Neil reassured Lizzie and Fran that there seemed to be no immediate emergency, and he promised he would think about it and get back to them.

Neil resolved, first, to inquire of the police about truant officers and under whose authority they operate. He called them and was told they operate under authority of the school system. Neil gave the officer Lizzie's description of the man claiming to be a truant officer, just in case. He then spoke with Dr. Bonaventura who informed Neil he was, beyond being Superintendent of Schools, the sole truant officer of the Town of Camperdene. As such, he said, he did not go out and track down truant children. Anyone representing himself, or herself, as being a Camperdene truant officer would be an imposter. Neil asked if the best course, should this ever occur again, would be to detain the individual and call the police, and Dr. Bonaventura said yes.

When it came about that Lizzie Cunningham applied for the job of Administrative Assistant at the library, Dr. Bonaventura quietly slipped Neil a copy of The State Ethics Commission publication, "A Practical Guide to the Conflict of Interest Law for Municipal Employees." This document made it plain that Neil would be in violation of conflict of interest laws were he involved in the selection process through which the position would be filled. The State Ethics Commission noted that "Public employees must avoid conduct which creates a reasonable impression that they will act with bias. The law states that if a reasonable person having knowledge of the relevant circumstances would conclude that a public official or employee could be improperly influenced, the public official can dispel this impression of favoritism by disclosing all the facts which would lead to such a conclusion."

Any disclosure Neil might make regarding members of the Board of The Museum of the Year 2012 Trustees and their assorted familial or sordid relationships with museum staffers could cause even the brave to cry. Any "reasonable person" could see Neil's dread of further trustee harassment exercised an inflence over him which would lead to his "favoring," in his fear of further repraisals, the appointment of a particular Town and museum employee who had applied for the post. Accordingly, Neil made his disclosure. He could not recommend for or against the particular museum staffer who had applied for promotion to the position. For him to do so obviously would have been, one way or the other, a violation of the conflict-of-interest laws.

It now remained for an elected official, a museum trustee, to disclose, per The Practical Guide to the Conflict of Interest Law for Municipal Employees (page 20), "a personal relationship with someone appearing before his or her Board.. An elected official's public disclosure must be made in writing and filed with the city or town clerk. In addition, an elected official would be well advised to make a verbal disclosure for inclusion in meeting minutes if such an 'appearance' of a conflict arises in a public meeting. These disclosures must be made prior to any official participation or action.

"Once this public disclosure has been made, the official may participate in the matter notwithstanding the 'appearance of a conflict.' When officials do act on matters affecting individuals with whom they have a private relationship, they must act objectively and be careful not to use their official position to secure any unwarranted privilege or benefit for that person. Use of an official position to secure an unwarranted privilege for people is always prohibited, regardless of whether the disclosure process is followed." It was up to the Board of Trustees to consider what action would be taken in the matter of filling the vacant position.

The meeting came and went and, after it, Neil went to his office and typed up a letter to the Commissioner of the State Ethics Commission, Boston, Massachusetts:

"Dear Commissioner, Yesterday evening, at a meeting of the Board of The Museum of the Year 2012 Trustees, I informed the Board that under the terms of the State Ethics Commission's 'Practical Guide to the Conflict of Interest Law for Municipal Employees,' I could neither recommend for, or against, the promotion of a museum staffer 'favored' by an elected official, a museum trustee. 'To do so,' I informed the Board, 'would give the appearance of my succumbing to a trustee bribe and trustee influence well known among museum staff if not widely known by the public.' I herewith formally file a complaint concerning the undisclosed conflict of interest, asking that an investigation be conducted regarding Trustee/Staff relationships, the attempted bribery of a municipal employee by an elected official, and other related ethical dilemmas, and corruptions, that have too long plagued Camperdene."

On April 1st, Neil reported to the Town Accountant that, "at their last meeting, the Board of Library Trustees voted to table the filling of the M.A.P.E. Secretary to the Trustees/Director's Administrative Assistant post."

On April 12th, Neil wrote to Town Council Carson, "You will know that no one is more pleased than me to learn that Mr. Wallace Barrow, yesterday appointed Chairman of the Board of The Museum of the Year 2012 Trustees, has publicly pledged 'harmony.' This brings to mind the front page story of the Camperdene Daily Journal a few years ago, when it was reported, 'Bowing to the fact that in-fighting has tarnished their image, the Board of Library trustees last night unanimously elected Wallace Barrow as Chairman. The trustees unanimously selected Neil Wright new mmuseum curator. "It was time to set some good professional standards," said Dr. Michael Bonaventura. "As soon as I was made Chairman," Barrow said, "you could feel the spirit of unity".' "

Neil wrote to the head of M.A.P.E. , "I received your note of May 20, regarding this latest M.A.P.E. grievance filed for Ms Cunningham. As you were yourself present at the pertinent Library Trustees' meeting, you know that the matter of the filling of the vacant M.A.P.E. post, which had been formally tabled at a previous meeting, remained tabled. I could make no recommendation to the Board regarding the filling of the post. I believe the grievance, by virtue of my being formally unable to settle it, must now go to the next level, perhaps to be resolved by the Board of The Museum of the Year 2012 Trustees, who will next meet on Wednesday, June 12, at 7:00 pm."

Neil wrote to Town Counsel Carson in June, "The Board of The Museum of the Year 2012 Trustees gave me the mandate to proceed with the interviewing of candidates from the pool of applicants who applied for the vacant MAPE post, Secretary to Trustees / Director's Administrative Assistant. But I find myself in a situation wherein I feel I cannot comply, for reasons which I will explain. First, let me ask if you will provide me with a copy of your recent letter to the Chairman of the Board of The Museum of the Year 2012 Trustees, Wallace Barrow, written in response to his inquiry regarding the above named vacant post. It has been said that there is 'only one' real candidate for the position, namely, that applicant who is currently a Camperdene Association of Paraprofessional Employees -- an employee of the the museum. As I am familiar with that individual's record, personnel file, and job performance, there is no way that I could recommend this individual to this position. Not to recommend this individual could lead to accusations of anti-union animus, or animus toward this individual's known alliance with the leading member of one faction of the longstanding "feuding" two factions of the Board of The Museum of the Year 2012 Trustees. While I honestly have no animus of any kind toward any staffer for any connection with, or participation in, any union, still it could be reasonably maintained that I feel animus toward the staffer for that staffer's widely reputed intimate connection with the current chairman of the Board. That trustee has himself made admission to me of his intimacy, and alliance, with this staffer. For me to comply with the wishes of the Board of Trustees, to recommend to them a candidate from the pool of applicants for the above named post seems, to me, to be an impossiblity. Clearly, I would be entering into a conflict of interest situation should I recommend the currently employed MAPE staffer, just as I would be were I not to recommend that staffer. Consider further: you are aware (at least you know that I have told you) one museum trustee has offered bribes to me relative to my showing favoritism to, and advancing, certain museum staffers, and has made threats against me when I have not complied. I need not tell you about certain 'protected' personnel files (overflowing with reprimands). In not recommending the one particular candidate, favored by one particular trustee, I could ultimately be understood to be reacting to the threat made, and accomplished, while a favorable recommendation by me on behalf of that staffer could be understood to be the acceptance, out of fear of further repurcussions, of the bribe. I authentically fear further repraisals from that trustee with whom the contesting MAPE applicant is, by his admission, so closely allied. With the non-renewal of my contract, I now no longer need fear the promised loss of my job should this staffer, and yet still another staffer, not be advanced. Still I fear further harassment, further abusiveness. It seems to me that my obligation, under the Ethics Commission's 'Practical Guide to the Conflict of Interest Law for Municipal Employees,' is neither to recommend for or against this particular promotion. I have no idea where this could take the Board in their formidable task of hiring an individual to this post. Please do hand down to me a formal opinion regarding Massachusetts conflict of interest laws in regards to this, a museum curator's removing himself from the process of selecting who shall fill just such a vacancy under the above named circumstances. I say I cannot make a recommendation; perhaps you will determine that I must. Also, regarding the trustees' filling the vacancy, should the currently employed MAPE staffer come under consideration for the filling of the post, would it not be warranted that a public disclosure be forthcoming from the elected official on the Board of Trustees with whom the staffer is well known to be intimate and allied? Doesn't such a disclosure have to be made, and the disclosure included in the meeting minutes? The State Ethics Commission advises an elected official publicly "make a verbal disclosure for inclusion in meeting minutes if...an 'appearance' of a conflict arises in a public meeting. These disclosures must be made prior to any official participation or action."

Neil wrote to the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission, "I am enclosing a courtesy copy of a letter written to Camperdene's Town Counsel regarding issues that not only trouble me greatly but have, in fact, affected me most adversely. I wish not only that you be aware of this situation, but that you might act in some way so as to help set aright a very bad situation, which deteriorates steadily. To that letter I am attaching related documents which, hopefully, will give you a context for evaluating this current situation in light of the overall recent history of The Museum of the Year 1912. Please understand that 'alliances' and 'counter alliances' seem to be at the root of the problem. Even our Town Council has made statements to me that suggest a strong and particular political alliance, which may yet aggravate my attempt to get appropriate legal advice. I am curious to know whether elected officials, namely library trustees, are exempt from such standards of ethics as Massachusetts municipal employees are held to (as disclosed in the Practical Guide to the Conflict of Interest Law for Municipal Employees) and, if they are not exempt, can somebody do something to see that they are held to such standards?"

It was almost four in the morning now, and Neil still had not gone home. Overcome with sudden dizziness, rapid heart beat, and difficulty breathing, Neil grabbed for his phone as he fell to the floor. He attempted to cease trembling, but could not. There was now a piercing pain in his chest, as if a spear had been driven through his heart. His discombobulation was increasing. Neil worried what might happen if he proved unable to get his body back under control. He dialed 911. He tried to speak, but could not. He could not make his body do his bidding. Convulsions came on. Neil lost control of himself. Something awful was going to happen, he knew.