $250 million to support investments and regional collaboration aimed at invigorating downtowns across the state.
• $100 million for downtown development that will specifically spur economic growth in neighborhoods disproportionately impacted by COVID.
• $100 million for cultural facilities and tourism state-wide.
• $240 million for job training programs addressing workforce skills gaps, thereby helping Massachusetts citizens secure the jobs that most need to be filled at this time.
• $50 million for "fiscally stressed" hospitals in disproportionately impacted municipalities.  (The Governor pointed out, "These hospitals have taken extraordinary measures to support their communities during the pandemic, despite interruptions to their revenue streams.")
• $175 million for addiction treatment and related behavioral health services.
• $100 million "to close the digital divide and increase broadband internet access."
• $100 million for marine port development.

The flood of federal dollars brought to Massachusetts by the pandemic is so large that, even if this $2.9 billion-dollar legislation were enacted and implemented as is, $2 billion in federal COVID relief would remain on the table for the legislature to spend as it sees fit.

Despite having the word "immediate" in its title, House 3922 seems to be inching along in the House.  Officially filed on June 30 and sent to House Ways & Means, a hearing on the bill was not held until September 15. No official steps have been taken on it since.

Great is the temptation to think the legislature may be slow-walking the bill because lawmakers are unhappy with the Baker-authored $2.9-billion/$2-billion split in control of the funds between the administration and legislature, respectively. In the filing letter accompanying the bill, Baker made it clear that he wanted to put "his" $2.9 billion to immediate use.  The Governor's patience is no doubt wearing thin.

COVID Recovery Bill Takes Aim at a Nasty, Old Problem

FIRST OF TWO PARTS

The big problem that Massachusetts has always had with combined sewer overflows got a whole lot worse this year because of the many heavy rainstorms we've had.

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) occur mainly in older municipalities with antiquated sewage systems.  These communities have some old pipes that must do double-duty: carry both rainwater run-off and sewage.  It's a problem, for example, in Lynn, Gloucester, Lawrence, Lowell, Fitchburg, Holyoke and Springfield.

When there's lots of rain, wastewater system operators in these places have no choice but to mix untreated sewage with rainwater and send that noxious mix into natural bodies of water, such as rivers.  Otherwise, sewage would back up into homes and other buildings.

That means lots of human waste floating here and there after heavy rainstorms, endangering human health, as well as aquatic life and riverine ecosystems.  The dangers become particularly acute in cases like that of the Merrimack River, which has long served as the drinking water supply for several Merrimack Valley communities, such as Lowell, Methuen, Andover, Tewksbury and Lawrence.

From January through August of this year, there were 80 separate CSOs  into waterways within the service zone of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority.  The MWRA estimates those discharges put a total of 594 million gallons of water-sewage mix into various waterways.  Compare that to the entirety of  2020, when there were 58 separate CSOs containing 259 million gallons in total, according to the MWRA.

The problem, so far this year, is 129% worse than in all of last year!  

We have one month (September) not yet accounted for and three months (October, November, December) to come when the problem could become extreme.

To gain a sharper perspective on the ugliness of this all, I did some calculations on how many acre-feet of water-sewage mix you can have with a CSO.  (An acre-foot describes an acre of land covered by a liquid to a uniform depth of one foot.)  I figured that the 594 million gallons of CSOs we've had from January through August of this year in the MWRA zone could have covered the entire 33 acres of Boston's gleaming new Seaport District to a depth of nearly two feet.

Fortunately, there are solutions on the horizon.

Governor Charlie Baker recently filed a bill that proposes to spend up to $400 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds for the Commonwealth on upgrades to water and sewer infrastructure, with a special focus on lessening CSOs.

House Bill 3922, An Act Relative to Immediate COVID Recovery Needs, would make those improvements under the auspices of the state's Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.  

On September 9, EOEEA Secretary Kathleen Theoharides provided remote testimony in favor of the bill to members of the House Ways & Means Committee.  At the time, she was sitting at a table set on the banks of the Merrimack River in Lawrence.

Pointing out that 130 million gallons of untreated sewage had flowed into the Merrimack over a span of two days recently during Tropical Storm Ida, Theoharides said, "The time to invest in adaptation is now.  It's not tomorrow or the next day."  She was referring to climate change adaptation.  

Scientists have conclusively determined that climate change caused by global warming is producing more frequent and more intense storms in certain parts of the globe.  Such storms are exacerbating the problem of CSOs in Massachusetts.

Water and sewer system upgrades are only one (relatively modest) part of the HB3922 cornucopia:  overall, the bill would spend $2.9 billion of federal funds on various and multiple projects throughout the state.

NEXT: A look at HB3922's many components.  To say this bill is a major spending plan is a gross understatement.  It is an historic piece of legislation.

Moulton Did the Unpopular but Correct Thing in Going to Afghanistan

For most people in Massachusetts politics, the beating that Seth Moulton has been taking in the press and on the airwaves these last couple of days on account of his unauthorized trip to Afghanistan would be difficult, if not painful.  But for Moulton, I suspect, this is very close to being a cause for laughter.  

When you are a Marine who's been fired at repeatedly in combat, as he has, what's a bunch of insults from pundits and fellow members of the political class?

I don't think, for example, that Moulton went into a tailspin after an unnamed "senior official" in the Biden administration gave the following description of his Afghan adventure to the Washington Post: 

"It's as moronic as it is selfish.  They're taking seats away from Americans and at-risk Afghans -- while putting our diplomats and service members at greater risk -- so they can have a moment in front of the cameras." [Washington Post]

Ditto for the commentary from Jon Keller, who called the trip "an especially clueless publicity stunt."  [Keller@Large, CBS Boston]

Here's a recap for those unfamiliar with the story:  

Moulton, a Democrat representing the Sixth Massachusetts District in Congress, and Peter Meijer, a Republican representing Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, took a commercial flight from Washington to the United Arab Emirates on Monday, paying for the tickets themselves. They then flew to Kabul on a military aircraft, arriving Tuesday morning, Aug. 24.  Moulton and Meijer, both veterans of the Iraq war, said they were on a fact-finding visit, exercising their Congressional oversight rights upon the executive branch of government as President Biden commands a massive, ongoing evacuation of Americans and Afghanis from the capital of a country now in the hands of the Taliban. They remained at the airport in Kabul, the only place in the country still occupied by U.S. troops, for just under 24 hours before leaving on a military flight.  Moulton and Meijer emphasized that they left Kabul "on a plane with empty seats, seated in crew-only seats to ensure that nobody who needed a seat would lose one because of our presence." 

This situation first struck me as a very bad idea.  Two Congressmen interviewing troops amidst the stress and danger of a final, forced retreat from a futile war, I thought, was like a city councilor going to an out-of-control, multiple-alarm fire to ask the firefighters, "Hey, how's it going, guys?"

Then I recalled the words I always got from the boss when I was learning how to be a newspaper reporter a very long time ago.  "You've got to get on the ground," he would say.

That meant there was no substitute, such as a phone call, for actually seeing a situation with your own eyes and asking questions face-to-face of the people directly involved.

So I give credit to Moulton and Meijer for having the guts and the determination to get on the ground in Afghanistan at this big moment in U.S. history.

And I'll take Seth Moulton, an officer and a gentleman, at his word when he says he learned a couple of things he would not have learned had he stayed home.  

One, Moulton said, he believed before his trip that the U.S. should extend its Aug. 31 deadline to leave Afghanistan because it would not be long enough to get everyone out who should be out.  Now, he believes we should stick to the Aug. 31 deadline because "there's no way we can get everyone out, even by Sept. 11 (Biden's initial, pre-fall-of-Afghanistan deadline).  So we need to have a working relationship with the Taliban after our departure.  And the only way to achieve that is to leave by Aug. 31." 

Second, Moulton said, "...one of the critical things we learned from our visit is that the task force prioritizing all special immigrant visa applications (by Afghans now desperate to leave the country) is overwhelmed by requests from members of Congress.  That's never  been communicated to us, but that is something that we are now communicating to our colleagues."  

[Source: Last two comments by Moulton appeared in yesterday's edition of The New York Times.]

ENDNOTE: In its first account of the Moulton-Meijer trip, The Washington Post reported that the two got from the United Arab Emirates to Afghanistan because they "figured out a way onto an empty military flight going into Kabul."  One has to wonder if the officer who OK'd that votes Republican. 

Recommendation: Lend Leader Tarr an Ear. Sit Back. Appreciate.

In the summer of 2017, I was working on a film to be shown during the upcoming celebration of the 20th anniversary of the founding of a client of ours, Fishing Partnership Support Services, a non-profit that provides services to commercial fishermen and their family members.  One of the persons to be featured was the longtime (and still-serving) state senator from Gloucester, Bruce Tarr, Republican minority leader of the Massachusetts Senate for these past 10-plus years.  An interview with him was arranged for a Friday afternoon on the back deck of a restaurant on Gloucester Harbor, before dining hours.  I was off-camera, asking questions from a written list.  Tarr answered, facing the camera set up behind me.  The interview lasted about 40 minutes and yielded more solid content than we'd possibly have room for -- not a bad problem to have.  

Tarr answered all of the 15 or so questions substantively and well.  But that is not what I remember most about that day.  What remains fresh in mind, four years later, was how he answered each question in full sentences and paragraphs that were shaped so well you'd think they were the products of multiple, written revisions.  And he did it all off the cuff, no notes in hand, no aide nearby to cue him, and with not a single pause or stray remark.

For media purposes, I've done numerous formal interviews, both audiotaped and videotaped.  This was the first where a subject never stopped in the middle of an answer and asked to begin again, or, after concluding a response and thinking about it a bit, asked for a complete do-over because he felt he'd missed the mark and would do much better in a second attempt.  Tarr's first take of every answer was the last we'd need. 

I was not totally surprised.  A member of the bar, Tarr has a warranted reputation as an orator at the State House and across his disparate Senate district (the 1st Essex and Middlesex), which sprawls from Cape Ann to North Andover and from West Newbury to Wilmington.  He has the gift of spontaneous eloquence and it never seems to desert him.  

The memory of that interview came to me as I was reading the State House News Service account of a July 29 discussion on the Senate floor concerning overrides of items vetoed by Governor Charlie Baker in the new Fiscal Year 2022 state budget.  

Specifically, I was caught by the veto of a proposal to delay for one more year implementation of a state income tax deduction of 5% of all charitable donations.  Endorsed by the voters in a statewide referendum question nearly 21 years ago, the deduction has been put off repeatedly by legislative fiat, including most recently during House/Senate FY2022 budget deliberations.   

On July 29, Minority Leader Tarr was in his normal, required role of pressing the majority party to account for its thinking and decision-making on matters coming up for votes by the full Senate. 

Thanks to the State House News Service, we are able to pick up the Senate discussion at the point where Tarr asks Mike Rodrigues, D-Westport, Senate chair of Ways & Means, to explain why Baker's veto of the latest delay in implementing state income tax deductions for donations to charities is wrong and why the Senate should vote to override it.  

"I'm hoping," Tarr said, "that this is an area where we (the Senate) can agree with the wisdom and the insight of the governor.  I'm hoping we can also benefit from the wisdom and the insight of the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means.  I hope my good friend will be able to provide us with his perspective."

Rodrigues responded, "I rise today in opposition to the governor's veto of the one-year delay of the charitable tax deduction.  If allowed to go into effect this year, the charitable deduction will cost the Commonwealth $64 million in FY22 and over $300 million each year thereafter. 

"While it is true," Rodrigues said, "that our (the state's) fiscal situation has recently improved, we are not out of the woods yet, and the (federal) charitable deduction already provides a very significant incentive (to donate to charities).  A one-year delay will allow us to better assess the Commonwealth's long-term stability and further explore a more effective way to support our non-profits."

Tarr retorted that, "...while I appreciate my good friend's explanation of this and his rationale asking for additional delay, I urge all of us to vote to eliminate this particular delay."

He continued:

"It's very interesting.  The suggestion is that an additional year would provide us with the ability to have more wisdom and insight relative to this matter, but in fact, we've had nearly 20 years of delay relative to this particular item, an item approved by the voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a margin of 72 percent.  Seventy-two percent of the voters of the Commonwealth in 2000 suggested this was a beneficial action to take because it would catalyze the ability to invest in the non-profit organizations of the Commonwealth, which we have repeatedly seen throughout the 20 years during which we have not acted in the way that was mandated by the voters of the Commonwealth are indispensable to the life of our state.

"Madam President (Senate Prez Karen Spilka), what we're talking about here is an item that we should have acted upon a long time ago, and yet, when we were faced with what we thought was going to be a very challenging budget situation not that long ago, it was prudent to say let's postpone this an additional year because we don't want this to be the action that destabilizes the state budget.

"Now, however, it's very clear it would not be the action that destabilizes the budget, given that in Fiscal 2021, we have a projected surplus of $1.5 billion, and in Fiscal 2022, it's projected to grow to $4 billion. 

"We're talking about a $64 million amount of money.  Over the long term, on an ongoing basis, it's likely to be about $300 million (per year).  Madam President, when we think about that, we have to think about it fitting into the context of a budget that is growing, we have to think about growing revenue, and we have to think about why we would postpone this again, after 20 years of delay, and ignore what the voters of the Commonwealth have directed us to do.

"You can't argue it would destabilize the budget, and if you believe that somehow this needs to be revisited, why not give the benefit of the doubt to the non-profit organizations we have heralded repeatedly in this chamber for the work they've been doing?  Why wouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt and take the year to analyze it after we've helped them?

"We have done so many things during the COVID-19 pandemic to try to support the work of organizations like the ones that would benefit from the proceeds of this charitable tax deduction, and yet we speak often of the urgency of keeping them alive, helping them to continue to operate because of what has happened to them throughout the last several months, perhaps the last year.  When they were surveyed by the Massachusetts Nonprofit Network, 95 percent of those who responded said they were experiencing or anticipated experiencing impacts as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak.  Ninety-five percent!

"We have time and again in this chamber, and appropriately so in so many instances, said we need to come to the rescue of agencies and organizations that have helped people through the COVID-19 pandemic.  We have done that primarily through the expenditure of state revenue.  Should we not also consider on an equal footing foregoing some state revenue so that we can also support them (additionally) with tens of millions of dollars and ultimately hundreds of millions of dollars (in new tax-incentivized contributions)?

"Is this just a choice where we're going to suggest when we spend money to help non-profits, that is something that is desirable, but when we forego revenue so they can have a benefit, that is somehow less important or less desirable or should be disqualified?  I don't believe we should.

"There's been some discussion made of who benefits from this particular tax credit, and some have suggested it would benefit high-income taxpayers.  It would benefit them because they stand to be able to provide the most resources to the organizations we're trying to assist.  Second of all, it's been estimated that among middle- and low-income taxpayers who would benefit from this credit, the number would rise and would total over 600,000 middle- and low-income taxpayers.

"When we talk about the severity of the situation we're trying to respond to with regard to the non-profits, 95% of them that responded to the survey indicated they were experiencing (pandemic) impacts or were expecting to experience impacts.  Fifty-two percent of them characterized the severity of the impacts as 'high,' 43% said 'moderate,' and only 5% characterized the impacts as 'low.'  Of those that responded, 63% said they're experiencing or anticipate a decrease in their revenues as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.  Fourteen percent reported no change and 23% reported that they were unsure.  Of the respondents, 31% reported experiencing or anticipating an increase in expenses.

"I can't stress it enough: these are organizations that have been helping people stay warm in their homes, keep food on their tables, have access to health care, and in so many other instances, they have been responding directly to the needs of the people of the Commonwealth.  Is their only problem that they're not directly funded through the state budget?  I would hope that's not the case.

"If there is a problem with what the voters mandated us to do back in 2000, then it should be the subject of the exhaustive work that's been done around here and apparently still is being done relative to the tax code, but over 20 years, we have not seen an attempt to remove this from the law, to confront it directly, and to say, 'We don't think this is good public policy.  We don't think what you (the voters) have directed us to do is appropriate, so let's change it.'

"We saw a set of triggers imposed (relative to a voter-mandated reduction in the state income tax), which we've now reached, when we derailed what voters mandated us to do.  We said, 'We know better.  Let's take a set of metrics, and if we meet those metrics for prosperity, for revenue, we will allow what you directed us to do to happen.'  Those things have happened, which is why, ultimately, after far too long of a delay, the income tax rate was reduced.  It's why this (deduction) should occur, as well, because we met the metric when we substituted our judgment for that of the voters of the Commonwealth.

"We shouldn't delay another year -- not another year when we're projecting billions of dollars in surplus and we have non-profit organizations reporting the distress that they're experiencing after the work that they have done that has been so important to our collective response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

"If we want to study this, the best way to do that is to allow it to move forward.  Give the benefit of the doubt to the taxpayers, the voters, and the non-profit agencies that deserve to have this go into effect. And with it in effect, we can study its further impact.

"I hope the veto is sustained so that we can support the voters, the taxpayers and the organizations that it is beyond dispute have played a critical role responding to the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic."

This was only one of the speeches on veto overrides Tarr made on July 29.  Per usual, he did not write it in advance and read it from a printed text.  He prepares well for the day's business and will look at notes on his desk sometimes.  But, when addressing the chamber, he will never look at a piece of paper unless asked a question and needs to check something.

When Tarr was done speaking on the override of the veto of the proposed one-year delay in allowing Massachusetts taxpayers to deduct 5% of the cost of charitable contributions, the roll was called.  Thirty-four of the 40 senators present (the full complement) voted to override it.  Besides Tarr, those voting to sustain the veto were two Republicans, Ryan Fattman of Sutton and Patrick O'Connor of Weymouth, and three Democrats, Diana DiZoglio of Methuen, Marc Pacheco of Taunton, and Walter Timilty of Milton.  (Tarr lost the vote, but I believe he won the argument for immediate implementation of the deduction.)

Here's something else to appreciate about Leader Tarr and how he approaches his job.  

I am pretty sure he knew before the Senate session on July 29 that he did not have the votes to sustain the governor's veto of the delay in charitable deductions.  Still, he made a full, sincere, credible case for immediate implementation.  The principle at stake was clearly important to him, as was the matter of loyalty to the leader of his state party.  He took his time and said everything he wanted to about the issue in the way he wanted to say it.  Then he accepted the rebuff of his peers and moved on.  

EPILOGUE:  On August 18, Governor Baker filed a bill relative to the allocation of funds from the last fiscal year's budget surplus.  The bill includes a section granting a 5% state income tax break on charitable donations, beginning in calendar year 2022.  According to a State House News Service article, Baker said, "I think this one's worth another look, and I hope the legislature gives it some serious consideration because, as I said, it's affordable, people voted on it, and many of the organizations that would benefit from this did a lot of really heavy lifting for us all over the course of the last 16 months."

Too Much to Expect a Script Change When MassGOP's Lyons Visits Trump

This past Thursday, August 5, former Andover state rep and current chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Party Jim Lyons and his wife met with former president Donald Trump at Trump's private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

After the meeting, Lyons sent a message to everyone on the party's email list. "Today," it said, "Bernadette and I had the opportunity to spend some time, one-on-one, with President Donald J. Trump.

"We talked about the pay-to-play cabal's $1 million bribe to 'cancel' my chairmanship of the Massachusetts Republican Party.  (This was a reference to a group of prominent Massachusetts Republicans who have publicly committed to raising a large amount of money for the party if it dumps Lyons.)

"I told him about our efforts to reform the MassGOP so that it works for you, the grassroots, and not for the elites and the connected class on Beacon Hill.

"We talked about putting Republican principles first.  I thanked him for fighting for all of us, for taking on the corrupt DC swamp, and for his absolutely fearless leadership.

"President Trump told me he's with us all the way.  He's seen the work we're putting in to bring a voter ID requirement to Massachusetts, ensure election integrity, and grow the grassroots.

"President Trump knows what it's like to take on the establishment.  He knows we're in the fight of our lives over the future of not just the Massachusetts Republican Party, but our commonwealth in general, and he's willing to extend a helping hand."

The message concluded with an appeal to donate to the party.  

"...every donation," Lyons wrote, "no matter how small, helps us put Republican principles in Massachusetts ahead of the elite special interests class."

It appears to have been a brief meeting.  Main subjects: Lyons's fight to remain as chairman amid continuing, serious internal opposition; the party's (doomed-from-the-start) quest for a Massachusetts voter ID law; and the need to increase membership in the party, with the standard complaints about the "swamp" in Washington and the Democratic lock on the Mass. legislature thrown in for good effect.  In other words, it was a totally predictable Lyons product.

But is anyone really looking to the Lyonses and Trumps of the world, in a summer when the northwest is dry and burning out of control, the southwest is even dryer and withering in unendurable heat, and we in the northeast see smoke from forest fires 2,000 miles away, to break out of their political molds and say something meaningful about the world's biggest issue?

Please check out (but not before trying to go to sleep tonight) the new analysis by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

https://www.unep.org/resources/report/climate-change-2021-physical-science-basis-working-group-i-contribution-sixth

This Moment in Corruption: Public Sector Has Seat at Auto Repair's Trickery Table.

The Office of Acting Massachusetts United States Attorney Nathaniel R. Mendell announced yesterday that Bahram Gharony of Boston has agreed to plead guilty in connection with "a scheme to embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars" from the Boston Police Department.  

"Defendant allegedly embezzled more than $260,000 from BPD in automotive supplies," said the headline on a press release from Mendell's office.  

Gharony, who is 36 years old and was formerly employed as an automotive repair technician by the department, has reportedly agreed to plead guilty to two counts of wire fraud.  

A plea hearing has not yet been scheduled in federal court, so a judge has not yet sentenced Gharony.  Here's other information on the case from the Mendell press release:

"According to the charging document, Gharony is alleged to have engaged in a scheme to defraud BPD's Fleet Management Division of over $260,000 in automotive parts, tools and supplies between June 2017 and September 2020.

"It is alleged that Gharony used his position to order parts and supplies that he purported were for BPD, but were actually converted and sold to others by Gharony.

"In an effort to conceal the scheme, Gharony allegedly submitted fraudulent and altered invoices to BPD for the parts, tools and supplies he falsely claimed were ordered for the fleet.  Additionally, Gharony purported that he had lawfully purchased the items through a discount available to BPD when selling the items to others."

Each of the charges of wire fraud here carry a potential sentence of up to 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross value of the gain or loss involved -- whichever is greater.

The Mendell press release emphasizes that "the details in the charging document are allegations," and that "the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law."

That is a necessary bit of caution on Mendell's part.  New information can emerge.  Defendants can decide to change pleas.  Judges can reduce charges against a defendant or even throw cases out altogether.

UPDATE:  On Dec. 14, 2021, Mr. Gharony was sentenced to two months in prison and three years of supervised release.  He was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $256,432.