Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1453 Complainant AIn Re: Complainant A 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 ID # 07 -022 LD # 07- 022 -WUA Order No. 1453 1/28/08 2/15/08 The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible wrongful use of act and breach of confidentiality under the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above - named "Complainant." Written notice of the specific allegations was served at the commencement of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Complainant a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint," which constituted the Investigation Division's Complaint against the Complainant. An Answer was filed and a hearing was requested. 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. Upon issuance, the portion of this adjudication and Order pertaining to wrongful use of the Ethics Act shall constitute the "preliminary determination" of this Commission as to wrongful use of the Ethics Act. Per the Commission Regulations at 51 Pa.Code § 25.3(d), this Commission shall notify the Complainant and the "Subjects" (the persons against whom the original Complaints were filed) of the Commission's preliminary determination in this case. If no appeal is filed with this Commission within thirty days after the mailing date noted above, the preliminary determination will become absolute, will constitute the final determination of this Commission as to wrongful use of the Ethics Act (51 Pa. Code § 25.4), and will be made available in redacted form as a public document. If the final determination of this Commission is that the Complainant has wrongfully used the Ethics Act, then upon receiving a written request from a Subject, this Commission shall provide to such Subject the name and address of the Complainant, together with a copy of the final determination of this Commission. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1110(c). The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with Section 1108 of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108. Any person who violates confidentiality of the Ethics Act is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1109(e). Confidentiality does not preclude discussing this case with an attorney at law. Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 2 I. ALLEGATIONS: That Complainant A, a private citizen violated Sections 1110(a)(2), and 1108(k) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1110(a)(2) and 1108(k) when he disclosed or acknowledged publicly information relating to his filing of a complaint with the State Ethics Commission by publicly disclosing to newspaper reporters and the media that he filed complaints with the State Ethics Commission regarding the conduct of members of the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. II. FINDINGS: 1. Complainant A is a private citizen and resident of C Township, D County. a. Complainant A resides at [address]. 2. Sewage service for C Township is provided through the B Authority. a. The B Authority has been operational since the late 1970s. 3. The B Authority is governed by a five member board whose members served [sic] staggered five -year terms. a. B Authority board members are appointed by the C Township Board of Supervisors. 4. Public sewage is not currently available to all residents of C Township. a. Residents without access to public sewage maintain on -lot septic systems to accommodate sewage needs. 5. In an effort to update the existing sewage infrastructure, eliminate outdated plants and equipment, and expand public sewage for current residents and future expansion /development, the B Authority approved the E Project. a. The E Project was approved by the B Authority board on [date] via Resolution No. [number] which approved the purchase of the B Authority's [name and series of bonds] by [name of financial institution], to fund the E Project. 6. Prior to initiation of the E Project, the B Authority maintained approximately [number] miles of sewers and served approximately [number] homes and businesses. a. After completion of the E Project, approximately [number] additional properties will be tied into public sewage via approximately [number] miles of new sewer lines. 7 Per Article XXV, Section 2502 of the Second Class Township Code, the township board of supervisors may require (by ordinance) adjoining and adjacent property owners within 150' to connect with and use the township sanitary sewer system whether constructed by the township or a municipal authority or a joint sanitary sewer board. a. The C Township Supervisors passed Ordinance Number [number] on [date] mandating said connection of C Township property owners. Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 3 8. C Township property owners required to tap into public sewage are responsible for payment of a tap -in fee, a special benefits assessment, monthly sewer bills, and possibly a connection fee. a. Criteria were established by the B Authority board at the [date] regular meeting through Resolution [number] by which the Connection Fee for residences existing prior to [date] may be waived. 9. Complainant A's property located at [address] falls within one - hundred fifty feet of infrastructure to be installed in accordance with E Project plans. a. Per C Township Ordinance Number [number], Complainant A is required to tap into the new infrastructure within [number] days after notice to make the connection. 10. Complainant A attended at least four B Authority meetings in [year] and addressed the B Authority board with questions and concerns regarding the E Project. a. At or about the [month, year] B Authority board meeting, Complainant A accused members of the B Authority board of having financial interests in the E Project. b. At or about the [month, year] public meeting, Complainant A presented his perception of each B Authority board member's alleged conflict of interest in relation to the E Project. c. Newspaper F Reporter, Reporter G, was in attendance at this meeting. 11. On January 3, 2007, correspondence dated December 28, 2006, was received at the Harrisburg Office of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission regarding alleged conflicts of interests involving four [sic] B Authority board members and the B Authority solicitor. a. The date /time stamp documented receipt of the correspondence by the Harrisburg Office on January 3, 2007, at 11:37 a.m. b. The closing on the correspondence documented the author as "Complainant A, [address]." 1. Complainant A's signature is present in the closing of the correspondence. c. Attached to the correspondence was a petition signed by a total of [number] individuals /couples petitioning the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission to investigate the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. 12. The December 28, 2006, correspondence authored by Complainant A to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission is detailed below: Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission 309 Finance Building P.O. Box 11470 Harrisburg, PA 17108 December 28, 2006 Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 4 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Complainant A. I reside in C Township, D County. As a concerned citizen, I would like to bring to the Commission's attention what may be considered a "conflict of interest" regarding blatant collusion which appears to be happening in my township. I have two main areas of concern: the structure of the B Authority and the appointment of the law firm [name of firm] as solicitor. The B Authority board was appointed by the C Township Supervisors. The B Authority approved the E Project in an effort to increase the number of available sewage tap -ins for current and future development in C Township. However, the project is not Department of Environmental Protection mandated therefore no federal or state funds were secured for this project. The B Authority did borrow $[amount] from a [year] Bond Issue that wrapped existing debt at a lower interest rate, with the total amount being $[amount]. However, high costs are still being placed on the existing residents with minimal benefits. Although the benefit of public sewage is recognized (a small increase in property value), most residents simply cannot afford the cost. The original cost to residents include a `tap -in fee' of $[amount], this fee has been reduced to $[amount] due to intervention by some of our elected officials. However this reduction may have some "strings attached ". A [name of fee]: (which is nothing more than a tax) of $[amount] to $[amount], construction cost to connect from the dwelling to the tap -in which will range from "$[amount] to as much as $[amount]" according to Attorney H. Plus, all existing septic systems must be filled in at the owner's expense (some owner's [sic] may be reimbursed $[amount]) and sewage use will cost approximately $[amount] per month, an additional $[amount] may be added to the monthly cost as a "service debt fee ", total sewage monthly sewage bill $[amount]. The majority of affected residents are senior citizens on fixed incomes who cannot secure a loan and do not qualify for financial aid. The rest of us are middle -class citizens who do not have $[amount] (the low estimate), let alone $[amount] (the upper estimate) to support this project, which does not include the costs to fill in existing septic tanks or the new monthly expense that will be included the "service debt fee." It appears that most, if not all, of the B Authority's Board Members named below have a "personal" interest in the E Project. The appointed B Authority Board consists of the following five members: • Public Official 1, B Authority Board Chairman and [profession]. • Public Official 2, Employee of [name of business]. [name of business] is planning a third phase of the [name of project], which cannot go forward without the E Project. • Public Official 3, [profession] who is currently developing a [number] acre tract of land to build [type of buildings] starting at $[amount], which cannot go forward without the E Project. • Public Official 4, [name of corporation] Board Member for [entity]. [name of corporation]'s expansion cannot continue without the E Project. • Public Official 5, [profession] who is believed to have relatives in the construction business. This project is instrumental to current and future development orchestrated by the B Authority and spearheaded by solicitor Attorney H. Considering the "connection" members of the B Authority board have to future development, they stand to gain much more from this project than the existing residents. And given the magnitude of the E Project and the amount of money that was borrowed by the B Authority, why should long -time residents be forced to endure the financial hardship this project will cause? The residents affected by the project have challenged the Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 5 authority on many occasions to fully consider the hardships and look for alternatives to underwrite some of the costs. However, these discussions have led to no change in the plan of the B Authority and one must suspect that their steadfastness in making this project go through is at least somewhat influenced by the interests listed above that the B Authority Board Members hold. A related concern is that the Township Supervisors have retained the [name of law firm] as solicitor for C Township. This firm represents the [list of governmental entities] and others that I might not be aware of. The cost of retaining this law firm is over $[amount] per year. However, the B Authority has retained Attorney H as the solicitor for the B Authority and is paid [sic] in addition to the billing of the law firm. Therefore, the C Township taxpayers are paying for two solicitors from the same law firm that should represent all authorities within the township. I hope the information I have provided in this letter will prompt an inquiry, if not an investigation, into the compromised interests of the B Authority and the unethical or possible illegal dealings of the law firm [name of firm]. 1, along with others affected, have met on numerous occasions with the C Township Supervisors to understand our concerns [sic] about both issues with very little results. The Supervisors are sympathetic to our position but claim to have no authority over the sewage authority therefore can do [sic] very little on our behalf. Sending this letter is my last resort to protect the interests of the longtime C Township residents who are expected to bear the costs of the area's ongoing housing development. I am happy to provide any additional information that you need. Thank you for your attention on this important matter. Sincerely, Complainant A [address] [telephone number] 13. Complainant A's correspondence was assigned State Ethics Commission Complaint Numbers 43 and 44. a. Complaint Number 43 was assigned to Complainant A's regarding the members of the B Authority. b. Complaint Number 44 was assigned to Complainant A's regarding the B Authority Solicitor. 14. Complainant A subsequently received two separate pieces of correspondence dated January 17, 2007, from John J. Contino, State Ethics Commission Executive Director, in response to Complainant A's December 28, 2006, correspondence. a. Complainant A was informed that no action could be taken regarding his complaint against members of the B Authority (assigned complaint number 43) due to the fact that Complainant A's complaint was not notarized. b. Complainant A was informed that no action could be taken regarding his complaint against the B Authority Solicitor (assigned complaint number 44) due to the fact that the Commission had no jurisdiction in the matter. allegations allegations 15. Company I publishes various newspapers including the [title of publication], Newspaper F, [title of publication],[title of publication], [title of publication], and [title Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 6 of publication]. a. Newspaper F maintains an address of [address]. 16. Primary areas of circulation regarding Newspaper F include [names of counties, including D County]. a. Newspaper F maintains a bureau office at [address]. 17. Reporter G is employed as a reporter for Company I. a. Reporter G works out of the [location] bureau office. 18. On or about [date], Reporter G telephonically contacted B Authority Solicitor Attorney H regarding a complaint letter which Complainant A had filed with the State Ethics Commission. a. Reporter G informed Attorney H that Complainant A had provided him with the correspondence. 1. Reporter G and Attorney H became acquainted as a result of mutual attendance at B Authority and C Township Supervisor's [sic] meetings. b. Reporter G informed Attorney H that Complainant A had received confirmation from the Harrisburg Office of the State Ethics Commission that the correspondence had been received. c. Attorney H requested that Reporter G provide him a copy of the letter via facsimile transmission. 1. Reporter G provided Attorney H a copy of the letter via facsimile transmission that same day. 19. Correspondence provided to Attorney H by Reporter G, identified via handwritten notes stating, "ATTN: Attorney H" is identical to the December 28, 2006 correspondence authored by Complainant A and forward [sic] to the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission. a. The date documented on the correspondence was redacted prior to Attorney H's receipt. b. Information contained in the correspondence essentially mirrors information provided in the correspondence received by the State Ethics Commission Harrisburg office on January 3, 2007. c. Both pieces of correspondence identify Complainant A as the individual who authored the correspondence. d. Complainant A's home address and phone number are referenced in each correspondence as contact information should additional information be needed. e. In each correspondence, Complainant A expressed his desire that an inquiry and possibly an investigation be conducted into the allegations levied. Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 7 20. Upon receipt of the correspondence and review of the confidentiality provision associated with the State Ethics Act, Attorney H refused to provide Reporter G with any comment on the situation. a. Attorney H subsequently contacted the B Authority board, informed the members of the matter, and advised against commenting on the issue. 21. Newspaper F subsequently published an article in the January 25, 2007, edition titled, "[title]." a. The article outlines the complaint filed by Complainant A with the State Ethics Commission. b. Referenced in the article is, "Complainant A, of [name of road], recently mailed a letter to the commission. He suggested the authority's board of directors and board Solicitor Attorney H have a `conflict of interest' pertaining to the much contested E Project." c. Thg article specifically documents that ComplainantAwrote in his December 28 letter that, It appears that most, if not all, of the authority's board members have a personal interest in this project." d. Reporter G is referenced as the author of the article in the article's "By" line. 22. The majority of information referenced in the January 25, 2007, article mirrors that contained in the correspondence sent both to the State Ethics Commission and Reporter G. 23. During a sworn statement provided to Commission investigators on July 20, 2007, Complainant A provided the following information: a. Complainant A probably accessed the State Ethics Commission website to research the Commission address when contemplating filing a complaint. b. Complainant A did not review any of the rules or regulations associated with the State Ethics Act. c. Complainant A sent a letter to the Harrisburg Office of the State Ethics Commission requesting an inquiry or investigation but was unfamiliar with any sections of the Act regarding confidentiality prior to sending his letter to the Commission. d. Complainant A provided Reporter G an edited version of the letter sent to the Commission either in person or via facsimile transmission. e. Complainant A's disclosure of the letter to Reporter G was not done with any malice or intent to violate any portion of the State Ethics Act. 24. Complainant A asserts that at the [month, year] public meeting of the C Township Supervisors, approximately [number] individuals were present to address their dissatisfaction with the actions of the township officials. a. A copy of the proposed complaint to the Commission was available. b. This complaint was in the same form as the document sent to the Commission dated December 28, 2006. Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 8 c. Reporter G, of Newspaper F, was present at the meeting and was aware of the various complaint [sic]. III. DISCUSSION: Complainant A is a resident of C Township, D County, who filed a complaint with this Commission alleging violations of the Ethics Act by the following members of the board of the B Authority: Public Official 1; Public Official 2; Public Official 3; Public Official 4; and Public Official 5; and by the Solicitor for the B Authority, Attorney H. As a Complainant, Complainant A is subject to the confidentiality and wrongful use of act provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1108(k) and 1110. The allegations before us are that Complainant A violated Sections 1108(k) and 1110(a)(2) of the Ethics Act when he disclosed or acknowledged publicly information relating to his filing of a complaint with this Commission by publicly disclosing to newspaper reporters and the media that he filed complaints with this Commission regarding the conduct of B Authority Board Members and the B Authority Solicitor. Section 1108(k) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no person shall disclose or acknowledge to any other person any information relating to a complaint, preliminary inquiry, investigation, hearing or reconsideration petition which is before this Commission. Section 1108(k) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(k), and Section 21.6 of this Commission's Regulations, 51 Pa. Code § 21.6, further provide for certain exceptions to the confidentiality requirements, which exceptions are not relevant to this case. Section 1110 of the Ethics Act, the wrongful use of act provision, provides in part that a wrongful use of act occurs: (1) if a complaint was frivolous, that is, filed in a grossly negligent manner without basis in law or fact; (2) if a complaint was filed without probable cause and made primarily for a purpose other than that of reporting an Ethics Act violation; or (3) if a person who filed a complaint publicly disclosed or caused to be disclosed that a complaint against another person was filed with this Commission. 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. Complainant A is a private individual who resides in C Township, D County, Pennsylvania. Sewage service for C Township is provided through the B Authority. The B Authority is governed by a five - member board. On [date], the B Authority Board approved the E Project, a project to, inter alia, expand public sewage to current residents and future expansion /development through the construction of new sewer lines. C Township property owners required to tap into public sewage are responsible for payment of a tap -in fee, a special benefits assessment, monthly sewer bills, and possibly a connection fee. Criteria to tap into public sewage were established by the B Authority Board at a regular meeting on [date]. Complainant A is the owner of property that is required to tap into the new sewage infrastructure pursuant to a C Township ordinance. On January 3, 2007, the Investigative Division received a letter from Complainant A, dated December 28, 2006. In said letter, Complainant A alleged that the five Board Members of the B Authority have a conflict of interest with regard to the E Project. Complainant A further alleged that the B Authority Solicitor and /or his law firm have a conflict of interest in representing the B Authority. Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 9 On or before January 4, 2007, Complainant A provided Reporter G, a reporter for Newspaper F, with a copy of the complaint letter dated December 28, 2006, that Complainant A had sent to this Commission. The copy of the complaint letter provided to Reporter G was essentially identical to the complaint letter received by the Investigative Division of this Commission on January 3, 2007. In a telephone conversation on January 4, 2007, Reporter G informed Attorney H that Complainant A had provided Reporter G with a copy of the aforesaid complaint letter. On January 25, 2007, Newspaper F, a newspaper of general circulation in D County, published an article that referred to and outlined the complaint letter dated December 28, 2006, which Complainant A had sent to this Commission. Said article stated that in the letter, "[Complainant A] suggested the authority's board of directors and board Solicitor Attorney H have a 'conflict of interest' pertaining to the much contested E Project." (See, Finding 21 b). The article appeared under the by -line of Reporter G. In a sworn statement provided to Ethics Commission investigators on July 20, 2007, Complainant A acknowledged that he provided Reporter G, either in person or via facsimile transmission, with an edited version of the complaint letter dated December 28, 2006, that Complainant A had sent to this Commission. 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 1110(a)(2) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1110(a)(2) occurred in relation to Complainant A's disclosure to newspaper reporters and the media that a complaint had been filed with the State Ethics Commission regarding the conduct of members of the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. b. That a violation of Section 1108(k) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1108(k) occurred when Complainant A disclosed to newspaper reporters and the media that a complaint had been filed with the State Ethics Commission regarding the conduct of members of the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. 4. Complainant A agrees to make payment in the amount of $200.00 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. 5. In accordance with the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §1110(c), the Commission shall release the name and address of the Complainant (Complainant A) to the subject. Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 10 6. 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. Consent Agreement, at 1 -2. In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the parties' recommendation that Complainant A violated Section 1108(k) and Section 1110(a)(2) of the Ethics Act by breaching the confidentiality of Commission proceedings and causing the public disclosure, through information provided to Reporter G, that Complainant A had filed a complaint with this Commission alleging violations of the Ethics Act by the Board Members of the B_Authority and the Solicitor for the B Authority. Factually, the information Complainant A provided to Reporter G, a reporter for Newspaper F, included a copy of the aforesaid complaint letter submitted to this Commission, which disclosure resulted in a news article related to Complainant A's complaint appearing in Newspaper F. Accordingly, we hold that a violation of Section 1108(k) of the Ethics Act occurred when Complainant A disclosed to newspaper reporter(s) and the media that a complaint had been filed with the State Ethics Commission regarding the conduct of members of the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. We further hold that a violation of Section 1110(a)(2) of the Ethics Act occurred when Complainant A disclosed to newspaper reporter(s) and the media that a complaint had been filed with the State Ethics Commission regarding the conduct of members of the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. 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, pursuant to the Consent Agreement, Complainant A is directed to make payment in the amount of $200 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within 30 days of the date of the mailing of this Order, by forwarding a check in the amount of $200 made payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to this Commission for processing. At such time as this determination becomes a public record, Chief Counsel shall publicly release a copy of this redacted adjudication and Order. Thereafter, upon receiving a written request from a Subject of Complainant A's complaint, specifically, Public Official 1, Public Official 2, Public Official 3, Public Official 4, Public Official 5, or Attorney H, Chief Counsel shall provide the name and address of Complainant A to such Subject, together with copies of this redacted adjudication and Order. See, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1110(c). IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. Complainant A, as a resident of Township C in County D, who on January 3, 2007, filed a complaint with this Commission alleging violations of the Ethics Act by the members of the B Authority and the Solicitor for the B Authority, is a Complainant subject to the confidentiality and wrongful use of act provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), and specifically 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1108(k) and 1110. Complainant A ID # 07- 022 /LD # 07- 022 -WUA Page 11 2. Complainant A violated Section 1108(k) of the Ethics Act when he disclosed to newspaper reporter(s) and the media that a complaint had been filed with the State Ethics Commission regarding the conduct of members of the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. 3. Complainant A violated Section 1110(a)(2) of the Ethics Act when he disclosed to newspaper reporter(s) and the media that a complaint had been filed with the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission regarding the conduct of members of the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. In Re: Complainant A File Docket: Date Decided: Date Mailed: ORDER NO. 1453 BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair ID # 07 -022 LD # 07- 022 -WUA 1/28/08 2/15/08 1 Complainant A, as a resident of Township C in County D, who on January 3, 2007, filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission alleging violations of the Ethics Act by the members of the B Authority and the Solicitor for the B Authority, violated Section 1108(k) of the Ethics Act when he disclosed to newspaper reporter(s) and the media that a complaint had been filed with the State Ethics Commission regarding the conduct of members of the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. 2. Complainant A violated Section 1110(a)(2) of the Ethics Act when Complainant A disclosed to newspaper reporter(s) and the media that a complaint had been filed with the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission regarding the conduct of members of the B Authority and the B Authority Solicitor. 3. Pursuant to the Consent Agreement of the parties, Complainant A is directed to make payment in the amount of $200 to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Order, by forwarding a check in the amount of $200 made payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to this Commission for processing. 4. At such time as this determination becomes a public record, Chief Counsel shall publicly release a copy of this redacted adjudication and Order. 5. Following public release, upon receiving a written request from a Subject of Complainant A's complaint, specifically Public Official 1, Public Official 2, Public Official 3, Public Official 4, Public Official 5, or Attorney H, Chief Counsel shall provide the name and address of Complainant A to such Subject, together with copies of the redacted adjudication and Order of this Commission. 6. Compliance by Complainant A with Paragraph 3 of this Order will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission beyond that set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Order. a. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action.