All the wrong we cannot see
This is a blog post by Joe Murphy. The opinions expressed are his own.
Corruption – what it means, how it shows up here in Quincy, and how to fight it – has been on my mind lately, thanks to recent headlines about a local official indicted for embezzlement.
That official, Tom Clasby, was dismissed last year as Quincy’s Director of Elder Services, a position he’d held since 1997, over unspecified “financial irregularities.” This month, Mr. Clasby, a longtime friend of the mayor’s, was indicted for allegedly embezzling $120,000 in city funds to buy luxuries for himself and his friends. The case garnered national attention due to the scale of the alleged theft and the lavishness of some of the purported purchases, including 150 pounds of bourbon steak tips, a lacquered and framed self-portrait, and 170 hours of studio time to record himself singing.
Mr. Clasby’s actions clearly seem to have run afoul of the law, but not all corruption, defined as “the misuse of office for private gain,” is illegal. It includes behaviors widely regarded as unethical, such as nepotism, cronyism, and pay-to-play practices.
While researching corruption, I came across a helpful concept known as the fraud triangle. According to this model, three key factors – motivation, rationalization, and opportunity – contribute to fraud. Understanding these factors can help combat fraud and corruption in Quincy and beyond.
Image - https://windhambrannon.com/
Motivation and Rationalization
The first two factors in the fraud triangle, motivation and rationalization, are internal to the schemer. Motivation can stem from simple greed or a complex mix of factors such as resentment, envy, and a warped sense of justice. Understanding why someone commits fraud and how they justify their behavior to themselves can help prevent future fraud.
Local workplace culture may play a role. I have heard of employees caught stealing who claimed they were improperly taught certain practices. A trainer might suggest that an unopened printer sitting in the supply closet is “just collecting dust” and that it would be more productive to take it home and print from there. Similarly, an unauthorized lunch with coworkers might be placed on the company credit card with the justification that it’s “good for morale.” These violations can feel less wrong when they are implicitly or explicitly sanctioned by a mentor. Once this type of behavior becomes ingrained in workplace culture, it can spread like a contagion.
The rationalization that these actions are morally ambiguous or fall into a gray area can evolve into statements like “I’m only borrowing this” or “I’ll pay it back after the holidays.” Over time, such thinking can escalate to sentiments like “I deserve this” or “the executives are doing the same thing.” These rationalizations, often referred to by psychologists and human resource professionals as moral disengagement, describe a mental process that “regulates the exercise of moral agency, allowing individuals to behave unethically despite the presence of internal moral standards.” This theory helps explain how someone who would not typically engage in unethical behavior begins to rationalize and commit such acts.
While we don’t know exactly why Mr. Clasby allegedly embezzled public funds or how he justified it to himself, it seems clear that his actions were not impulsive mistakes, like using the wrong credit card at a gas pump or accidentally mixing up Amazon accounts. Reports suggest his actions involved deliberate planning and deception. For example, Mr. Clasby allegedly directed invoices to be deceptively mislabeled, funneled $38,000 in cash through a friend’s New York consulting company (arranging handoffs at a turnpike rest stop and a ferry terminal), and pocketed up to $57,000 in cash payments made by seniors for classes and food at the Kennedy Center. The level of forethought required for these actions is deeply troubling.
Research shows that such behaviors are often progressive, starting with minor infractions or less direct offenses. The current indictment covers actions dating back to 2019, but Mr. Clasby faced accusations of misconduct a decade earlier. In 2009, he stepped down from the board of a nonprofit amid allegations of violating conflict-of-interest policies. According to The Patriot Ledger, Clasby facilitated his parents’ move into a recently vacated unit owned by the nonprofit, despite the unit being reserved for low-income seniors eligible for federal Section 8 housing. At the time, another couple was first on the waiting list.
Opportunity
The final factor in the “fraud triangle,” opportunity, is particularly interesting from a policy perspective. This is because it encompasses the conditions that allow fraud to occur and, importantly, can be managed by the organization rather than the potential fraudster. Stringent internal controls, robust auditing procedures, and a well-defined segregation of duties can help deter employees who might otherwise be tempted to commit fraud.
I’ve seen these systems work firsthand. As a college administrator, part of my job involves approving and reconciling expenses for other employees. On more than one occasion, I’ve had the unfortunate responsibility of reporting irregularities or suspicions about someone’s documentation or expense reports to the Human Resources and Finance departments. These reports sometimes resulted in punitive actions. These experiences underscored the critical importance of internal rules that prevent any single individual from approving or auditing their own expenses or having full, end-to-end control over financial processes.
While I don’t know the specifics of Quincy’s internal controls, the fact that Mr. Clasby is accused of stealing his department’s cash receipts for years without triggering any internal alarms suggests serious deficiencies – either in the systems themselves or in how they were implemented. In the end, it was an unnamed whistleblower, not the controls, who brought his alleged actions to light.
Connections
At this point, no one is accusing any other employees or city leadership of participating in or turning a blind eye to the crimes. From what has been reported, this appears to be a case of the accused exploiting systemic weaknesses and the trust he had gained over a long career.
But what role did Mr. Clasby’s personal connections with city leaders, including his close friendship with the mayor, play in gaining that trust, and thus in creating an opportunity for fraud?
One of Mr. Clasby’s purchases speaks to these personal connections. Mr. Clasby reportedly used $810 of public funds to buy 27 fleece jackets for a Catholic men's prayer group called “Men of Divine Mercy”. This group meets on Thursdays at Sacred Heart Church, and its leadership includes a number of prominent figures in Quincy’s local government: Mayor Koch, Public Works Commissioner Al Grazioso, Media Director Mark Carey, Natural Resources Commissioner Dave Murphy, Chief Financial Officer Eric Mason, and Special Counsel John Bacon.
Members of the Men of Divine Mercy prayer group. One of the 27 fleece vests purchased with taxpayer money is being worn by the gentleman on the far right. This picture was shared by someone on the AJQ mailing list who got it from Facebook.
And it seems that personal connection made the mayor think twice – however fleetingly – about holding Mr. Clasby accountable. On the January 14th, 2025, episode of AM Quincy, Mayor Koch told host Joe Catalano:
The day it came down with the information that a whistleblower brought forth, [I] immediately had the police chief take over the investigation. Immediately had the solicitor write a letter on my behalf putting [Clasby] on leave. Taking away his keys, his access to the building, etc. So we did everything we should do, and the feds confirmed that. So I felt good about that. In a sense, you know, the temptation is, “Oh boy, you know Tom [Clasby]'s been around a long time. What can we do to help him?” Well, you know, he made choices and now he's going to deal with the consequences of those choices.
I find that disturbing for a couple of reasons.
The administrative bar is too low. It should not be surprising or an accomplishment to handle a situation like this correctly. The Quincy taxpayer has a right to professionalism in their city government. Letting someone go for cause is a routine administrative procedure.
When the mayor said, “the temptation is, ‘Oh boy, you know Tom's been around a long time. What can we do to help him?’” that sounded to me like he flirted with (and thankfully dismissed) the idea of altering or withholding certain facts, which would have been a coverup. That should not be a temptation.
Tom Clasby held a position of authority for nearly 30 years and had close personal relationships with the mayor and other senior leadership. Did these dynamics create an environment where accountability was diminished, allowing misconduct to go unchecked? Did the whistleblower come forward as soon as they had knowledge of wrongdoing? Did they hesitate? Did they feel comfortable speaking truth to power?
Culture
Let’s bring in the third Tom in our story to speak to the culture around truth-telling in city government – which forms part of the “opportunity” side of the fraud triangle.
Thomas Corliss, a former Quincy police detective, was convicted and served jail time for charging overtime hours when he was not working. In other words, the former detective “collected double pay for working multiple details and/or police shifts that overlapped on multiple occasions in 2015.” At the time, Corliss was reportedly the highest-paid employee in Quincy, earning $265,000 per year. Like the Clasby scandal, the scheme unraveled thanks to someone with the courage to speak up.
Speaking truth to power seems to be very difficult in Quincy. Those who do are subject to accusations of “being negative”, “haters”, “naysayers” or “squawkers.” They are “not part of the team.” This has an impact when people weigh whether or not to report issues. Leo Coppens, a Quincy detective who became aware of Corliss’s payroll irregularities, acknowledged that among his first thoughts were worries about how a scandal would affect Police Chief Paul Keenan, a friend, and the mayor, whom the detective supported politically, according to the Ledger.
You will recall that while we were collecting signatures to try to repeal the mayor’s and council’s raises, residents expressed fear of the administration to A Just Quincy volunteers. Community members who work for the city, or who have loved ones who do, were nervous about signing petitions for fear of retribution. With that in mind, consider this interaction between a US Attorney and a police officer who had testimony to give regarding the Corliss matter.
“I wasn’t comfortable telling anyone else,” the officer said.
“Why?” DeSantis asked.
The officer said he was afraid of retribution.
DeSantis asked him if there had been incidents involving Corliss and other officers that would instill that worry in him.
“Yes,” the officer said, without getting into specifics. “There’s plenty of reasons why.”
Soft Corruption
Up to this point, most of our discussion has focused on illegal activities such as overtime fraud, embezzlement, and theft – offenses that can lead to indictment, conviction, and imprisonment. However, soft corruption, defined as “political and governmental activities that are legal but unethical,” is far more pervasive and has become the accepted way of doing business in many parts of the country.
Some of the most glaring examples of soft corruption involve campaign contributions from real estate developers to incumbent politicians. Developers and the businesses that support them, including attorneys, architects, and construction trades, frequently donate the maximum amount allowed by law to these officials (in Massachusetts, that works out to $1000/year/donor to any single candidate). Legal loopholes exist to bypass the individual donation limit, though. For instance, the owner of a construction company might donate the $1,000 maximum to a candidate, and their spouse and child might each contribute another $1,000, with the company’s second-in-command and their family members following suit. Such donations do not violate the letter of campaign finance law, but they would seem to violate its spirit.
This screengrab from the 2023 Office of Campaign and Political Finance report for Mayor Koch shows 12 separate $1000 donations from individuals connected to the same Quincy company.
I bring this issue up because elected leaders set the tone for city government. If soft corruption is accepted as standard practice, it becomes less surprising when we encounter more egregious forms of corruption. However campaign funding warrants a blog post of its own, so I’ll stop here.
As a reminder, A Just Quincy is collaborating with residents preparing to run for office later this year. I deeply hope we can identify and elect leaders who will prioritize the needs of the people they represent over those of special interest groups or wealthy influencers. Together, we can establish a foundation of moral engagement at city hall that prevents any aspect of the fraud triangle from taking hold.
If you want to tell us about corruption you have observed or experienced in Quincy, you can tell us anonymously. Our Google form below allows you to tell us your story without giving any identifying information. Alternatively, you can message us via Signal @ajustquincy.18.
