The former director of information technology for the City of Everett was arraigned Friday in Malden District Court on a single count of larceny over $1,200, accused of using the city’s Amazon account to buy more than $98,000 in goods for himself over six years. Kevin Dorgan, 58, was arrested at his Everett home and released on personal recognizance with two conditions: stay away from Everett City Hall, and have no contact with any current or former city employee. A pretrial conference is set for October 22.
Dorgan is presumed innocent. What follows is what the Middlesex District Attorney’s office says it found, how the charge works, why a case about razors and video games carries a possible state prison sentence, and what the case does and does not have to do with the separate cyberattack that has kept Everett City Hall closed for more than a week.
What the District Attorney says
According to the office of District Attorney Marian Ryan, as reported by Boston 25 and NBC10 Boston, the investigation began after the city fired Dorgan in March 2026. Neither the city nor the DA has publicly stated the reason for the termination. After he left, the city inventoried his office “and other spaces” and found stacks of unopened packages. An initial look at the city’s Amazon purchasing history flagged orders the DA describes as “fraudulent,” mostly electric razors, bedding and clothing.
The full review, per the DA’s statement, found that “between 2020 and 2026, among the thousands of items purchased using the City of Everett Amazon Account were over 700 items valued at over $98,000 sent to his home,” and that “there were over 400 items that were identified as having no link to his employment.” Examples cited include Blu-ray players, video games and Apple AirPods. Some items went to his office, others to his home. Investigators searched a storage unit Dorgan rented and, NBC10 reports, found hundreds of items matching the purchase records.
The investigation is described as ongoing. NBC10 sought comment from the city and had not received it at publication. Dorgan’s counsel has not been identified in coverage and no statement on his behalf has been reported.
Who he is, and the timeline
Dorgan is an Everett native and a Malden Catholic graduate who, according to the city’s own 2016 announcement in the Everett Independent, had worked in the IT department for four years as a freelance programmer and network consultant before Mayor Carlo DeMaria named him Director of Information Technology in January 2016. He ran the department for a decade. In April 2020 he was the official quoted on building the city’s remote meeting platform when City Hall closed for the pandemic. In May 2024 the City Council unanimously reappointed him through January 5, 2026.
That date matters. January 5, 2026 was also the day Robert Van Campen was inaugurated as mayor after unseating DeMaria in November, the first change of administration in Everett in eighteen years. Dorgan was fired in March, roughly two months into the new administration. Neither the city nor the DA has said why. The DA’s statement places the discovery of the packages after the termination, which means the firing was not, on the public record, the result of the purchasing review; the review was the result of the firing.
The department Dorgan left was described bluntly by the man who replaced him on an interim basis. When Van Campen appointed Norilyz Valentin as the new IT director in August, Interim Director Neal Ellis told the Everett Independent that “once I started peeling back the layers, I realized the City’s technology environment was much further behind than I thought,” and that “many of the systems we’re using today are 15 to 20 years behind current standards.” That is a statement about infrastructure, not about the larceny charge, and Ellis did not connect the two. It is context for the six-year period the DA describes, during which, on the DA’s account, the same purchasing account that shipped hundreds of items to one employee’s home was the account that was supposed to be modernizing City Hall.
The charge
Larceny in Massachusetts is a single statute, G.L. c. 266, § 30, that folds together theft, embezzlement and obtaining property by false pretenses. Its first paragraph covers anyone who “steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another.” The line between a misdemeanor and a felony is $1,200. Above it, the statute authorizes “imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years.”
The theory here, on the DA’s description, is embezzlement: a person entrusted with the city’s purchasing authority used it to take city property for himself. That is a form of larceny under the statute, not a separate crime, and it is charged the same way. The DA has brought one count. Whether that reflects a decision to treat the six years of purchases as a single continuing scheme, or whether additional counts follow after the “full review” the DA mentioned, is not yet public. Massachusetts permits a series of takings from the same owner under a single scheme to be charged as one larceny, with the values aggregated, which is how a $98,000 figure can sit on top of hundreds of individual orders.
Why it is in District Court, and may not stay there
Larceny over $1,200 is a felony that the District Court can hear, because the maximum sentence the District Court can impose, two and a half years in a house of correction, is within the statute’s jail alternative. The DA can keep the case in Malden District Court or present it to a Middlesex grand jury and move it to Superior Court, where the five-year state prison exposure applies. Cases involving public employees and six-figure losses are often indicted. Nothing has been announced. The October 22 date is a pretrial conference, the routine next step in District Court.
What “personal recognizance” and the conditions mean
Dorgan was not held on cash bail. Release on personal recognizance means his promise to appear, backed by the possibility of a warrant and a separate charge if he does not. The two conditions are standard in cases involving a former employee and a workplace: they keep him away from the building where the alleged conduct occurred and from the people who are likely to be witnesses. Violating a condition of release can result in revocation and detention, independent of the underlying charge.
What happens to the property, and the money
Items recovered from the storage unit and the office are evidence. If the case ends in a conviction, the court can order restitution to the city for the value of what was taken, and the city can pursue a civil claim for the same amount whether or not the criminal case succeeds. Insurance coverage for employee theft, which many Massachusetts municipalities carry, would be a matter between the city and its carrier.
The larger accountability question is internal. A purchasing account that, on the DA’s account, shipped more than 700 items to one employee’s home over six years without triggering a review is a controls failure as well as an alleged crime. The city has not said whether it has changed its procurement practices or asked the state Inspector General or its own auditor to look at the account. Those are questions the City Council can ask, and Everett residents can ask their councilors.
The cyberattack: no reported connection
Everett City Hall has been closed to the public since September 8 because of what the city calls a “cybersecurity incident” affecting its internal network. We have covered what the city has and has not said about it, and what residents are owed if their data was taken, in Everett City Hall closed a week after cyberattack.
The Dorgan case and the cyberattack are separate matters. Dorgan was fired in March, six months before the incident. The charge against him is about purchases, not access. No official and no news report has connected the two, and readers should not draw a connection from the coincidence that the city’s former IT director was arraigned during the week its IT systems were down. If any link emerges from either investigation, it will be reported. As of Monday, none has.
What to watch
Whether the DA presents the case to a grand jury before October 22. Whether the “full review” produces additional counts or a revised loss figure. Whether the city discloses why Dorgan was fired in March and what its own review of the Amazon account found. And whether the City Council takes up the procurement controls question in public session.
Common questions
What is Kevin Dorgan charged with?
One count of larceny over $1,200 under G.L. c. 266, § 30. The DA alleges more than $98,000 in city Amazon purchases were sent to his home between 2020 and 2026.
What is the maximum penalty?
Up to five years in state prison, or a fine of up to $25,000 and up to two years in a house of correction. If the case stays in District Court, the maximum is two and a half years in a house of correction.
Is he in custody?
No. He was released on personal recognizance with orders to stay away from Everett City Hall and have no contact with current or former city employees.
Is this connected to the Everett cyberattack?
No connection has been reported by any official or outlet. Dorgan was fired in March 2026; the cyberattack was discovered September 6. The charge concerns purchases, not computer access.
How long was Dorgan the IT director?
Ten years. Mayor DeMaria appointed him in January 2016 after four years in the department, and the City Council reappointed him in May 2024 through January 5, 2026. He was fired in March 2026, two months into Mayor Van Campen’s administration, for reasons the city has not stated.
What is the next court date?
A pretrial conference in Malden District Court on October 22, 2026.
Revised September 14, 2026 with background. Facts of the charge from the Middlesex District Attorney’s statement as reported by Boston 25 News and NBC10 Boston, September 14, 2026; the DA’s release itself could not be retrieved from the office’s website. Appointment, reappointment and department history from the Everett Independent (January 22, 2016; April 1, 2020; May 16, 2024; August 5, 2026) and the Advocate. Van Campen’s inauguration date from the Everett Independent and GBH. G.L. c. 266, § 30 read at malegislature.gov. Kevin Dorgan is presumed innocent; the allegations have not been proven in court. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.