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