State Charges Former COA Employee with Ethics Violations

The Enforcement Division of the State Ethics Commission alleged yesterday, July 7,  that former Belmont Council on Aging Home Care Coordinator Kathryn Christopher violated the state's conflict of interest law, by coordinating services for an elderly COA client  – who was diagnosed with dementia symptoms, and later, advanced Alzheimer's – and then selecting herself to provide that care. 

The ethic commission also alleges that Christopher violated the conflict law by accessing the elderly woman's funds and assets to pay for Christopher's personal and family expenses.

At the COA, Christopher's duties included developing service plans for the town's elderly clients who requested assistance, locating service providers to provide those services, and monitoring the service delivery. 

Town policy prohibits COA employees from privately providing services to COA clients. 

Beginning in early January 2003, Christopher, as the COA home care coordinator, evaluated the elderly client, and then assigned herself to privately provide those services instead of assigning an approved home care provider. 

The state confirmed that the elderly woman paid Christopher to provide private home care services while Christopher was also being paid by the COA to monitor those same services.  

The state alleges that Christopher exploited the trust she had developed with the elderly resident in her dual capacity as COA coordinator and private home care provider to gain access to the woman's assets and bank accounts. 

Christopher prepared checks for the resident to sign, including checks to pay herself for her services as care provider, as well as checks which paid for Christopher's personal and family expenses. 

Later, Christopher used money from the woman's savings account to pay for her personal and family expenses.  In addition, Christopher is alleged to have:

• Opened a post office box in the resident's name for which Christopher held the only key;
• Used the woman's credit cards to make substantial purchases of personal items, and did not reimburse her;
• Arranged for an attorney to change the woman's will to make Christopher the primary beneficiary of her estate (the first attorney Christopher contacted declined to change the will because of the mental state of the woman), and arranged to have her sign the will;
• Had the woman sign a health care proxy naming Christopher, and then, several months later, when the elderly resident was hospitalized,  authorized a "Do Not Resuscitate" order;
• Had the elderly client obtain a $200,000 loan secured by a mortgage on her mortgage-free home, and used the proceeds to pay for Christopher's personal and family expenses; obtained a second loan in the amount of $250,000 secured by a mortgage on the home, the proceeds of which she put in an account which Christopher used to pay Christopher's personal and family expenses;
• Used the elderly woman's personal savings to pay for $40,000 in renovations to her home, after which Christopher moved in along with her spouse and child, where they resided rent-free (even after the woman's death in 2007); and
• Accessed the elderly resident's savings account after the woman died in 2007 to pay for Christopher's personal and family expenses as well as expenses related to the Client's home.

According to the OTSC, Christopher used approximately $300,000 of the woman's money to pay for Christopher's personal and family expenses.

The Ethics Commission will schedule a public hearing in this matter within 90 days.