After a meeting Saturday, Water District Superintendent Michael Martin and Police Chief Richard Stanley have agreed that no criminal charges will be brought against two District employees cited for "improper conduct" by the State Inspector General's office.

"The issue will be closed with no criminal charges," wrote Chief Richard Stanley in an email on Saturday afternoon. "It is up to the Board [of the Wareham Fire and Water District] if they want to go to the Ethics Commission. As I stated before, the case remained open as I waited to see if the Board of Water Commissioners wanted to proceed with a criminal hearing which apparently they do not want to pursue."

"The chief and I have the exact same story," said Martin. "We've reviewed the file, and based on the information available, the District did not want to prosecute. The Chief wants a letter stating that, and I will do that Monday morning."

The citations of "improper conduct" were issued in a letter to Town Administrator Mark Andrews and Chairman of the Water Commissioners of the Wareham Fire District Water Department Edward Jay Tamagini in May and concerned two separate incidents.

In the first incident, the Inspector General's investigation found that a Water Department employee allowed a private citizen to take several loads of reclaimed asphalt from the District property over a weekend in June 2009.

In the second incident, the Inspector General found that a Water Department foreman (who had been fired in 2005 for moving fill but was reinstated and awarded back pay with interest after protesting) improperly asked for and received free fill for personal use from a project manager for P. Gioioso and Sons, a firm working on a sewer project in the Parkwood section of town. The water district foreman received two free truckloads of fill. The report estimated the value of this fill at $416, based on calculations that a private seller would charge $8 a yard for the 26 yards of fill.

In both cases, the individuals received written reprimands from Martin.

"They were disciplined in accordance with a progressive discipline taking into account all the facts: the seriousness of the infraction; the work history with the district; their willingness to cooperate," Martin said earlier in the week.  "Both employees are long-term, twenty-year employees.  Everybody's entitled to make a mistake.  In my opinion, these guys erred, but not to the degree that warrants criminal charges."

However, while the Inspector General did not explicitly judge the appropriateness of the punishments, it criticizes the Superintendent and Water Commissioners' failure to report "the matter to any State, County, or local law enforcement authority which may have had jurisdiction over the matter" and recommends that it do so.

Martin complied, and in a May 17 letter to Stanley, Martin requested an investigation into the "allegations and findings and to take whatever action you deem necessary and appropriate."

On June 8, he met with a Police Department Detective Doug Jacinto to discuss the case and the possibility of successful prosecution, specifically for the employee involved in stealing the reclaimed asphalt. (The fill was owned by the contractor, P. Gioioso and Sons, and they said they regularly give away fill to avoid having to pay for its disposal.)

After that meeting, there was confusion as to the next step.

Martin considered the matter finished.

"There was a discussion with the Wareham Police Department," Martin said. "Based on the information and the facts associated with the [reclaimed asphalt] incident, even if the district decided to press criminal charges, the probability of a criminal conviction would be remote. And given that the cost to the district would have been zero, [the reclaimed asphalt had been given to the district and was going to be disposed of, Martin said] I will take full responsibility for the decision not to file criminal charges."

Martin also noted that in addition to the police, the report was also sent to the ethics commission and the District Attorney's office. He has not received any response from either.

Stanley, however, was waiting for a written letter stating how the District, the victim in the theft of the reclaimed asphalt, wanted to handle the situation. He said that the District Attorney had read the document and agreed that criminal charges could be sought, but noted that the District Attorney also said it may be better handled by the State Ethics Commission.

"I will meet with the board to discuss their concurrence. I don't feel this issue warrants anything further," Martin wrote to Chief Stanley in a June 8 email, and he said that he would send a letter with the Water Commissioners response. The commissioners concurred, but a response was never sent.

"It fell off my radar," Martin said, explaining that he forgot about it since he felt the issue resolved.

Come Monday, however, both Stanley and Martin said they will consider the matter closed.