Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1443 HALDEMANIn Re: Randy Haldeman, Respondent File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Paul M. Henry Raquel K. Bergen Nicholas A. Colafella Reverend Scott Pilarz 06 -013 Order No. 1443 10/23/07 11/7/07 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was filed, and a hearing was requested by the Investigative Division. A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement waiving an evidentiary hearing were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulation of Findings is quoted as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement has been approved. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under the Ethics Act and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with the Ethics Act. Any person who violates such confidentiality commits a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, may be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year. Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 2 I. ALLEGATIONS: That Randy Haldeman, a public official /public employee, in his capacity as Transportation Construction Management, Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways of the Department of Transportation, violated Sections 1103(a), and 1105(b)(6) provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), and 1105(b)(6) when he used the authority of his office for private pecuniary gain by soliciting and accepting tickets to sporting events and items of clothing from companies who he approved or recommended receive grants or funds from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation; and when he failed to disclose receipt of gifts on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002 through 2005 calendar years. II. FINDINGS: 1. Randy R. Haldeman was employed as a Transportation Construction Manager III with the Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, PennDOT from January 27, 2004, to November 16, 2006 *. *[sic]. [Cf., Fact Finding 114 a.] a. Haldeman was acting Civil Engineer Manager from approximately January 2001 to January 27, 2004. 2. The Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways "Bureau" is a department within the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation responsible for the administering of the Rail Freight Assistance Program (RFAP), and the Capital Budget Transportation Assistance Program (TAP), which provides assistance for investment in the rail freight infrastructure. 3. In his capacity as both acting Civil Engineer Manager and Transportation Construction Manager for the Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways, Haldeman was responsible for the managing and directing of all state assisted rehabilitation and construction projects. 4. A PennDOT job description detailing Haldeman's job duties as Transportation Construction Manager includes the following: a. Reviews the preparation of railroad track improvements, rehabilitation or construction specifications for construction and rehabilitation projects. b. Provides guidance to grantees with regard to department policies and arena engineering standards and requirements. c. Reviews and approves all rehabilitation proposals and estimates costs to insure inclusion of any special provisions, specifications, quantities and unit costs as required by the department regulations. d. Establishes track work construction specifications and guidance for rail rehabilitation and construction projects. e. Directs the preparation of contract specifications, construction costs estimates and engineering contracts. f. Establishes inspection strategy and directs the statewide inspection efforts associated with rail rehabilitation and construction projects. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 3 g. Reviews contractor's work for compliance with contract specifications. h. Establishes policy criteria and practices that subordinates use to provide unique railroad technical advice to grant recipients. 5. Haldeman's job duties as acting Engineer Manager from January 2001 to January 27, 2004, were the same as his duties as Transportation Construction Manager. 6. As an employee of an agency under the Governor's jurisdiction, Haldeman was subject to the provisions of the Governor's Code of Conduct, which includes language on restricted activities and conflicts of interest. a. Part 1, Section 3 pertains to the receipt of gifts and favors as follows: No employee, appointee or official in the Executive Branch of the Commonwealth shall: Solicit or accept for the personal use of himself or herself or another, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other thing of monetary value from a person who: 1. Is seeking to obtain business from or has financial relations with the Commonwealth. 2. Conducts operations or activities that are regulated by the Commonwealth. 3. Is engaged, either as principal or attorney, in proceedings before the Commonwealth or in court proceedings in which the Commonwealth is an adverse party. 4. Has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or non - performance of the employee's official duty. 7 The Rail Freight Assistance Program (RFAP), which was created by the Rail Freight Preservation and Improvement Act of 1984, No. 119, provides financial assistance for investment in rail freight infrastructure. a. Yearly funding for the program is allocated from the Commonwealth's General Fund. b. Annual appropriations for RFAP have ranged from $8.5 to $10 million dollars from 2001 to 2006. c. Awarded projects receive funding for the following calendar year. 8. The intent of the RFAP is to preserve essential rail freight service where economically feasible, and preserve or stimulate economic development [through] the generation of new or expanded rail freight services. 9. Financial assistance through the RFAP is available to eligible railroad candidates, transportation organizations, municipalities, municipal authorities and users of the rail freight infrastructure. 10. Financial assistance is available to eligible projects that fall into one of the three Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 4 following categories: a. Maintenance /Rehabilitation b. Construction c. Combination Maintenance /Rehabilitation and Construction 11. The amount of grant funds awarded to a project is capped and requires a company match based on the category the project falls within. a. Funding is awarded through a competitive process. b. Maintenance /rehabilitation projects are capped at $300,000.00 and require a 25% company match. c. Construction projects are capped at $100,000.00 and require a 50% company match. d. Combination projects are subject to the caps and company matches outlined above. e. Maximum state funding for any project is $700,000.00. 12. Capital Budget Transportation Assistance Program Grants (TAP) are also administered by the Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways. a. TAP grants are funded through a legislative act. b. TAP grants receive final approval from the Governor's Office. c. Annual appropriations for TAP funds have averaged $20 million dollars. 13. Applications are accepted by the Bureau for RFAP funding on an annual basis. a. Applications are usually accepted by the Bureau during time frames as determined during [sic] a grants management team, Program Management Committee and the State Transportation Commission. b. Applications are accepted electronically using the Bureau's Engineering and Computing Management System (ECMS). c. The Bureau receives approximately 80 applications for RFAP funds and 20 applications for TAP funds. 14. Companies applying for a RFAP or TAP grant must first be registered as a PennDOT Business Partner. a. A designated representative completes and submits the online registration application. b. PennDOT reviews the company's information in the application. c. The company submits an Executed Business Partner Registration Agreement. d. PennDOT provides the company with a username and password to access Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 5 the ECMS. 15. Registered Business Partners complete the online grant application with required company and project information. a. Applicants are required to include the following information: 1. Project contact person. 2. Yearly revenue and expenses. 3. Project description. 4. Project location. 5. Proposed cost and requested assistance. 6. Jobs created and maintained by project. b. The completed applications are submitted via the Bureau's online ECMS. 16. The ECMS system was created in approximately January 2002 by departmental employees, including Haldeman, who served as the system administrator until approximately 2006. 17. Submitted applications are reviewed by Bureau personnel to ensure they meet the requirements of the grant program. a. Haldeman in his official capacity participated in reviewing submitted applications. 18. Applications submitted for grant funding are scored based on the application and the site visit. 19. Applications, after being received by the Bureau, are scored internally by the ECMS. a. Information contained within the online applications is read by the system, and transferred to an online score sheet. b. The following subjective questions on the score sheet are scored automatically. 1. Intermodel Projects 2. Job creation 3. Applicants operating ratio 4. Trucks removed from the road 5. Bonus c. The score sheet has two additional objective questions which have to be determined during the conducting of a site visit. 1. These scores are determined by the site inspector's experience inspecting trackwork and by example criteria as outlined on the score sheets. 20. Following the online scoring of the application, site visits of the proposed project Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 6 are scheduled and conducted by the Bureau. a. Site evaluations are performed on all projects except those that were identical submissions from [previous] years. In those cases, information was transferred from [previous] score sheets. b. Haldeman, amongst other PennDOT employees, completed site visits. c. Haldeman was responsible for conducting site visits for projects located throughout the state, with a focus towards projects located in the western portion of the state. d. Due to staffing shortages, Haldeman conducted a majority of the site visits or approximately seventy -five (75) per year. 21. During site visits, Bureau personnel reviewed the applicant's projects with representatives of the company. a. Bureau personnel were responsible for the following: 1. Explaining the grant process to the applicants. 2. Reviewing the site of the proposed project. 3. Reviewing and adjusting the applicant's proposed project cost. 22. The site examiner was required to determine the scores for the two remaining sections of the score sheet based on the examiner's review of the project. a. The site examiner was required to determine appropriate scores for the following sections of the score sheet. 1. Transportation system benefit 2. Condition of track b. The transportation system benefit score is determined by the site evaluation using the example criteria outlined on the score sheet. 23. The site visit portion of the scoring process allows for subjective rating by the site evaluator. a. The on -line portion of the application is scored internally by the ECMS. b. The site visit scores are determined by the subjective scoring of the site evaluator. 24. As system administrator, Haldeman was solely responsible for entering the scores determined during the site visits into the online score sheets. a. Haldeman entered his scores as well as the scores determined by other bureau employees. b. The online score sheet identifies when the score sheet was created and edited. 25. After the completion of all site visits, Haldeman was responsible for creating a Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 7 ranking of all the applicants by score. a. Haldeman transferred the scores from the online system to a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. b. Projects were ranked from highest score to lowest. c. The spreadsheet was used to determine who would receive funding. d. Scores could be adjusted upon discussion of all projects evaluated to determine the best possible program for that year. e. The higher [a] project is scored, the more likely a project is to be funded. 26. Haldeman would meet with the Bureau Director and the Grants Manager to review the project list and to select the projects to be recommended for funding. a. Haldeman presented the projects to the group and made his recommendations on what projects should receive funding. b. Haldeman's recommendation was relied upon by the Director and Grants Manager due to Haldeman's role, including site reviews, throughout the grant process. c. Haldeman's recommendations become the basis for the projects accepted by the Program Management Committee and State Transportation Commission for grant funding. 27. Haldeman, as Transportation Construction Manager, had the greatest authority in determining which companies received grant funding based on the following: a. Haldeman's role throughout the grant process including site visits and scoring applications made him the most influential person on all projects, despite the fact that projects were evaluated by two or more people and the average of each person[s] scores [was] taken and entered into the score sheets. b. Haldeman's influence on projects was well known amongst various PennDOT employees. c. Bureau Director, Robert McNary, deferred to Haldeman's recommendations based on Haldeman's experience. 28. The Bureau's recommended project list is forwarded to Sharon Daboin, the Deputy Secretary of Aviation, PennDOT, for approval. a. The Deputy Secretary generally approves the recommendations of the Bureau. b. Although Haldeman provided a preliminary list of recommended projects to the Deputy Secretary, Bureau Director and Grants manager, known as the Grants team, for review, discussion and alterations, the final approval of the project list was given by the Deputy Secretary. c. Nonetheless, Deputy Secretary Sharon Daboin stated to State Ethics Commission Investigators that Haldeman had 99.9 — 100% say in deciding what applicants received RFAP and TAP grant funding. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 8 29. The final grant list as approved was forward by the Grants Manager to the Program Management Committee. 30. The Program Management Committee within PennDOT then reviews and approves the Bureau's recommendations for RFAP grant funding. 31. Following the approval of the Program Management Committee, the grant awards are reviewed and signed by the State Transportation Commission. 32. Applicants awarded RFAP grants are notified in approximately August of each year and are required to sign an accelerated maintenance grant agreement which outlines the terms of the grant. a. Provisions of the agreement include the following: 1. Description of work — includes terms and conditions for any amendments to the project scope. 2. Maintenance — grantee is required to maintain existing track for a minimum of five years after completion of the project. 3. Reimbursement — grantee is required to submit a monthly progress report, and documentation verifying costs incurred to receive reimbursement. 4. Use of Project Facilities — grantee is required to use the project site for rail freight services for a minimum of five years after completion of the project. 5. Guaranteed Carloadinq — grantee is required to submit an annual carloading report reflecting the actual carloading for the previous year, for a five year period. b. The agreement includes an estimated items of work, which outlines the description of the project, and a break down of the cost of the project. 33. In order to receive reimbursements from grant funds, the grantee must submit progress reports, inspection reports, and supporting documentation verifying costs. a. The reimbursement is drawn from the grant amount based on the amount outlined in the submitted documentation. b. PennDOT retains 10% of each monthly billing until the department accepts the grantee completed the project. c. Haldeman was responsible for the review and approval of progress reports prior to the issuance of grant payments, for projects assigned to Haldeman. 34. Between 2002 and 2005, Haldeman rated grant applications submitted by James J. Anderson Construction Company. a. During this time period, while scoring grant applications, Haldeman solicited and accepted gifts from Anderson employees, officials and consultants. 35. Every grant application submitted by the James J. Anderson Construction Company between 2002 and 2005 [was] recommended for funding by Haldeman. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 9 a. All of Anderson's Company grant requests recommended by Haldeman received funding. 36. James J. Anderson Construction Company is a construction company located in Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, PA. a. James J. Anderson is the President and sole owner of James J. Anderson Construction Company. 37. Anderson Construction Company owns the following entities. a. Dryer Quarry, Inc., 150 Monument Road, Suite 603, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004. b. Riverside Materials, Inc., 2870 East Allegheny Avenue #1, Philadelphia, PA 19134. 38. The Riverside Materials facility is run by Plant Manager Richard A. Raffo. a. Raffo has been employed by James J. Anderson since 1990. 39. Raffo is the point of contact for James J. Anderson and Riverside Materials in matters concerning the Rail Freight Assistance Program and Capital Budget Grants. a. Raffo was present and interacted with Randy Haldeman and other PennDOT personnel during site visits. b. Raffo was the contact person from James J. Anderson for Paul A. Jannotti. 40. Paul A. Jannotti is President and sole owner of Jannotti Rail Consulting, Inc. a. Jannotti Rail Consulting, Inc. is located in Russell, Warren County, PA. 41. Jannotti Rail Consulting, Inc. provides consulting services to railroad companies seeking funding through the Rail Freight Assistance Program and Capital Budget Program Grants. a. Jannotti assists companies throughout the grant process, including: 1. Completing the application. 2. Overseeing the site visit. 3. Serving as point of contact between company and PennDOT personnel. 4. Submitting progress reports, inspection reports and invoices for reimbursement. 5. Submitting requests for use of subcontractors and equipment. b. Jannotti provides consulting services to multiple companies each year. 42. Jannotti Rail Consulting has been utilized by James J. Anderson as a consultant since approximately 1999. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 10 a. Jannotti has assisted James J. Anderson on the following projects: 1. Dryer Quarry's RFAP grants in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2005. 2. James J. Anderson's RFAP grants in 2003 and 2005. b. Jannotti is listed as the contact person and project manager on the following RFAP applications submitted by James J. Anderson. 1. James J. Anderson RFAP grant 2003. 2. James J. Anderson RFAP grant 2005. 3. Dyer Quarry RFAP grant 2005. c. Jannotti interacted with Haldeman and other Bureau personnel throughout the grant process. 43. James J. Anderson purchased season tickets for professional sports teams located in Philadelphia on an annual basis between 2001 and 2006. a. Anderson purchased the season tickets in the name of either James J. Anderson Construction, Co. or Dyer Quarry. b. Anderson owned season tickets for the following sports teams: Season Owner Team 2001 -2006 Dyer Quarry, Inc. Philadelphia Eagles 2001 -2006 James J. Anderson, Construction Co. Philadelphia Flyers 2001 -2006 Dyer Quarry, Inc. Philadelphia Phillies 44. Anderson purchased the ticket packages in order to provide tickets to employees, contractors and customers. a. Tickets were provided to contractors and other individuals [with which] Anderson had business dealings ... or expected to do business. b. Tickets were not provided to individuals who did not have a business relationship with Anderson. c. Tickets are maintained by Administrative Assistant Pat Olney. 45. A sign up sheet was used by employees of Anderson to reserve tickets for themselves or for their customers. 46. In February 2002, Anderson purchased a stadium builder license from the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, which granted them [sic] 8 seats in Section D of the Lincoln Financial Field. a. The stadium builder license fee for Section D cost $12,240.00 a year. b. Anderson upgraded the licenses to Section B which cost an additional $6,120.00 or $18, 360.00 a year. 47. Prior to each season, Anderson received a stadium builder license in addition to paying a fee for a season ticket and playoff package. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 11 48. Anderson purchased season ticket packages for 8 seats for the Philadelphia Eagles for the 2001 and 2002 season. a. The Eagles 2001 and 2002 home games were played at Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia. 49. In August of 2001, James J. Anderson Construction Company purchased a suite license from Spectrum Arena Limited Partnership for $100,000.00 a year. a. The license fee was purchased for the term of five years. b. Anderson's suite was luxury suite number 6. c. The suite held fourteen tickets. 50. In addition to the luxury suite, Anderson has owned Philadelphia Flyers season tickets for seats located in the general seating area since 2001. a. The face value[s] for the tickets were as follows: 51. James J. Anderson Construction Company and its subsidiaries submitted applications for RFAP grant funding on four occasions between 2000 and 2005. a. Anderson Construction Company and related entities followed PennDOT established guidelines for these grant application submissions. 52. On September 13, 2002, James J. Anderson Construction Company entered into an agreement with PennDOT to become a registered Business Partner. a. The agreement authorized James J. Anderson Construction Company to access PennDOT's Engineering and Construction Management System (ECMS). 53. On April 30, 2003, Anderson Construction Co. submitted an electronic application to be considered for a RFAP grant in 2003. The application was submitted by Paul Jannotti on behalf of Anderson. The application requested state assistance for a maintenance project totaling $224,367.00. State Share A licant Total $168,275.25 56, 091.75 $224,367.00 c. The description of the proposed project entailed rebuilding track and grade crossing, replacing ties and rail, and drainage relief at the Riverside Materials aggregate unloading facility. a. b. Season 2001 2002 2003 2004 Cost Per ticket $70.00 $73.00 $73.00 no season 54. On or before June 3, 2003, Haldeman conducted a site visit of the Riverside Materials plant. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 12 a. During the site visit, Haldeman met with Consultant Paul Jannotti and Plant Manager Richard Raffo of James J. Anderson Construction. b. Haldeman reviewed the grant application and project cost with Jannotti and Raffo. c. Haldeman, along with other PennDOT employees would determine a score for the overall benefit and track condition question. 55. Upon returning to the Bureau, Haldeman completed the score sheet for Anderson Construction in the ECMS. a. Haldeman entered the following scores into the system: Transportation system benefit = 44 points Track Condition = 14 points b. Haldeman adjusted the project's total cost from $224,367.00 to $171,627.00. 1. Project funding requests are frequently reduced to fund more projects annually. c. Haldeman is listed as entering the scores into the ECMS on June 3, 2003, at 2:31 p.m. 56. Prior to meeting with the Director and Grants Manager to recommend projects for funding, Haldeman edited the score sheet for Anderson Construction. a. Haldeman increased Anderson's score sheet as follows: Original Changed 1. Transportation system benefit 44 52 2. Track condition 14 16 58 68 b. Haldeman's actions in changing the score sheet resulted in Anderson receiving an increase in total score from 113 pts. to 123 pts. c. The increased score assigned by Haldeman increased the likelihood of the project receiving grant funding. 57. Haldeman's altering of the Anderson point total moved the Anderson project over twelve other projects with [a] higher point total seeking grant funding. a. Haldeman's actions in increasing the Anderson project point total resulted in the project receiving a score high enough to receiving grant funding. b. Based on his amending score, Haldeman recommended to the director that Anderson receive a RFAP Grant in the amount of $128,720.00. c. Haldeman purports to have made such recommendation based on the belief that since this project was part of other projects already funded for Dyer Quarry and SJA, the Department would not look good if it did not support this project because of the implications of rail to the other projects. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 13 58. In or around August 2003, a list of recommended projects for RFAP Grants were submitted to the Deputy Secretary of Aviation, Sharon Daboin, for her approval. a. Included in the list was the RFAP Grant for James J. Anderson Construction Co. b. Daboin approved the list as recommended by Haldeman. c. The Bureau Director, Grants Manager and Haldeman had an opportunity to provide input prior to Daboin's approval [of] the list. d The list of grant awards was then reviewed and approved by the Program Management Committee and the State Transportation Committee. 59. On September 4, 2003, Jimmy Naimal, Vice President of Anderson Construction, signed the Accelerated Maintenance Grant Agreement dated October 17, 2003. a. The agreement provided for $128,720.00 in grant funding for maintenance at the Riverside Materials Facility. b. The total funding of the project is as follows: State share (75 %) $128,720.00 Local share (25 %) 42,906.67 $171,626.67 c. The agreement was signed No. 820329. 60. An attachment to agreement No. 820329 included the following Contractor Integrity Provisions: The contractor shall not, in connection with this or any other agreement with the Commonwealth, directly, or indirectly, offer, confer, or agree to confer any pecuniary benefit on anyone as consideration for the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, other exercise of discretion, or violation of a known legal duty by any officer or employee of the Commonwealth" The contractor shall not, in connection with this or any other agreement with the Commonwealth, directly or indirectly, offer, give, or agree or promise to give to anyone any gratuity for the benefit of or at the direction or request of any officer or employee of the Commonwealth." 61. On September 8, 2003, four days after Anderson Construction Company signed the accelerated maintenance agreement, Haldeman received four (4) tickets to a Philadelphia Eagles football game. a. The tickets were valued at $280.00. ($70.00 per ticket x 4 tickets) b. Between October 25, 2003, and January 16, 2004, Haldeman also received from Anderson Construction four (4) tickets to Philadelphia Flyers hockey games. 1. Four tickets for each game were provided. 2. Tickets were valued at $73.00 a piece. 3. Ticket costs totaled $876.00. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 14 c. Haldeman received tickets from Anderson Construction to a Philadelphia Eagles vs. Green Bay Packers playoff game on January 11, 2004. 1. Tickets were valued at $85.00 per ticket. 2. Total ticket value was $340.00. 62. On February 19, 2004, Jannotti, on behalf of James J. Anderson Construction, submitted Progress Report 1 seeking a payment of $9,297.29 as reimbursement for materials and consulting services. a. The progress report was submitted to and reviewed by Haldeman. b. The accompanying inspection report was signed and approved by Haldeman. 63. On March 5, 2004, Jannotti, on behalf of James J. Anderson Construction, submitted Progress Report 2 seeking a payment of $78,428.48 as reimbursement for materials and consulting services. a. The progress report was submitted to and reviewed by Haldeman. 64. On April 8, 2004, Jannotti submitted progress report 3 seeking a payment of $21,190.82 as reimbursement for materials and consulting services. a. The progress report was submitted to and received by Haldeman. b. The accompanying inspection report was signed and approved by Haldeman. 65. On May 10, 2004, Haldeman signed and approved three progress reports for payment to Anderson. a. Progress Report Amount 1 $9,297.29 2 $78,428.48 3 $21,190.82 Total $108,916.59 b. As a result of the approvals, check number 11926827 in the amount of $108,916.59 was issued to James J. Anderson Construction Co. on June 10, 2004. c. Haldeman approved progress reports for payment for Anderson Construction after receiving gifts of tickets to sporting events valued at $1,496.00 from Anderson. 66. On or about September 12, 2004, Haldeman received from Anderson Construction four (4) tickets to a Philadelphia Eagles football game valued at $280.00. 67. On November 15, 2004, Jannotti submitted Progress Report 4 seeking a payment of $6,930.06 for engineering and consulting services. a. Progress Report 4 was the final progress report for the project. b. The progress report was submitted to and reviewed and approved by Haldeman. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 15 1 Haldeman approved progress report 4 for payment on November 30, 2004. 68. Haldeman sent correspondence to Anderson on November 30, 2004, informing the company that the final inspection of work was completed, and that a check is being processed in the amount of $19,803.41. a. $19,803.41 represents the balance of the grant amount, including expenses outlined in Progress Report 4 and the 10% retainer. b. This amount was paid by electronic transfer. 69. On October 25, 2004, James J. Anderson submitted an electronic application to be considered for a RFAP Grant for 2005. a. Anderson was requesting assistance for the construction of an additional unloading conveying system and a stacker to increase the storage capacity at the Riverside Materials Facility. b. Anderson was requesting assistance for the project as follows: State Share A licant Total Construction cost: $250,000.00 267,000.00 $517,000.00 70. Haldeman received tickets to Philadelphia Eagles football games on 12/19/04, 1/16/05 and 1/23/05 when approving final inspection reports for the 2004 grant [sic] and reviewing Anderson's RFAP grant application for 2005. a. Tickets were received as follows: 12/19/04: 4 tickets @ $70.00 /each = $280.00 1/16/05: 4 tickets @ $95.00 /each = $380.00 1/23/05: 4 tickets @ $130.00 /each = $520.00 71. On May 12, 2005, Haldeman conducted a site visit of the Riverside Materials Plant as part of this grant application. a. Haldeman met with consultant, Paul Jannotti, and Plant Manager, Richard Raffo, of James J. Anderson Construction. b. Haldeman reviewed the grant application and project cost with Jannotti and Raffo. c. Haldeman determined a score for the overall benefit and track condition question. 72. On May 13, 2005, one day after conducting the Riverside Materials plant site visit, Haldeman attended a Philadelphia Phantoms hockey game utilizing four (4) tickets provided by Anderson Company. 73. Haldeman is documented as completing the score sheet for Anderson Construction in the ECMS on May 16, 2005, three days after using hockey game tickets provided by Anderson. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 16 a. Haldeman entered the following scores into the system: Transportation system benefit Track condition 38 pts. 14 pts. b. Haldeman is listed as entering the scores on May 16, 2005, at 11:02 a.m. c. Haldeman adjusted the project's total cost from $517,000.00 to $511,000.00. 74. Prior to meeting with the director and grants manager to recommend projects for funding, Haldeman edited the score sheet for Anderson Construction. a. Haldeman edited the scope of work on the project and reduced the total cost of the project to $200,000.00. b. Haldeman recommended to the director that Anderson receive [a] RFAP Grant in the amount of $100,000.00. 1. $100,000.00 represented the state's 50% share of the project. 75. In or around August 2005, a list of recommended projects for RFAP Grants was submitted to the Deputy Secretary of Aviation, Sharon Daboin, for her approval. a. Included in the list was the RFAP Grant for James J. Anderson Construction Co. as recommended by Haldeman. b. The list of grant awards was reviewed and approved by the Program Management Committee and the State Transportation Committee. 76. In early September 2005, James J. Anderson Construction Co. approached the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA) about sponsoring the construction project at the Riverside Materials Plant. a. The PRPA would enter into the grant agreement with PennDOT and provide Anderson's share of the project cost. b. Anderson would contract with PRPA to provide the construction in exchange for the necessary funds. 77. On September 28, 2005, the PRPA sent a letter informing PennDOT that they agreed to sponsor Anderson's grant award, and would enter into the grant agreement. a. The PRPA's letter was sent to the attention of Haldeman. 78. Prior to the signing of the grant agreement, Jannotti submitted the bid results for the construction of radial stacking conveyors to Haldeman for approval. a. The letter requested the state's approval to award the construction to Steel Systems Installation, Inc. b. Haldeman notified Anderson Construction in a letter dated February 14, 2006, that the bureau approved the awarding of the bid. 79. The Philadelphia Regional Port Authority Board of Directors approved resolution no. 2006 -15 on April 21, 2006, authorizing the authority to enter into an RFAP grant Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 17 agreement with PennDOT on behalf of Anderson Construction. a. On March 31, 2006, James McDermott, Executive Director, PRPA, signed the Accelerated Maintenance Grant Agreement dated May 8, 2006. b. The agreement provided for $100,000.00 in grant funding for maintenance at the Riverside Materials Facility. c. The total funding of the project is as follows: State share (70 %) Local share (30 %) $100,000.00 42, 857.15 $142,857.15 80. The RFAP Grant to James J. Anderson Construction Co. was assigned agreement number 820549 and contained the department's Contractor Integrity Provisions, as detailed in finding #60. 81. As of November 16, 2006, the date of Haldeman's departure from PennDOT, Anderson has not requested or received any of the $100,000.00 RFAP Grant Funds. 82. On October 27, 2004, James J. Anderson, through its subsidiary, Dyer Quarry, Inc., submitted an electronic application to be considered for a RFAP Grant for 2005. a. Dyer Quarry was requesting assistance for the construction of an extended ballast tunnel with hoppers and gates, and for the inclusion of safety lighting on the track yard. b. Anderson was requesting assistance for the project as follows: State Share A licant Total Construction cost: $250,000.00 107,143.00 $357,143.00 83. Haldeman received Philadelphia Eagles tickets from Anderson Construction between 12/19/04 and 1/25/05 during the time frame he was reviewing Anderson Construction's 2005 grant application. 84. On or before February 16, 2005, Haldeman conducted a site visit of Dyer Quarry's facility as part of this grant application. a. Haldeman met with consultant, Paul Jannotti, and Plant Manager, Troy Butler, of Dyer Quarry. b. Haldeman reviewed the grant application and project cost with Jannotti and Butler. c. Haldeman determined a score for the overall benefit and track condition question. 85. Haldeman completed the score sheet [as to] Dyer Quarry on February 16, 2005. a. Haldeman entered the following scores into the system: Transportation system benefit 18 pts. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 18 Track condition 20 pts. b. Haldeman is listed as entering the scores on February 16, 2005, at 11:02 a.m. c. Haldeman scored the Dyer Quarry application less than one month after accepting Philadelphia Eagles playoff tickets from Anderson Construction. 86. Due to an amendment to the Rail Freight Preservation and Improvement Act, Dyer Quarry was excluded from qualifying under the act, because of its classification as a rail user and therefore was ineligible to receive funding. a. The Everett Railroad Company then contracted with Dyer Quarry to act as a sponsor for the RFAP grant. 87. On April 28, 2006, the Everett Railroad Company signed the Accelerated Maintenance Grant Agreement dated May 8, 2006, on behalf of Dyer Quarry. a. The agreement provided for $100,000.00 in grant funding for construction at the Dyer Quarry Facility. b. The total funding of the project is as follows: State share (70 %) Local share (30 %) $100,000.00 42, 857.15 $142,857.15 88. The RFAP Grant to Dyer Quarry, Inc. was assigned agreement number 820557 and contained the department's contractor integrity provisions as detailed in finding #60. 89. Dyer Quarry had not requested any reimbursement of funds per the agreement while Haldeman was employed by PennDOT. 90. During the time that Haldeman was serving and taking official action in his capacity as Acting Railroad Program Manager /Transportation Construction Manager 3, he solicited and received tickets to professional sporting events from Paul Jannotti, Richard Raffo on behalf of James J. Anderson Construction Co. a. Haldeman in his public position with influence over the awarding of the RFAP grants, solicited and accepted tickets from representatives of Anderson and its consultants during interactions with those officials relating to the grant approval process. 91. Between 2003 and 2005, Haldeman was provided tickets to a minimum of twelve (12) professional sporting events. a. All tickets were provided to Haldeman by either Raffo or Jannotti. b. Incomplete records were maintained by Anderson Construction of tickets that were provided to Haldeman. c. Haldeman admitted that he attended approximately ten to fifteen games. d. Haldeman never paid for any of the tickets he accepted. 92. Haldeman accepted hockey tickets from Raffo during their first encounter as early Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 19 as 2001. a. Haldeman was not provided tickets prior to any of Anderson's business entities receiving RFAP or Capital Budget grants. b. Haldeman was not provided with tickets from any of Anderson's business entities since leaving his Commonwealth employment. c. Haldeman made it known that he was available on short notice if tickets were available for him. 93. Haldeman received luxury suite and general tickets for the Philadelphia Flyers from Raffo between 2001 and 2005. a. Insufficient records exist to quantify the exact occasions that Haldeman received tickets. 94. Haldeman admitted to Ethics Commission investigators that he received tickets to the luxury suite for Philadelphia Flyers games. a. Haldeman acknowledged receiving the food and alcoholic beverages provided in the luxury suite. 95. Due to the strike of the National Hockey League in 2004, Flyers season ticket holders were provided season tickets to the Philadelphia Phantoms hockey games. a. The Philadelphia Phantoms are the minor hockey league team affiliated [with] the Philadelphia Flyers. b. Anderson received season tickets for his luxury box and general seating tickets. 96. On May 13, 2005, Haldeman was provided four tickets to a Phantoms playoff game against the Wilkes -Barre Scranton Penguins by Raffo. 97. Haldeman did not work at his PennDOT job on May 13, 2005, the day of the game. a. Haldeman called off sick on the morning of May 13, 2005. b. PennDOT leave records for Haldeman confirm the use of 7.5 hours of sick time on May 13, 2005. 98. Haldeman requested and /or accepted hats and t- shirts from grant applicants during site visits when he was evaluating applications. a. Haldeman maintains most of the hats and shirts he received at his residence. b. Haldeman was regularly observed wearing t- shirts from railroad companies at the office. c. Haldeman does not recall when and from whom did he receive the apparel. d. Haldeman did not pay for the specialty apparel he received from railroad companies. 99. During site visits, Haldeman regularly accepted lunches from applicants. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 20 a. Haldeman admitted that he received approximately several lunches a month during the time he was conducting site visits. b. Haldeman never paid for the lunches of the applicants. c. Lunches usually consisted of meals at local sit down restaurants. d. Haldeman would on occasion, leave the tip for the group. 100. Haldeman believed it was acceptable for him to receive meals and apparel from applicants based on his determination the gifts were of nominal value. 101. Bureau personnel frequently overheard Haldeman requesting grant applicants for gratuities. a. Haldeman was overheard asking applicants what were they going to give him. b. Haldeman was overheard in the office requesting tickets, shirts, and hats from applicants. c. Haldeman purports that the overheard conversations were taken out of context and that he was actually speaking with friends and would make such statements as a joke. Haldeman further stated that he never solicited for items in the office environment. 102. Raffo routinely provided Haldeman tickets to professional sporting events during the time when Raffo was interacting with Haldeman in his official capacity. 103. Raffo confirmed that Haldeman contacted him on several occasions requesting tickets. a. Raffo would try to obtain tickets per Haldeman's request. b. Raffo did not have a personal relationship with Haldeman. 104. Raffo would direct Anderson Construction Co., Secretary, Pat Olney to send tickets to Haldeman or have tickets at [the] will call window for Haldeman. a. Olney would send tickets overnight via FedEx to Haldeman's residence. 105. FedEx records confirm tickets being sent on 5 occasions to the residence of Haldeman. a. Delivery Date # of Tickets Sports Team 4/18/02 4 Flyers 8/26/03 4 Eagles 1/6/04 4 Eagles 1/15/04 4 Flyers 1/20/05 4 Eagles b. Insufficient records exist to confirm the number of occasions when tickets were placed at will call for Haldeman. 106. Haldeman frequently received tickets during the sporting seasons from Raffo and Jannotti in close proximity to grant activity on Anderson entity applications. The grant process was a year -round event which coincided with various sporting event Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 21 seasons. 107. Haldeman admitted to attending the following sporting events games between 2002 and 2005. a.* *[sic]. [The chart is as it appears in the Stipulation of Findings.] 108. The following chart depicts the receipt of tickets to sporting events received by Haldeman during the time periods when Haldeman was taking action or participating in the approval process of grants received by Anderson Construction.* ;vent Value ity Value f 9/4/03 >n Signs Grant Agreement for 2003 RFAP 9/8/03 7. Bucs 70 4 10/17/03 Dproval of Grant Agreement for 2003 RFAP 10/25/03 . Hurricanes 73 4 11/1/03 >n Begins Maintenance on Riverside Materials Facility 11/6/03 . Capitals 73 4 11/6/2003 v. Capitals 11/22/03 . Bruins 73 4 ) 4 1/11/04 7. Packers - Division 85 4 2004 1/11/2004 v. Packers - Division 1/16/04 . Maple Leafs 73 4 2/19/04 >n Submits the First of Four Progress Reports for Reimbursement 9/12/2004 v. Giants ) 4 12/19/2004 v. Cowboys ) 4 9/12/04 7. Giants 70 4 10/25/04 >n Submits Application for 2005 RFAP )0 t 4 4 Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 21 seasons. 107. Haldeman admitted to attending the following sporting events games between 2002 and 2005. a.* *[sic]. [The chart is as it appears in the Stipulation of Findings.] 108. The following chart depicts the receipt of tickets to sporting events received by Haldeman during the time periods when Haldeman was taking action or participating in the approval process of grants received by Anderson Construction.* Value ity 2002 4/20/2002 v. Senators - Playoff ) 4 2003 9/8/2003 v. Bucs ) 4 10/25/2003 v. Hurricanes ) 4 11/6/2003 v. Capitals ) 4 11/22/2003 v. Bruins ) 4 2004 1/11/2004 v. Packers - Division ) 4 1/16/2004 v. Maple Leafs ) 9/12/2004 v. Giants ) 4 12/19/2004 v. Cowboys ) 4 2005 1/16/2005 v. Vikings- Division ) 4 1/23/2005 v. Falcons- Conference 5/13/2005 ems v. Penguins — playoff )0 t 4 4 Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 21 seasons. 107. Haldeman admitted to attending the following sporting events games between 2002 and 2005. a.* *[sic]. [The chart is as it appears in the Stipulation of Findings.] 108. The following chart depicts the receipt of tickets to sporting events received by Haldeman during the time periods when Haldeman was taking action or participating in the approval process of grants received by Anderson Construction.* 10/27/04 _Tarry Submits Application for 2005 RFAP 11/30/04 an approves processing of Final Payment for 2003 RFAP 12/19/04 7. Cowboys 70 4 1/16/05 7. Vikings- Division 95 4 1/23/05 7. Falcons - Conference 130 4 2/16/05 an Conducts Site Visit of Dyer Quarry Site for 2005 RFAP 5/12/05 an Conducts Site Visit of Anderson Site for 2005 RFAP 5/13/05 as v. Penguins 4 Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 22 *[sic]. [The chart is as it appears in the Stipulation of Findings.] 109. In or about April 2005, Sharon Daboin was made aware of allegations that Haldeman was accepting Eagles playoff tickets, Flyers hockey tickets and demanding company logo shirts from various railroad personnel. a. The allegations were referred to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) by PennDOT on or about April 22, 2005. 110. Following the OIG investigation, PennDOT initiated pre - disciplinary action against Haldeman. 111. On February 7, 2006, Haldeman was notified through a memorandum from Deputy Secretary of Aviation, Sharon Daboin that the pre - disciplinary conference was scheduled for February 7, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. a. The correspondence indicated that an investigation had brought forth evidence to support the following allegations. 1. Violation of Major Work Rule #18 — Acceptance of loans, gifts, gratuities, favors, service or other proffered arrangements for personal benefit from private parties or organizations doing business with the Department or which in any way is connected with Department employment. 2. Solicitation of tickets to professional sporting events from private parties or organizations doing business with the Department or which in any way is connected the [sic] Department employment. 3. Alteration (weighting) of PA Rail Freight Assistance Program Scoring Sheets for organizations requesting grant assistance from the Department. 4. Failure to report the acceptance of gifts on State Ethics Commission Statement of Financial Interest[s] forms and Governor's Code of Conduct Statement of Financial Interest forms. 5. Absence without leave. 112. During Haldeman's pre - disciplinary conference on February 7, 2006, he admitted to soliciting and accepting tickets to professional sporting events from Richard Raffo Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 23 and Paul Jannotti. a. Haldeman indicated that he received Philadelphia Flyers and Philadelphia Eagles tickets for a couple of games each season between 2002 and 2005. b. Haldeman indicated that he would contact Raffo for the purpose of requesting extra tickets to attend various sporting events. c. Haldeman indicated that he received four tickets to a Phantoms game on May 13, 2005, from Raffo, and that he called off sick for work in order to attend. 113. On March 6, 2006, Haldeman signed an agreement and release with PennDOT agreeing to a ten day (10) suspension without pay and a voluntary demotion in title and pay. a. The ten day (10) suspension without pay took place from March 13, 2006, through March 24, 2006. b. The demotion would be from Transportation Construction Manager III (pay range 9) to Civil Engineer (pay range 7). c. The stated reasons for the discipline were as follows: 1. Violation of Major Work Rule #18 — Acceptance of loans, gifts, gratuities, favors, service or other proffered arrangements for personal benefit from private parties or organizations doing business with the Department or which in any way is connected with Department employment. 2. Solicitation of tickets to professional sporting events from private parties or organizations doing business with the Department or which in any way is connected the [sic] Department employment. 114. In conjunction with the agreement, Haldeman submitted a memo on March 6, 2006, requesting a voluntary demotion from Transportation Construction Manager III to Civil Engineer Transportation. a. On March 23, 2006, Haldeman was sent notification by certified mail #7004 1160 0004 4851 1338 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Human Resources that his voluntary demotion to Civil Engineer, Transportation, would be effective close of business March 24, 2006. 115. On March 9, 2006, Haldeman was sent notification by certified mail #7000 0600 0027 5717 1968 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Human Resources that he would be suspended without pay from March 13, 2006, through March 24, 2006. a. Haldeman served his ten day (10) suspension without pay from March 13, 2006, to March 24, 2006. 116. Haldeman's use of [sic] authority of his public position to solicit gifts of tickets to sporting events from Anderson Construction during periods when he was evaluating Anderson grant applications, scoring grant applications and approving payments. a. Haldeman's use of his public position resulted in obtaining free tickets and in Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 24 a private pecuniary gain of $3,488.00. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING HALDEMAN'S FILING OF DEFICIENT STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS. 117. Haldeman in his official capacity as Transportation Construction Manager for the Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways[,] PennDOT[,] was annually required to file a Statement of Financial Interests from [sic] by May 1 containing information for the prior calendar year. 118. Statements of Financial Interests forms on file with PennDOT include the following filings for Haldeman: Calendar Year: 2001 Filed: 4/15/02 on SEC Rev. 1/02 Occupation: Senior Civil Engineering Supervisor Creditors: Members 1 St Federal Credit Union - 5.79 %, Members 1 St Federal Credit Union - 7.79% Direct /Indirect Sources of Income: PennDOT Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports, and Waterways Gifts: None All other financial interests: None Calendar Year: 2002 Filed: 4/10/03 on SEC Rev. 1/03 Occupation: Acting Chief Railroad Manager Creditors: Members 1 St Federal Credit Union - 5.5 %, Direct /Indirect Sources of Income: PA Department of Transportation Gifts: None All other financial interests: None Calendar Year: 2003 Filed: 3/30/04 on SEC Rev. 1/04 Occupation: Transportation Construction Manager III Creditors: Members 1 St FCU — 8.5/6.5% Direct /Indirect Sources of Income: PA Department of Transportation Gifts: None All other financial interests: None Calendar Year: 2004 Filed: 4/25/05 on SEC Rev. 1/05 Occupation: Transportation Construction Manager III Creditors: None Direct /Indirect Sources of Income: PennDOT Gifts: None All other financial interests: None 119. In addition to filing SFI's, Haldeman was annually required to file a Governor's Code of Conduct form. a. Governor's Code of Conduct forms require disclosures with respect to personal economic interests, business interests, liabilities, employment, real property interests, severance payments and gifts. b. With respect to gifts, the following disclosure requirement exists: "List all gifts of value in excess of $100.00, including forgiveness of a debt Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 25 received during the proceeding [sic] calendar year. Fro [sic] the purpose of this section, gifts from family members need not be disclosed. Name /address of the person(s) /entity(ies) from whom or on behalf of whom the gift was directly or indirectly received nature and value of gifts (s)" [sic]. 120. Haldeman in his capacity as a PennDOT employee annually filed [the] Governor's Code of Conduct form. Haldeman completed Code of Conduct forms on the following dates: a. Calendar Year Date Filed 2001 04/25/01 2002 04/15/02 2003 04/10/03 2004 03/30/04 2005 04/25/05 121. Haldeman did not disclose the receipt of any tickets from Anderson on SFI's or Code of Conduct forms filed for calendar years 2002 through 2005. a. This includes tickets received from James J. Anderson, Richard Raffo and /or Paul Jannotti. 122. Following his discipline for the solicitation and acceptance of tickets and other gifts, Haldeman failed to disclose the tickets he received during 2005 on his Statement of Financial Interests filing for calendar year 2005. a. The filing included the following disclosures by Haldeman. Calendar Year: 2005 Filed: 4/18/06 on SEC form 01/06 Position: Transportation Construction Manager Creditors: MBNS, Capital One, PSECU Direct /Indirect Income: Department of Transportation Gifts: None All other financial interest: None 123. Haldeman did not disclose James J. Anderson Construction as a company [from which] he received gifts valued in the aggregate of $250.00 or more on his SFI filed for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. a. Haldeman received gifts totaling at least $280.00 from James J. Anderson Construction Company during 2002. 1. Four tickets to Philadelphia Flyers v. Ottawa Senators on April 20, 2002. ($70.00 x 4= $280.00) b. Haldeman received gifts totaling at least $1,156.00 from James J. Anderson Construction during 2003. 1. Four luxury suite tickets to Flyers v. Capitals on November 6, 2003- $292.00. (4 x $73.00 = $292.00) 2. Four tickets to Flyers v. Hurricanes on October 25, 2003 - $292.00. (4 x $73.00 = $292.00) Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 26 f. Total value of all tickets as outlined in (finding no. 135* a through d) is $3,488.00.* *[sic]. [The total value of the tickets outlined in Fact Findings 123 a through d would be $3,528. We accept the lower stipulated value of $3,488, which is to Respondent's benefit. See, Bartholomew v. State Ethics Commission, 795 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Cf., Fact Finding 116 a.] 124. Haldeman's failure to disclose James J. Anderson Construction on SFI's for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 concealed the fact that he was receiving gifts and gratuities from a Commonwealth vendor in connection with his public position at a time when he was taking official action in relation to the vendor. 125. Haldeman received tickets to sporting events from grant applicants over when [sic] he had review and approval authority, through the authority of his public position. a. But for Haldeman's public position he would not have received tickets from the grant applicants. 3. Four tickets to Flyers v. Bruins on November 22, 2003 - $292.00. (4 x $73.00 = $292.00) 4. Four tickets to Eagles v. Buccaneers on September 8, 2003- $280.00 (4 x $70.00 = $240.00 [sic]) c. Haldeman received gifts totaling at least $1,192.00 from James J. Anderson Construction during 2004. 1. Four tickets to Flyers v. Maple Leafs on January 16, 2004- $292.00 (4 x $73.00 = $292.00) 2. Four tickets to Eagles v. Packers, playoff game on January 11, 2004 - $340.00. (4 x $85.00 = $340.00) 3. Four tickets to Eagles v. Giants on September 12, 2004 - $280.00 (4 x $70.00 = $280.00) 4. Four tickets to Eagles v. Cowboys on December 19, 2004 - $280.00 (4 x $70.00 = $280.00) d. Haldeman received gifts totaling at least $900.00 from James J. Anderson Construction during 2005. 1. Four tickets to Eagles v. Vickings, playoff game on January 16, 2005 - $380.00. (4 x $95.00 = $380.00) 2. Four tickets to Eagles v. Flacons, playoff game on January 23, 2005 - $520.00. (4 x $130.00 = $520.00) 3. Four tickets to Phantoms v. Penguins, playoff game on May 13, 2004 [sic] — no cost. e. Haldeman did not pay for any portion of the value of the tickets listed above, despite the fact that Haldeman received a ten (10) day suspension without pay. III. DISCUSSION: Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 27 As acting Civil Engineer Manager for PennDOT's Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways (the "Bureau ") from approximately January 2001 to January 27, 2004, and as a Transportation Construction Manager 111 for the Bureau from January 27, 2004, to March 24, 2006, Respondent Randy Haldeman, hereinafter also referred to as "Respondent," "Respondent Haldeman," and "Haldeman," was a public official /public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. The allegations are that Respondent violated Sections 1103(a) and 1105(b)(6) of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his public position for private pecuniary gain by soliciting and accepting tickets to sporting events and items of clothing from companies that he approved or recommended to receive grants or funds from PennDOT; and when he failed to disclose receipt of gifts on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002 through 2005 calendar years. Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest: § 1103. Restricted Activities (a) Conflict of interest. —No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a). The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows: § 1102. Definitions "Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public official or public employee of the authority of his office or employment or any confidential information received through his holding public office or employment for the private pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. The term does not include an action having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the same degree a class consisting of the general public or a subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group which includes the public official or public employee, a member of his immediate family or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated. Section 1105(b)(6) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the Statement of Financial Interests the name and address of the source and the amount of any gift or gifts valued in the aggregate at $250 or more and the circumstances of each gift. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 28 As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are reproduced above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. The events relevant to this case occurred between 2001 and November 16, 2006, while Respondent Haldeman was employed by the Bureau in various capacities. From approximately January 2001 to January 27, 2004, Respondent was employed by the Bureau in the position of "acting Civil Engineer Manager." From January 27, 2004, to March 24, 2006, Respondent was employed by the Bureau in the position of "Transportation Construction Manager III." Respondent's job duties were the same in both of the aforesaid positions and included responsibility for managing and directing state assisted rail rehabilitation and construction projects. Effective close of business March 24, 2006, Respondent was voluntarily demoted to the position of "Civil Engineer, Transportation," as a result of conduct described at Fact Finding 113 c. Respondent left PennDOT employment on November 16, 2006. The Bureau administers the Rail Freight Assistance Program (RFAP) and the Capital Budget Transportation Assistance Program (TAP), which programs provide grant assistance for investment in rail freight infrastructure. RFAP grant awards are capped and require a company match as detailed at Fact Findings 11 and 11 a -e. Each year, the Bureau receives approximately 80 applications for RFAP funds and 20 applications for TAP funds. Grant applications are submitted electronically via the Bureau's online "Engineering and Computing Management System" (ECMS). Grant applications are scored by the ECMS with respect to most criteria. However, two areas of scoring -- involving the "transportation system benefit" and "condition of track " - -must be determined during a site visit by Bureau personnel. The site visit portion of the scoring process allows for subjective rating by the site evaluator. Haldeman's job duties with the Bureau included conducting site visits. Per the stipulated Fact Findings, Haldeman conducted a majority of the site visits, or approximately seventy -five (75) per year. Haldeman also served as the ECMS system administrator until approximately 2006. As ECMS system administrator, Haldeman was solely responsible for entering into the online score sheets all scores determined during site visits. Following completion of all site visits, Haldeman was responsible for creating a ranking of all applicants by score. Scores could be adjusted upon discussion of all projects evaluated. Under the grant process, Haldeman met with the Bureau Director and the Grants Manager to review the project list and to select the projects to be recommended for funding. Haldeman presented the projects to the group and made his recommendations on what projects should receive funding. Haldeman's recommendations were relied upon by the Bureau Director and Grants Manager. The Bureau's recommended project list was forwarded to Sharon Daboin ( "Daboin "), PennDOT's Deputy Secretary of Aviation, for approval. Daboin generally approved the recommendations of the Bureau. The final grant list as approved was then forwarded by the Grants Manager to the Program Management Committee. Following approval by the Program Management Committee, the grant awards were reviewed and signed by the State Transportation Commission. The parties have stipulated that Haldeman had the greatest authority in determining which companies received grant funding, and that Haldeman's role throughout the grant process made him the most influential person on all projects. Daboin stated to State Ethics Commission Investigators that Haldeman had 99.9% —100% say in deciding what applicants received RFAP and TAP grant funding. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 29 Applicants awarded RFAP grants were required to sign an "Accelerated Maintenance Grant Agreement" as detailed in Fact Findings 32 and 32 a -b. A grantee was also required to submit progress reports, inspection reports, and supporting documentation verifying costs in order to receive reimbursements from grant funds. Haldeman was responsible for the review and approval of progress reports prior to the issuance of grant payments, for projects assigned to Haldeman. Haldeman's Acceptance of Apparel and Meals from Grant Applicants Haldeman requested and /or accepted hats and t- shirts from grant applicants during site visits when he was evaluating applications. Haldeman also regularly accepted lunches from applicants during site visits. Haldeman never paid for the lunches of the applicants. Haldeman would on occasion, leave the tip for the group. Bureau personnel frequently overheard Haldeman asking grant applicants for gratuities. Haldeman was overheard asking applicants what were they going to give him. Haldeman was overheard in the office requesting tickets, shirts, and hats from applicants. Haldeman purports that the overheard conversations were taken out of context and that he would make such statements to friends as a joke. Haldeman further stated that he never solicited for items in the office environment. Haldeman was regularly observed wearing t- shirts from railroad companies at the office. Haldeman did not pay for the specialty apparel he received from railroad companies. Haldeman believed it was acceptable for him to receive meals and apparel from applicants based on his determination that such items were of nominal value. The Stipulated Fact Findings do not include the value of the apparel and meals Haldeman accepted from grant applicants. Haldeman's Acceptance of Tickets to Sporting Events from Grant Applicants During the time period relevant to this case, James J. Anderson Construction Company ( "Anderson Construction Company ") of Philadelphia and its subsidiary(ies) sought grant funding through the Bureau. James J. Anderson ( "Anderson ") is President and sole owner of Anderson Construction Company. Anderson Construction Company owns "Dryer Quarry, Inc." (also referred to herein as "Dyer Quarry ") and "Riverside Materials, Inc." (also referred to herein as "Riverside Materials "). The Dyer Quarry Plant Manager is Troy Butler ( "Butler "). The Riverside Materials Plant Manger is Richard A. Raffo ( "Raffo "). Jannotti Rail Consulting, Inc. provided consulting services with respect to at least some of the aforesaid grant applications. Paul A. Jannotti ( "Jannotti ") is President and sole owner of Jannotti Rail Consulting, Inc. Haldeman, who in his public position with PennDOT, had influence over the awarding of RFAP grants, solicited and accepted tickets to professional sporting events from representatives of Anderson Construction Company and its consultants during interactions relating to the grant approval process. Haldeman accepted hockey tickets from Raffo during their first encounter as early as 2001. Raffo confirmed that Haldeman contacted him on several occasions requesting tickets. Raffo tried to obtain tickets as Haldeman requested. Insufficient records exist to quantify all of the occasions that Haldeman received such tickets. But for his public position, Haldeman would not have received these complimentary tickets to sporting events. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 30 Between 2002 and 2005, Haldeman rated grant applications submitted by Anderson Construction Company. During that same time period, as detailed in Fact Findings 123 a- d, Haldeman received tickets to professional sporting events from Anderson Construction Company employees /officials and consultants as follows: in 2002, tickets valued at a minimum of $280; in 2003, tickets valued at a minimum of $1,156; in 2004, tickets valued at a minimum of $1,192; and in 2005, tickets valued at a minimum of $900. Haldeman did not pay for any portion of the value of the tickets. Every grant application submitted by Anderson Construction Company between 2002 and 2005 was recommended for funding by Haldeman. All such grant requests recommended by Haldeman were awarded funding. The parties have stipulated that Haldeman used the authority of his public position to solicit tickets to sporting events from Anderson Construction Company during periods when he was evaluating Anderson Construction Company grant applications, scoring grant applications and approving payments, and that Haldeman's use of his public position resulted in a private pecuniary gain of $3,488, representing the value of the complimentary tickets that Haldeman is known to have received in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. See, Fact Findings 116, 116 a, and 123 a -d, f. The Stipulated Findings include the following information as to three particular grant applications. 1. The Riverside Materials Maintenance Project Grant Application On April 30, 2003, Jannotti submitted a RFAP grant application for the Anderson Construction Company, requesting state assistance for a maintenance project totaling $224,367 at the Riverside Materials aggregate unloading facility. As part of his responsibilities relative to the grant application, Haldeman conducted a site visit of the Riverside Materials plant on or before June 3, 2003. During the site visit, Haldeman reviewed the grant application and project cost with Jannotti and Raffo. On June 3, 2003, following the site visit, Haldeman completed the score sheet for the project and entered the following scores into the ECMS: Transportation system benefit = 44 points; Track Condition = 14 points. Haldeman adjusted the project's total cost from $224,367 to $171,627. (Per the stipulated Fact Findings, funding requests are frequently reduced to fund more projects annually.) Prior to meeting with the Bureau Director and Grants Manager to recommend projects for funding, Haldeman changed the score sheet for Anderson Construction Company, increasing the score for the Transportation system benefit from 44 to 52 and the score for the track condition from 14 to 16. Haldeman's actions in increasing the scores resulted in the Riverside Materials maintenance project moving ahead of twelve other projects seeking grant funding. Based on the amended score, Haldeman recommended to the Bureau Director that Anderson Construction Company receive a RFAP grant in the amount of $128,720. Haldeman purports to have made such recommendation based upon the project's relation to other funded projects. The Riverside Materials maintenance project was included on a list of recommended projects for RFAP grants submitted to Daboin for her approval. Daboin approved the list as recommended by Haldeman. The list of grant awards was then reviewed and approved by the Program Management Committee and the State Transportation Committee. On September 4, 2003, Anderson Construction Company entered into an Accelerated Maintenance Grant Agreement, which provided $128,720 in grant funding for the project. An attachment to the grant agreement included Contractor Integrity Provisions set forth at Fact Finding 60, which prohibited Anderson Construction Company from giving Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 31 any gratuity for the benefit of a Commonwealth employee in connection with the grant agreement or any other agreement with the Commonwealth. Four days later, on September 8, 2003, Haldeman received from Anderson Construction Company four (4) tickets to a Philadelphia Eagles football game with a total value of $280. Between October 25, 2003, and January 16, 2004, Haldeman received from Anderson Construction Company tickets to various Philadelphia Flyers hockey games as well as tickets to a Philadelphia Eagles vs. Green Bay Packers playoff game as detailed in Fact Findings 61 b -c and 123 b -c. In February, March, and April 2004, Jannotti, on behalf of Anderson Construction Company, submitted three progress reports under the grant seeking payments totaling $108,916.59. Haldeman signed and approved at least two inspection reports accompanying the progress reports. On May 10, 2004, Haldeman signed and approved the three progress reports. As a result of Haldeman's aforesaid approvals, a payment totaling $108,916.59 was issued on June 10, 2004, to Anderson Construction Company. On or about September 12, 2004, Haldeman received from Anderson Construction Company four tickets to a Philadelphia Eagles football game valued at $280. On November 15, 2004, Jannotti submitted the final progress report under the grant, seeking a payment of $6,930.06 for engineering and consulting services. On November 30, 2004, Haldeman approved the final progress report and issued correspondence informing Anderson Construction Company that a check was being processed in the amount of $19,803.41, representing the expenses outlined in the final progress report and a 10% retainer held by PennDOT until completion of the grant project. The aforesaid amount was paid by electronic transfer. Haldeman approved the aforesaid progress reports for payment to Anderson Construction Company after receiving from Anderson Construction Company the aforesaid complimentary tickets to sporting events. 2. The Riverside Materials Construction Project Grant Application On October 25, 2004, Anderson submitted a RFAP grant application for a construction project at the Riverside Materials facility. The total cost of the project was calculated at $517,000, with the requested State share being $250,000 and the applicant share being $267,000. During the time period when Haldeman was reviewing the grant application, Haldeman received tickets to Philadelphia Eagles football games from Anderson Construction Company. These tickets were received on December 19, 2004, January 16, 2005, and January 23, 2005, as detailed in Fact Findings 70, 70 a, and 123 c -d. On May 12, 2005, Haldeman conducted a site visit of the Riverside Materials Plant relative to the grant application. Haldeman reviewed the grant application and project cost with Jannotti and Raffo. Haldeman determined a score for the overall benefit and track condition. On May 13, 2005, one day after conducting the Riverside Materials plant site visit, Haldeman attended a Philadelphia Phantoms hockey game utilizing four (4) tickets provided by Anderson Construction Company. Haldeman completed the score sheet for Anderson Construction Company in the ECMS on May 16, 2005, three days after using the aforesaid hockey game tickets provided by Anderson Construction Company. Haldeman entered the following scores into the system: Transportation system benefit =38 points; Track condition =14 points. Haldeman Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 32 adjusted the project's total cost from $517,000 to $511,000. Prior to meeting with the Bureau Director and Grants Manager to recommend projects for funding, Haldeman edited the score sheet for Anderson Construction Company, editing the scope of work and reducing the total cost of the project to $200,000. Haldeman recommended to the director that Anderson Construction Company receive a RFAP grant with the State paying $100,000 as its 50% share of the project. In or around August 2005, a list of recommended projects for RFAP Grants was submitted to Daboin for her approval. Included in the list was the RFAP grant for Anderson Construction Company as recommended by Haldeman. The list of grant awards was reviewed and approved by the Program Management Committee and the State Transportation Committee. In September 2005, Anderson Construction Company entered into an arrangement with the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA) for the PRPA to sponsor the construction project and provide Anderson Construction Company's share of the project cost. Prior to the signing of the grant agreement, Jannotti submitted bid results to Haldeman, requesting the state's approval to award the construction to a particular bidder. By letter dated February 14, 2006, Haldeman notified Anderson Construction Company that the Bureau approved the awarding of the bid. On March 31, 2006, the PRPA Executive Director signed the Accelerated Maintenance Grant Agreement, which provided for $100,000 in grant funding. The agreement contained PennDOT's Contractor Integrity Provisions, as set forth in Fact Finding 60. As of November 16, 2006, the date of Haldeman's departure from PennDOT, Anderson Construction Company had not requested or received any of the $100,000 of RFAP grant Funds. 3. The Dyer Quarry Construction Project Grant Application On October 27, 2004, Anderson Construction Company, through its subsidiary, Dyer Quarry, Inc., applied for a RFAP grant for a project involving construction and safety lighting. The submitted total construction costs were calculated at $357,143, with the requested State share being $250,000 and the applicant share being $107,143. Haldeman received Philadelphia Eagles tickets from Anderson Construction Company between December 19, 2004, and January 25, 2005, during the time frame he was reviewing this grant application. On or before February 16, 2005, Haldeman conducted a site visit of Dyer Quarry's facility with respect to this grant application. Haldeman reviewed the grant application and project cost with Jannotti and Butler. Haldeman determined a score for the overall benefit and track condition. On February 16, 2005, Haldeman completed the score sheet as to Dyer Quarry, entering the following scores into the ECMS: Transportation system benefit =18 points; Track condition = 20 points. Haldeman scored the Dyer Quarry grant application less than one month after accepting Philadelphia Eagles playoff tickets from Anderson Construction Company. Due to an amendment to the Rail Freight Preservation and Improvement Act, Dyer Quarry was ineligible to receive funding, and another company acted as a sponsor for the RFAP grant. On April 28, 2006, the sponsor signed the Accelerated Maintenance Grant Agreement on behalf of Dyer Quarry. The agreement provided for $100,000 in grant funding. The RFAP grant contained PennDOT's Contractor Integrity Provisions as set forth in Fact Finding 60. Dyer Quarry did not request any reimbursement of funds per the agreement while Haldeman was employed by PennDOT. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 33 Haldeman's Statements of Financial Interests Haldeman was required to file annual Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) pursuant to the Ethics Act. In addition to filing SFIs, Haldeman was required to file annual Governor's Code of Conduct disclosure forms. Haldeman's SFIs for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 did not disclose his receipt of any "gift" or payment /reimbursement of "actual expenses for transportation and lodging or hospitality received in connection with public office or employment." Fact Findings 118, 121 -122 a. Haldeman did not disclose his receipt of the aforesaid complimentary tickets to sporting events on his SFIs or Governor's Code of Conduct forms filed for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. PennDOT Disciplinary Actions as to Haldeman In April 2005, allegations involving Haldeman were referred by PennDOT to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Following the OIG investigation, PennDOT initiated pre - disciplinary action against Haldeman. During a pre - disciplinary conference on February 7, 2006, Haldeman admitted to soliciting and accepting tickets to professional sporting events from Raffo and Jannotti. Haldeman also indicated that he took sick leave in order to attend one such sporting event. On March 6, 2006, Haldeman signed an agreement and release with PennDOT agreeing to a ten day (10) suspension without pay and a voluntary demotion in title and pay. The stated reasons for the discipline were as outlined in Fact Finding 113 c. Haldeman's ten -day suspension without pay and demotion occurred in March 2006. Haldemen left PennDOT employment on November 16, 2006. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations as follows: 3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to the above allegations: a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Haldeman receiving a private pecuniary gain when he solicited and accepted tickets to sporting events and items of clothing from companies who were being approved or recommended to receive grants or funds from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. b. That a violation of Section 1105(b)(6) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1105(b)(6) occurred when Haldeman failed to disclose receipt of gifts on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002 through 2005 calendar years. 4. Haldeman agrees to make payment in the amount of $3,488.00 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 34 Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. 5. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to review this matter further. 6. Haldeman agrees to waive his rights to an evidentiary hearing and appellate rights without prejudice to so proceed in the event that the State Ethics Commission does not accept this agreement. Consent Agreement, at 2. In considering the Consent Agreement, we shall first consider the parties' recommendation that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Haldeman's solicitation and acceptance of tickets to sporting events and items of clothing from companies that were being approved or recommended to receive grants or funds from PennDOT. We determine that each element of a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act has been met. Among the PennDOT officials and employees who were involved in processing the relevant PennDOT grants, Haldeman had the greatest authority and influence in determining which companies received grant funding. Haldeman used the authority of his PennDOT position to solicit and receive items of value from companies that were seeking grants or funds from PennDOT. Such items of value included tickets to professional sporting events, which Haldeman solicited and accepted from representatives of Anderson Construction Company and its consultants during interactions relating to the RFAP grant approval process. Haldeman's actions as to Anderson Construction Company included increasing the scoring of one of its grant applications, moving it ahead of twelve competitors. Every grant application submitted by Anderson Construction Company between 2002 and 2005 was recommended for funding by Haldeman. All such grant requests recommended by Haldeman were awarded funding. The parties have stipulated that Haldeman used the authority of his public position to solicit tickets to sporting events from Anderson Construction Company during periods when he was evaluating Anderson Construction Company grant applications, scoring grant applications and approving payments, and that Haldeman's use of his public position resulted in a private pecuniary gain of $3,488. But for his public position, Haldeman would not have received these complimentary tickets to sporting events. Haldeman also requested and /or accepted clothing from grant applicants during site visits when he was performing his official PennDOT duties evaluating grant applications. Haldeman was overheard requesting gratuities including tickets, shirts, and hats from applicants. Haldeman was also overheard asking applicants what were they going to give him. Haldeman purports that the overheard conversations were joking statements that he made to friends. However, Haldeman was regularly observed wearing t- shirts from railroad companies at the office. Haldeman did not pay for the specialty apparel he received from railroad companies. The finding of a violation of Section 1103(a) in the instant matter would be Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 35 consistent with Commission precedents. Cf., e.q., Eppley, Order 1419; Munford, Order 1390; Espenshade, Order 1387; Dusenberry, Order 1064; Helsel, Order 801. Accordingly, we hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Haldeman receiving a private pecuniary gain when he solicited and accepted tickets to sporting events and items of clothing from companies that were being approved or recommended to receive grants or funds from PennDOT. We shall next consider the parties' recommendation that a violation of Section 1105(b)(6) of the Ethics Act occurred when Haldeman failed to disclose his receipt of gifts on SFIs filed for the 2002 through 2005 calendar years. We initially note that the stipulated Fact Findings do not establish the value of apparel and meals Haldeman accepted from grant applicants, such that it cannot be determined whether Haldeman's receipt of such items from any particular source should have been disclosed on his SFIs. As for tickets to sporting events solicited /accepted by Haldeman, we shall first consider whether such items would be considered "gifts" or "hospitality" under the Ethics Act. During the particular calendar years in question, specifically 2002 through 2005, Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11 defined the term "gift" as follows: "Anything which is received without consideration of equal or greater value. The term shall not include a political contribution otherwise reported as required by law or a commercially reasonable loan made in the ordinary course of business." Act 93 of 1998, Chapter 11, Section 1102. The said Act did not define the term "hospitality." Additionally, the financial disclosure reporting categories pertaining to "gifts" and payment /reimbursement of "actual expenses for transportation and lodging or hospitality received in connection with public office or employment" were not expressly made mutually exclusive. Thus, under the definitions in effect from 2002 through 2005, it was possible for tickets to sporting events to be considered "gifts." See, Shaner, Order 1163. However, per Act 134 of 2006, tickets for admission to sporting events held from January 1, 2007, forward are to be considered "hospitality," not "gifts." This is because the Ethics Act has been amended to use the same definitions for the terms "gift" and "hospitality" that are used in Pennsylvania's new lobbying disclosure law at 65 Pa.C.S. § 1303 -A. See, Act 134 of 2006, Section 1. The new definitions are as follows: "Gift." Anything which is received without consideration of equal or greater value. The term shall not include a political contribution otherwise reportable as required by law or a commercially reasonable loan made in the ordinary course of business. The term shall not include hospitality, transportation or lodging. "Hospitality." Includes all of the following: (1) Meals. (2) Beverages. (3) Recreation and entertainment. The term shall not include gifts, transportation or lodging. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1303 -A. Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 36 These new definitions make the financial disclosure reporting categories pertaining to "gifts" (see, Section 1105(b)(6) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(6)) and payment /reimbursement of "actual expenses for transportation and lodging or hospitality received in connection with public office or employment" (see, Section 1105(b)(7) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(7)) mutually exclusive categories, so that a given item may only be considered to fall within one of the categories. Tickets for admission to sporting events would be considered "hospitality" under the above definition. An additional amendment makes the financial disclosure reporting threshold pertaining to payment /reimbursement of "actual expenses for transportation and lodging or hospitality received in connection with public office or employment" under Section 1105(b)(7) of the Ethics Act an aggregate amount per year, like the "gift" threshold under Section 1105(b)(6) of the Ethics Act. See, Act 134 of 2006, Section 1.1 The SFI filings under review in this case were for calendar years prior to the enactment of the aforesaid amendments to the Ethics Act. It is clear that Haldeman did not disclose his receipt of complimentary tickets to sporting events on his SFIs or Governor's Code of Conduct forms filed for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. The total values of such tickets that Haldeman is known to have received from Anderson Construction Company employees /officials and consultants were as follows: in 2002, $280; in 2003, $1,156; in 2004, $1,192; and in 2005, $900. Given: (1) that the parties have entered into a comprehensive Consent Agreement as to the allegations in this case; and (2) the parties are in agreement that a violation of Section 1105(b)(6) as to Haldeman's failure to disclose his receipt of "gifts" on his SFIs filed for the 2002 through 2005 calendar years would be appropriate as part of an overall settlement of this case, we shall accept the parties' proposed disposition. We caution that our acceptance, in the instant matter, of the parties' characterization of tickets for admission to sporting events prior to January 1, 2007, as "gifts" should not be considered precedent as to the nature of tickets for admission to sporting events from January 1, 2007, forward. Accordingly, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, we hold that a violation of Section 1105(b)(6) of the Ethics Act occurred when Haldeman failed to disclose receipt of gifts on SFIs filed for the 2002 through 2005 calendar years. As part of the Consent Agreement, Haldeman has agreed to make payment in the amount of $3,488 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. We determine that the Consent Agreement submitted by the parties sets forth the proper disposition for this case, based upon our review as reflected in the above analysis and the totality of the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, Haldeman is directed to make payment in the amount of $3,488 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order. Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Haldeman, 06 -013 Page 37 1. As acting Civil Engineer Manager for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways (the "Bureau ") from approximately January 2001 to January 27, 2004, and as a Transportation Construction Manager 111 for the Bureau from January 27, 2004, to March 24, 2006, Respondent Randy Haldeman ( "Haldeman ") was a public official /public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. Haldeman violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in relation to his receipt of a private pecuniary gain when he solicited and accepted tickets to sporting events and items of clothing from companies that were being approved or recommended to receive grants or funds from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 3. Haldeman violated Section 1105(b)(6) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose receipt of gifts on Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) filed for the 2002 through 2005 calendar years. In Re: Randy Haldeman, Respondent ORDER NO. 1443 File Docket: 06 -013 Date Decided: 10/23/07 Date Mailed: 11/7/07 1 Respondent Randy Haldeman ( "Haldeman "), a public official /public employee in his capacities as acting Civil Engineer Manager for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's Bureau of Rail Freight, Ports and Waterways (the "Bureau ") from approximately January 2001 to January 27, 2004, and as a Transportation Construction Manager III for the Bureau from January 27, 2004, to March 24, 2006, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his receipt of a private pecuniary gain when he solicited and accepted tickets to sporting events and items of clothing from companies that were being approved or recommended to receive grants or funds from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ( "PennDOT "). 2. Haldeman violated Section 1105(b)(6) of the Ethics Act when he failed to disclose receipt of gifts on Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs) filed for the 2002 through 2005 calendar years. 3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Haldeman is directed to make payment in the amount of $3,488 payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order. a. Compliance will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. b. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair