Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1468 ArrowIn Re: Judith Arrow, Respondent File Docket: X -ref: Date Decided: Date Mailed: Before: Louis W. Fryman, Chair John J. Bolger, Vice Chair Donald M. McCurdy Raquel K. Bergen Nicholas A. Colafella Reverend Scott Pilarz 07 -036 Order No. 1468 6/16/08 6/19/08 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding possible violation(s) 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 allegation(s). Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was not filed and a hearing was deemed waived. The averments in the Investigative Complaint are admitted and are set forth as the following Findings. The record is complete. 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. Arrow, 07 -036 Page 2 I. ALLEGATIONS: That Judy Arrow, a (public official /public employee) in her capacity as a Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township violated the following provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998) when she received compensation not provided for by law by participating in actions of the Authority Board to authorize the expenditure of authority funds for Board Members' compensation in excess of that approved by the appointing authority; and when she accepted an increase in compensation prior to the beginning of a new term of office. § 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). § 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. II. FINDINGS: 1. The Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission received a signed, sworn complaint alleging that Judith Arrow violated provisions of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998). 2. Upon review of the complaint, the Investigative Division initiated a preliminary inquiry on March 5, 2007. 3. The preliminary inquiry was completed within sixty days. 4. On May 1, 2007, a letter was forwarded to Judith Arrow, by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission informing her that a complaint against her was received by the Investigative Division and that a full investigation was being commenced. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7006 2150 0000 8771 6420. b. The letter was returned to the Investigative Division marked undeliverable. c. The letter was personally served on Judith Arrow on May 11, 2007, by an Arrow, 07 -036 Page 3 investigator for the State Ethics Commission. 5. On September 13, 2007, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission filed an application for a ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation. 6. The Commission issued an order on October 23, 2007, granting the ninety day extension. 7 On December 17, 2007, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission filed an application for a second ninety day extension of time to complete the Investigation. 8. The Commission issued an order on December 19, 2007, granting the ninety day extension. 9. On March 4, 2008, an amended Notice of Investigation was forwarded to Judith Arrow, c/o Samuel J. Davis, Esquire, Law Offices of Davis & Davis, by the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission informing her that the allegations contained in the May 1, 2007, Notice of Investigation were being amended. a. Said letter was forwarded by certified mail, no. 7006 2150 0002 5372 6703. b. The domestic return receipt bore the signature of Michael Mosko, with a delivery date of March 7, 2008. 10. Periodic notice letters were forwarded to Judith Arrow in accordance with the provisions of the Ethics Law advising her of the general status of the investigation. 11. The Investigative Complaint was mailed to the Respondent on April 24, 2008. 12. Judith Arrow served as a member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township (hereafter Authority) from August 11, 1999, until July 31, 2007. a. Arrow served as the Board Secretary from January 9, 2000, until February 27, 2007. Arrow was also employed as an Authority employee from February 23, 1982, until July 31, 2007. 1. Arrow was most recently employed in a full time capacity as the Authority Office Manager, before her separation from the Authority. 13. The Authority is governed by a seven - member board of directors. a. The Authority board holds one regularly scheduled meeting per month on the last Tuesday of each month.* *[Cf., Fact Finding 29 a.] 1. Special meetings are held as necessary. 14. Authority board members are currently compensated at the rate of $75.00 (gross) per meeting. b. c. Arrow was initially appointed to fill a vacant seat on the board and was subsequently re- appointed to full terms in 2000 and 2005. Arrow, 07 -036 Page 4 a. Board members must be present to receive the $75.00 payment. 15. Individuals in the positions of Board Secretary and Board Treasurer currently receive an extra $35.00 per month in their respective positions. a. From at least April 2002 through June 2007, the Board Secretary received an extra $70.00 per month and the Board Treasurer received an extra $35.00 per month. b. Arrow received extra monthly payments of $70.00 as board secretary. 16. Voting at Authority meetings is normally conducted via group "aye /nay" vote after a motion is made and properly seconded. a. If any Authority member objects during the group vote, an individual roll call vote is taken and recorded. b. Any objections or abstentions cast are specifically noted in the minutes. 1. Minutes of Authority board meetings are approved for accuracy at subsequent meetings. 17. Authority board members are provided with a meeting packet the Friday prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. a. The packet is compiled by the Authority's office staff, which includes Judith Arrow. b. The packet includes the upcoming meeting agenda, the prior month meeting minutes, the treasurer's report including monthly bill list, other various reports, and correspondence, etc. 1. The bill list represents all expenses paid since the previous meeting. 2. Checks issued to Authority board members are included on the bill list. 18. Signature authority over Authority accounts is maintained by the Authority Board Chairman, Treasurer, and Secretary. a. Authority checks require two signatures. b. Facsimile stamps representing the signature of the Chairman and Treasurer previously existed at the Authority office for use by Authority staff. 1. Facsimile stamps are not currently utilized by Authority office staff. 19. The Washington Township Board of Supervisors created the Authority via Ordinance presented at the August 4, 1952, regular supervisors meeting. a. The township supervisors created the Authority pursuant to the authority granted by the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act. 1. Per the Municipality Authorities Act, compensation provided for Authority board members must be established by the appointing authority. Arrow, 07 -036 Page 5 aa. Board members are not permitted to receive an increase or decrease in compensation during their existing terms. 1. Any increase or decrease in salary becomes effective only upon the beginning of a new term after the increase /decrease is enacted. b. The Authority was incorporated with the Pennsylvania Department of State, Corporation Bureau, as a Municipal Authority under Entity Number 381069 on August 21, 1952. 1. The Authority has a registered filing address of 1390 Fayette Ave., Belle Vernon, PA 15012. c. The initial objective of the Authority was to provide water services not only for the majority of its residents but various adjacent communities surrounding Washington Township as well. 1. The Authority primarily serves residential customers but also provides services to select commercial and industrial accounts. 20. The original Articles of Incorporation associated with the Authority provided for a five member board of directors. a. The original Authority board occasionally discussed both water and sewage services at monthly meetings. 1. Minutes of the June 25, 1962, Authority regular meeting document the Authority's Consulting Engineer, John T. Kane, outlining the proposed sewage system for the township. aa. Each board member was provided with a copy of the sewage system plans for review. 2. Minutes of the June 25, 1962, regular meeting document discussions regarding water and sewage services occurring during the same meeting. b. The original by -laws adopted by the Authority board at the September 8, 1952, meeting established that the board meet once per month to conduct Authority business. c. The by -laws also permitted special meetings to be held if necessary. 21. Over the next several years, the Washington Township Supervisors became involved in reviewing the possibility of instituting a sewage system for the township. a. Washington Township residents utilized individual on -lot systems for sewage purposes at that time. 1. Residents continue to utilize on -lot systems currently. b. The Authority was responsible only for the oversight of water services at that time. 1. The Authority board accomplished its responsibility regarding the Arrow, 07 -036 Page 6 The supervisors approved the amendments to the Authority's Articles of Incorporation as documented in the resolution submitted for consideration. 27. In a second undated Resolution, the Authority board voted 4 -0 at its September29, 1998, regular meeting to approve the Amendments to the Authority's Articles of Incorporation as presented to the township supervisors. 22. In the mid- 1990s, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) encouraged the township to provide sewage services to township residents. a. Although supportive of a sewage system, DEP was not in favor of the township owning and operating its own sewage treatment plant. b. DEP recommended that the township utilize existing treatment facilities in either Fayette City, PA or Belle Vernon, PA. 23. The township supervisors at the time were not receptive to DEP's proposal which prompted potential litigation between the township and DEP. a. Negotiations between the township and DEP resulted in the diffusing of the potential litigation. b. As a result of the negotiations, the township agreed to utilize one of the existing treatment plants in Fayette City or Belle Vernon. 24. The supervisors subsequently met with representatives from Fayette City, Belle Vernon, and DEP to determine which treatment facility would be utilized. a. The supervisors eventually opted to utilize the Belle Vernon treatment plant for the proposed sewage system. 25. At the July 21, 1998, meeting of the Authority Board, the Authority passed a Resolution proposing the submission of amendments to the original Articles of Incorporation to the township supervisors for action thereon. a. The proposed amendments included increasing the number of board members from five to seven and proposed that the purpose of the Authority now include the planning, funding, construction, and operation of sewage facilities throughout the township. 1. The Resolution notes that due to the extensive nature of the planning, constructing, and operating of the system, two additional Authority board members were necessary. 2. The Resolution notes the Authority's desire to plan, construct, and operate the sewage system in Washington Township. 26. Upon submission to the township supervisors, the supervisors adopted Resolution No. 98 -03 titled, "A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Washington Township, Pennsylvania, Adopting the Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation of the Municipal Authority of the Township of Washington, Fayette County, Pennsylvania" at the July 29, 1998, regular supervisor's meeting. a. oversight of water services via the conduction of one regularly scheduled meeting per month with special meetings held as necessary. Arrow, 07 -036 Page 7 a. The Resolution also directed the proper officers of the Authority to take all actions necessary to file the Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation with the proper authorities. b. The Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation was filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State on July 14, 1999. 28. The Authority board held discussions regarding a sewage system for the township at monthly board meetings as early as 1999. a. Initial sewage system discussions were incorporated into regular monthly Authority meetings upon recommendation by representatives from Bankson Engineers. 1. Bankson Engineers representatives recommended that both water and sewage issues be discussed at the same monthly meeting. 2. From at least mid -1999 through February 2000, both water and sewage issues were discussed at the same meeting. b. Authority board members received $50.00 (gross) per monthly meeting attended at this time. 1. Each Authority member's check was distributed the night of the advertised meeting. 2. Checks were generated by Authority Clerk Laura Snyder under Arrow's direction. 1. Arrow was also an Authority member. 29. Although Bankson Engineers representatives recommended discussing both water and sewage issues at monthly meetings, the Authority board decided to hold separate water and sewage meetings on the same evening. a. From approximately March 2000 through the present, the Authority board has conducted two separate meetings on the published meeting night. *[Cf., Fact Finding 13 a.] b. Arrow was an authority member when the decision was made to hold two meetings. 30. There was no formal vote by the Authority board to hold two separate meetings on the same night. a. Public notices published in The Valley Independent, a local newspaper, from 2003 through 2006 for the Authority describe a single Authority meeting to be held on the last Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. 1. The notices provide no information regarding two separate meetings to be held on the same evening. 31. The Authority board made the decision to hold two separate meetings based on the following: a. The separation of financial information, billing information, etc. between Arrow, 07 -036 Page 8 water service and sewage service. 1. The separation of information was considered due to the fact that various customers residing outside the township who received water from the Authority would not have the ability to tie into the proposed sewage system. 2. The Authority board did not feel that customers not eligible for sewage service should have to pay for costs associated with the sewage project. b. The belief that as the sewage project progressed, the time necessary to discuss relevant issues would increase significantly. c. The convenience of those in attendance at the meeting. 32. The Authority maintains various bank accounts in relation to its operations. a. The Authority utilized two separate financial institutions regarding its General Fund Account from April 2001 through the present. 1. During the time period of April 2001 through approximately October 2003, the Authority General Fund was maintained at PNC Bank under Account Number 0001930621. 2. From approximately November 2003 through approximately January 2005, the Authority General Fund was maintained at PNC Bank under Account Number 1016806468. 3. From February 2005 through the present, the Authority General Fund has been maintained at National City Bank under Account Number 981420167. b. The Authority utilized two separate financial institutions regarding its Sewage Account from April 2001 through the present. 1. During the time period of April 2001 through January 2005, the Authority Sewage Account was maintained at PNC Bank under Account Number 1011719242. aa. At the August 31, 2000, regular Authority meeting, the Authority board approved the use of $5,000.00 for expenses associated with the sewage project. bb. The $5,000.00 initial deposit credited to the Sewage account originated from the General Account at PNC Bank. 2. From February 2005 through the present, the Authority General Fund has been maintained at National City Bank under Account Number 981420183. 33. From approximately March 2000 through March 2001 the Authority board conducted separate meetings for water and sewage issues but received only one check as payment for both meetings. a. Although two separate meetings were held on the same evening, the meetings were conducted by the Authority board as a single governing body. Arrow, 07 -036 Page 9 34. In or about April 2001, the Authority board members began receiving two checks, one check for the water meeting and an additional check for the sewage meeting. a. Both meetings were held on the same date and [at the] same location. 1. The second meeting would commence immediately after the first meeting would adjourn. b. No official vote was taken by the Authority board authorizing the issuance of an additional check. 1. The Authority board accepted the additional check without seeking advice from the authority solicitor or Washington Township, the appointing body. c. The Washington Township Supervisors took no official action to approve separate payments for separate sewage meetings. 1. The Board of Supervisors was not aware, in April 2001, that the Authority was paying its members for two meetings on the same dates. 35. Payments to board members for attendance at Authority water meetings were issued from the Authority General Fund Account while checks representative of board member attendance at Authority sewage meetings were issued from the Authority Sewage Account. a. Board members routinely received both checks the night of the advertised meeting. 1. Checks generated for board members not in attendance were to be voided. b. Board members did not question the number or amounts of checks received. 36. Compensation for the Authority board members was increased at the January 2, 2002, re- organization meeting of the Washington Township Supervisors. a. The Washington Township Supervisors approved an increase for Authority board members from fifty dollars per meeting to seventy -five dollars per meeting via unanimous vote. b. No records exist of the Authority being notified at the time by the township of the meeting pay increase. 37. The motion to increase the compensation specifically increased the salaries of, "Board Members of [sic] Water and Sewage Authority." a. The motion identified the board members as officials for a single Authority. b. The motion did not include any language authorizing payments for two separate meetings. 38. From April 2002 through June 2007, Arrow routinely received separate checks for her attendance at Authority water and sewage meetings held on the same evening. CHECK DATE CHECK NUMBER GROSS SIGNATURE AUTHORITY 01/27/04 2118 $370.00 Arrow /Weiss 01/27/04 2125 $350.00 Arrow /Weiss 01/27/04 2131 $475.00 Arrow /Weiss 02/24/04 2172 $295.00 Arrow /Weiss 03/30/04 2209 $220.00 Arrow /Weiss 04/27/04 2236 $145.00 Arrow /Weiss Arrow, 07 -036 Page 10 a. Arrow, as Authority manager, was responsible for the preparation and distribution of checks to Authority members. b. Arrow received $50.00 (gross) for her attendance at each water meeting from April 2002 through December 2003 and $75.00 (gross) for her attendance at each water meeting from January 2004 through June 2007. 1. On January 27, 2004, Arrow received two additional checks from the general fund account to account for the increase in compensation approved by the supervisors which was not included in water meeting checks issued in 2002 and 2003. aa. No vote or official action was taken by the Authority board authorizing the issuance or receipt of the retroactive payments. bb. No presentation was made by representatives of the Authority to the township supervisors for approval of retroactive payments issued or received. cc. Arrow was not eligible for the increase in compensation until the beginning of her second full term in January 2005. [c]. Arrow received $50.00 (gross) for her attendance at each sewage meeting from April 2002 through December 2003 and $75.00 (gross) for her attendance at each sewage meeting from January 2004 through June 2007. 1. On January 27, 2004, Arrow received two additional checks from the sewage account to account for the increase in compensation approved by the supervisors which was not included in sewage meeting checks issued in 2002 and 2003. aa. No vote was taken by the Authority board authorizing the issuance or receipt of the retroactive payments. bb. No presentation was made by representatives of the Authority to the township supervisors for approval of retroactive payments issued or received. cc. Arrow was not eligible to receive sewage checks as the Authority board was responsible for both water and sewage issues as a single Authority board. 39. From January 2004 through December 2004, Arrow received and negotiated fifteen checks for attendance at Authority water meetings which included the $25.00 per meeting increase in compensation as shown below: Check Number Number Meetings For of Paid Excess Payment Amoun (Gross) Pe Meeting 05/25/04 Total Excess Payment 2118 4 $25.00 $100.00 2125 14 $25.00 $350.00 2131 19 $25.00 $475.00 2172 3 $25.00 $75.00 2209 2 $25.00 $50.00 2236 1 $25.00 $25.00 2263 1 $25.00 $25.00 2291 1 $25.00 $25.00 2318 2 $25.00 $50.00 2389 1 $25.00 $25.00 2411 1 $25.00 $25.00 2461 1 $25.00 $25.00 2494 2 $25.00 $50.00 2529 3 $25.00 $75.00 2547 1 $25.00 $25.00 Total $1,400.00 CHECK DATE CHECK NUMBER GROSS SIGNATURE AUTHORITY 05/25/04 2263 $145.00 Check Not Available 06/29/04 2291 $145.00 Arrow /Weiss 07/27/04 2318 $220.00 Arrow /Weiss 08/31/04 2389 $145.00 Arrow /Weiss 09/28/04 2411 $145.00 Arrow /Weiss 11/05/04 2461 $145.00 Arrow /Weiss 12/03/04 2494 $220.00 Arrow /Weiss 12/21/04 2529 $295.00 Arrow /Weiss 12/30/04 2547 $75.00 Arrow /Weiss Arrow, 07 -036 Page 11 a. Check Numbers 2125 and 2131, both issued on January 27, 2004, were issued as retroactive payments for water meetings attended in 2002 and 2003 to account for the difference in amounts of checks previously issued and the increase approved by the township supervisors respectively. b. Arrow was not eligible for the increase in compensation until the beginning of her second full term in January 2005. 40. Arrow received $1,400.00 in excess payment as a result of accepting checks issued for attendance at Authority water meetings which included the $25.00 increase in compensation to which she was not entitled as shown below: a. Arrow's signature as an authorized Authority signatory appears on at least fourteen of fifteen checks issued to Arrow which included excess payment for attendance at Authority meetings. b. Arrow cashed or deposited into her personal bank account all checks received and utilized the funds for various personal use. CHECK DATE CHECK NUMBER GROSS SIGNATURE AUTHORITY 05/28/02 1622 $ 50.00 Arrow /Canigiani 06/18/02 1630 $ 50.00 Arrow /Canigiani 08/27/02 1645 $ 50.00 Arrow /Canigiani 09/24/02 1654 $ 50.00 Arrow /Sotta 10/30/02 1662 $ 50.00 Arrow /Canigiani 11/19/02 1677 $ 50.00 Arrow /Canigiani 01/28/03 1685 $ 50.00 Arrow /Sotta 02/25/03 1693 $ 50.00 Arrow /Weiss 04/29/03 1708 $ 50.00 Arrow /Weiss 05/27/03 1716 $ 50.00 Arrow /Sotta 06/24/03 1731 $ 50.00 Arrow /Sotta 07/29/03 1740 $ 50.00 Arrow /Weiss 08/21/03 1747 $ 50.00 Arrow /Sotta 09/30/03 1755 $ 50.00 Arrow /Weiss 10/28/03 1765 $ 50.00 Arrow /Weiss 11/25/03 1773 $ 50.00 Arrow /Weiss 12/16/03 1781 $ 50.00 Arrow /Weiss 01/27/04 1798 $300.00 Arrow /Weiss 01/27/04 1805 $300.00 Arrow /Weiss Meeting Date Arrow's Vote Final Vote Check Date Check No Check Amount (Gross) $370.00 $350.00 $475.00 01/27/04 Yes 7 -0 01/27/04 01/27/04 01/27/04 2118 2125 2131 02/24/04 Yes 7 -0 02/24/04 2172 $295.00 03/30/04 Yes 7 -0 03/30/04 2209 $220.00 04/27/04 Yes 7 -0 04/27/04 2236 $145.00 05/25/04 Yes 6 -0 05/25/04 2263 $145.00 06/29/04 Yes 6 -0 06/29/04 2291 $145.00 07/27/04 Yes 7 -0 07/27/04 2318 $220.00 08/31/04 Yes 7 -0 08/31/04 2389 $145.00 09/28/04 Yes 6 -0 09/28/04 2411 $145.00 11/30/04 Yes 7 -0 11/05/04 2461 $145.00 12/21/04 Yes 7 -0 12/03/04 12/21/04 12/30/04 2494 2529 2547 $220.00 $295.00 $275.00 Arrow, 07 -036 Page 12 41. Arrow participated in actions as an Authority board member in approving monthly bill lists on which excess payment received for attendance at the water portion of Authority meetings was documented as shown below: a. Arrow voted to approve monthly bill lists on eleven of eleven instances that excess payment to Arrow was documented to which Arrow was not entitled. 42. From April 2002 though June 2007, Arrow received and negotiated fifty -nine checks totaling $4,825.00 (gross) from the Authority's sewage account at either PNC Bank (Account No. 1011719242) or National City Bank (981420183) representative of payment for sewage meetings attended on the same night as regular Authority water meetings as shown below: CHECK DATE CHECK NUMBER GROSS SIGNATURE AUTHORITY 01/27/04 1812 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 02/24/04 1820 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 03/30/04 1828 $ 75.00 Check Not Available 04/27/04 1838 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 05/25/04 1846 $ 75.00 Check Not Available 06/29/04 1854 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 07/27/04 1864 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 08/31/04 1879 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 09/28/04 1881 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 11/05/04 1899 $150.00 Arrow /Weiss 11/05/04 1907 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 12/03/04 1914 $150.00 Arrow /Weiss 12/21/04 1922 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 01/25/05 1931 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 02/22/05 1000 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 03/29/05 1009 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 04/26/05 1018 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 05/31/05 1027 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 06/28/05 1036 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 07/26/05 1044 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 08/30/05 1053 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 09/27/05 1063 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 10/25/05 1074 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 11/29/05 1082 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 12/07/05 1091 $225.00 Arrow /Weiss 12/19/05 1100 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 01/31/06 1111 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 02/28/06 1118 $ 75.00 Arrow 03/24/06 1125 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 04/25/06 1136 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 05/30/06 1145 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 07/25/06 1160 $150.00 Arrow /Weiss 08/29/06 1170 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 09/26/06 1183 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 10/28/06 1196 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 11/28/06 1206 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 12/19/06 1213 $ 75.00 Arrow /Weiss 01/30/07 1221 $ 75.00 Sotta /Weiss 02/27/07 1231 $ 75.00 Sotta /Weiss 06/29/07 1263 $ 75.00 Zadrozny /Russell TOTAL: $4,825.00 Arrow, 07 -036 Page 13 a. Check Numbers 1798 and 1805, both issued on January 27, 2004, were issued as retroactive payments for sewage meetings attended in 2002 and 2003 to account for the difference in amounts of checks previously issued and the increase approved by the township supervisors respectively. 1 Retroactive payment issued was based on the supposition of Arrow attending one sewage meeting each month during 2002 and 2003 (i.e. 1 meeting per month multiplied by twelve months per year multiplied by $25.00 difference equals $300.00). Meeting Date Arrow's Vote Final Vote Check Date Check No. Check Amount (Gross) 05/28/02 Yes 7 -0 05/28/02 1622 50.00 06/18/02 Yes 7 -0 06/18/02 1630 $ 50.00 08/27/02 Yes 7 -0 08/27/02 1645 $ 50.00 09/24/02 Yes 7 -0 09/24/02 1654 $ 50.00 10/29/02 Yes 7 -0 10/30/02 1662 $ 50.00 11/19/02 Yes 7 -0 11/19/02 1677 $ 50.00 01/28/03 Yes 6 -0 01/28/03 1685 $ 50.00 02/25/03 Yes 7 -0 02/25/03 1693 $ 50.00 04/29/03 Yes 7 -0 04/29/03 1708 $ 50.00 05/27/03 Yes 7 -0 05/27/03 1716 $ 50.00 06/24/03 Yes 6 -0 06/24/03 1731 $ 50.00 07/29/03 Yes 7 -0 07/29/03 1740 $ 50.00 08/21/03 Yes 7 -0 08/21/03 1747 $ 50.00 09/30/03 Yes 7 -0 09/30/03 1755 $ 50.00 10/28/03 Yes 7 -0 10/28/03 1765 $ 50.00 11/25/03 Yes 7 -0 11/25/03 1773 $ 50.00 12/16/03 Yes 7 -0 12/16/03 1781 $ 50.00 01/27/04 Yes 7 -0 01/27/04 01/27/04 01/27/04 1798 1805 1812 $300.00 $300.00 $ 75.00 02/24/04 Yes 7 -0 02/24/04 1820 $ 75.00 03/30/04 Yes 7 -0 03/30/04 1828 $ 75.00 04/27/04 Yes 7 -0 04/27/04 1838 $ 75.00 05/25/04 Yes 6 -0 05/25/04 1846 $ 75.00 06/29/04 Yes 6 -0 06/29/04 1854 $ 75.00 07/27/04 Yes 7 -0 07/27/04 1864 $ 75.00 08/31/04 Yes 7 -0 08/31/04 1879 $ 75.00 09/28/04 Yes 6 -0 09/28/04 1881 $ 75.00 10/26/04 Yes 7 -0 NCI* NCI* NCI* 11/30/04 Yes 7 -0 11/05/04 11/05/04 1899 1907 $150.00 $ 75.00 12/21/04 Yes 7 -0 12/03/04 12/21/04 1914 1922 $150.00 $ 75.00 01/25/05 Yes 7 -0 01/25/05 1931 $ 75.00 02/22/05 Yes 7 -0 02/22/05 1000 $ 75.00 03/29/05 Yes 7 -0 03/29/05 1009 $ 75.00 04/26/05 Yes 7 -0 04/26/05 1018 $ 75.00 05/31/05 Yes 7 -0 05/31/05 1027 $ 75.00 06/28/05 Yes 6 -0 06/28/05 1036 $ 75.00 07/26/05 Yes 7 -0 07/26/05 1044 $ 75.00 08/30/05 Not Present 6 -0 08/30/05 1053 $ 75.00 Arrow, 07 -036 Page 14 b. Of the fifty -nine checks issued to Arrow representative of attendance at sewage meetings, Arrow's signature appears on at least fifty -four checks totaling $4,450.00 as an authorized Authority signatory. c. Arrow cashed or deposited Authority checks received into her personal bank account(s) and utilized the funds for various personal use. 43. Arrow participated in actions as an Authority board member in approving monthly bill lists on which payment received for attendance at the sewage portion of Authority meetings was documented as shown below: Meeting Date Arrow's Vote Final Vote Check Date Check No. Check Amount ( Gross) $ 75.00 09/27/05 Yes 6 -0 09/27/05 1063 10/25/05 Yes 7 -0 10/25/05 1074 $ 75.00 11/29/05 Yes 7 -0 11/29/05 1082 $ 75.00 12/20/05 Yes 7 -0 12/07/05 12/19/05 1091 1100 $225.00 $ 75.00 01/31/06 Yes 7 -0 01/31/06 1111 $ 75.00 02/28/06 Yes 7 -0 02/28/06 1118 $ 75.00 03/28/06 Yes 7 -0 03/24/06 1125 $ 75.00 04/25/06 Yes 7 -0 04/25/06 1136 $ 75.00 05/30/06 Not Present 5 -0 05/30/06 1145 $ 75.00 07/25/06 Yes 7 -0 07/25/06 1160 $150.00 08/29/06 Yes 7 -0 08/29/06 1170 $ 75.00 09/26/06 Yes 7 -0 09/26/06 1183 $ 75.00 10/31/06 Yes 6 -0 10/28/06 1196 $ 75.00 11/28/06 Yes 6 -0 11/28/06 1206 $ 75.00 12/19/06 Yes 7 -0 12/19/06 1213 $ 75.00 01/30/07 January bills tabled until February meeting 02/27/07 No 5 -1 01/30/07 1221 $ 75.00 January bills approved at February meeting- February bills tabled until March meeting 03/27/07 I Not Present 1 6 -0 1 02/27/07 11231 I$ 75.00 February bills approved at March meeting -No official action on March bills 04/24/07 Not Present No official action on April bills 06/26/07 Yes 7 -0 06/29/07 1263 $ 75.00 Meeting Date Arrow Present Check Number Gross 07/30/02 No 1512 $50.00 08/30/05 No 1257 75.00 05/30/06 No 1613 75.00 Total $200.00 Arrow, 07 -036 Page 15 NCI = No Check Issued a. Arrow was present and voted to approve fifty of fifty -one bill lists on which payment to her was noted for attendance at sewage portions of Authority meetings. 44. In addition to Arrow's receipt of payment for sewage meetings held on the same evening as Authority water meetings, errors were made in the issuance or non - issuance of checks to Arrow regarding her attendance at regular Authority meetings. a. Authority board members must be present at Authority meetings in order to receive compensation. 45. Arrow was responsible for the issuance of payments to her for an Authority water meeting held on July 30, 2002, and for Authority water and sewage meetings held on August 30, 2005, and May 30, 2006, totaling $200.00, which she did not attend as shown below: a. Arrow was the manager responsible for the issuance of payments to board members for meeting attendance. Arrow, 07 -036 Page 16 b. Minutes document Arrow's absence at the meetings. 1. Arrow accepted Authority checks for attendance at meetings for which she was not present. c. Payment noted represents payment for the water portion of the Authority meetings only. 1. Erroneous payment for the sewage portion of the Authority meetings noted was previously accounted for (See, Finding No. 43). 2. The $25.00 retroactive compensation issued for the July 30, 2002, meeting was previously accounted for (See, Finding No. 41). 46. Arrow was erroneously not issued payment for the Authority meeting held on October 26, 2004, which she attended. a. Minutes document Arrow's attendance at the meeting. b, Compensation due Arrow for attendance at the meeting totals approximately $50.00. 47. Authority board members are no longer receiving separate checks representative of payment for attendance at Authority water and sewage meetings held on the same evening. a. In July 2007, the Authority board elected to stop the receipt of separate checks for water and sewage meetings held on the same evening based on the advice of the Authority's newly appointed solicitor. b. The decision to cease the separate meeting payment was not formally voted on by the Authority board. 1. The decision was based on informal discussions held with the newly appointed solicitor. 48. During a sworn statement with Commission investigators on February 26, 2008, Arrow stated the following: a. Snyder routinely generated checks to be issued to Authority board members. 1. Arrow instructed Snyder on the amounts of the checks to be written. 2. Arrow distributed checks the night of the actual meeting to those Authority board members in attendance. 3. Any checks written in the name of Authority board members not in attendance were to be voided. b. The decision to hold and be paid for two separate meetings for water and sewage issues was made by then Chairman Melvin Weiss upon soliciting input from other board members. c. The Authority board never formally voted to hold separate water and sewage meetings. Arrow, 07 -036 Page 17 1 Arrow did not know if the Washington Township Board of Supervisors ever formally authorized payment of two checks to the Authority board members for separate water and sewage meetings held. d. Arrow issued retroactive checks to Authority board members for water and sewage meetings held in 2002 and 2003 based on Weiss's direction to do so. 49. Arrow, as a member of the Authority board, realized a financial gain of approximately $6,375.00 as a result of approving bill lists documenting payment to herself for attendance at water and sewage portions of Authority meetings in excess of that approved by the appointing authority, signing checks representing partially or in whole the excess payment, and accepting said payment; and when she accepted an increase in compensation prior to the beginning of a new term of office: Excess payment received for water portions of Authority meetings: $1100.00 Payment for attendance at sewage portions of Authority meetings: $4,800 Payment for Authority meetings at which Arrow was not present: $ 200.00 Credit for payment not received for Attendance at Authority meetings: $ 5 0.00 Total: $6,37500 III. DISCUSSION: As a Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township from August 11, 1999, until July 31, 2007, Respondent Judith Arrow, hereinafter also referred to as "Respondent," "Respondent Arrow," or "Arrow," has been a public official 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 Arrow violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she received compensation not provided for by law by participating in actions of the Authority Board to authorize the expenditure of Authority funds for Board Members' compensation in excess of that approved by the appointing authority; and when she accepted an increase in compensation prior to the beginning of a new term of office. 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 Arrow, 07 -036 Page 18 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. We shall now summarize the facts pertaining to this case. Given Respondent's failure to file an Answer to the Investigative Complaint, the facts as averred by the Investigative Complaint are deemed admitted by Respondent. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(e); 51 Pa. Code § 21.5(k)(1). The Washington Township Board of Supervisors ( "Board of Supervisors ") created the Municipal Authority of Washington Township ( "Authority ") in 1952, pursuant to the authority granted by the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act. The original by -laws adopted by the Authority Board in 1952 established that the Authority Board would meet once per month to conduct Authority business. The by -laws also permitted special meetings to be held if necessary. The initial objective of the Authority was to provide water services for the majority of residents of Washington Township ( "Township "), as well as residents of various adjacent communities. However, in 1999, with the approval of the Board of Supervisors, the Authority's Articles of Incorporation were amended to include as a purpose of the Authority the planning, funding, construction, and operation of sewage facilities throughout the Township. Respondent Arrow served as a Member of the seven - Member Authority Board from August 11, 1999, until July 31, 2007. Arrow served as Secretary of the Authority Board from January 9, 2000, until February 27, 2007. Arrow also served as an Authority employee from February 23, 1982, until July 31, 2007. Most recently, Arrow was employed by the Authority as the full time Office Manager, in which capacity she was responsible for the preparation and distribution of checks to Authority Board Members. Per the Fact Findings, from at least mid -1999 through February 2000, the Authority Board followed the recommendations of an engineering firm to discuss water and sewage issues at the same monthly meetings. At that time, Authority Board Members received $50.00 (gross) per monthly meeting attended. However, subsequently, and without a formal vote, the Authority Board decided to hold separate water and sewage meetings on the same evenings. Arrow was an Authority Board Member when this decision was made. From approximately March 2000 through the present, the Authority Board has conducted two separate meetings on published meeting nights. Such meetings have been held consecutively and at the same location. From approximately March 2000 through March 2001, Board Members attending Authority Board meetings continued to receive one check per meeting night, which was for both meetings. However, in or about April 2001, Arrow and other Authority Board Members began receiving two checks per meeting night, Arrow, 07 -036 Page 19 with one check being for the water meeting and an additional check being for the sewage meeting. Per the Municipality Authorities Act, compensation provided for authority board members must be established by the appointing authority (in this case, the Board of Supervisors). 53 Pa.C.S. § 5610(d). Authority board members are not permitted to receive an increase or decrease in compensation during their existing terms. Id. Any increase or decrease in salary becomes effective only upon the beginning of a new term after the increase /decrease is enacted. Id. The Board of Supervisors took no official action to approve payments to Authority Board Members for separate water and sewage meetings. In April 2001, the Board of Supervisors was not aware that the Authority was paying its Board Members for two meetings on the same dates. At the January 2, 2002, re- organization meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the compensation for Authority Board Members was increased from fifty dollars per meeting to seventy -five dollars per meeting. The motion to increase the compensation identified the Board Members as officials for a single Authority. The motion did not include any language authorizing payments for two separate meetings. No records exist of the Authority being notified by the Township at that time of the meeting pay increase. From April 2002 through June 2007, Arrow routinely received separate checks for her attendance at Authority Board water and sewage meetings held on the same evening. Arrow received $50.00 (gross) for her attendance at each water meeting from April 2002 through December 2003 and $75.00 (gross) for her attendance at each water meeting from January 2004 through June 2007. On January 27, 2004, Arrow received two additional Authority checks to account for the increase in compensation approved by the Board of Supervisors that was not included in water meeting checks issued in 2002 and 2003. However, Arrow was not eligible to receive the increase in compensation until the beginning of her second full term in January 2005. Arrow received $1,400.00 in excess payments as a result of accepting fifteen checks issued for attendance at Authority water meetings that included the $25.00 increase in compensation to which she was not entitled, as detailed in Fact Finding 40. Arrow participated in actions as an Authority Board Member in approving monthly bill lists that included all of the aforesaid fifteen checks, as detailed in Fact Finding 41. Signature authority over Authority accounts is maintained by the Authority Board Chairman, Treasurer, and Secretary. Authority checks require two signatures. Arrow's signature appears as an authorized Authority signatory on at least fourteen of the aforesaid fifteen checks. Arrow cashed or deposited into her personal bank account all of the aforesaid checks she received and utilized the funds for various personal use. Arrow received $50.00 (gross) for her attendance at each sewage meeting from April 2002 through December 2003 and $75.00 (gross) for her attendance at each sewage meeting from January 2004 through June 2007. On January 27, 2004, Arrow also received two additional Authority checks to account for the increase in compensation approved by the Board of Supervisors that was not included in sewage meeting checks issued in 2002 and 2003. However, Arrow was not eligible to receive sewage meeting checks at all, because the Authority Board was responsible for both water and sewage issues as a single Authority Board. As detailed in Fact Finding 42, from April 2002 though June 2007, Arrow received Arrow, 07 -036 Page 20 and negotiated fifty -nine Authority checks totaling $4,825.00 (gross) representing payment for sewage meetings attended on the same night as regular Authority water meetings. Arrow participated in actions of the Authority Board in approving monthly bill lists that included fifty -five of the aforesaid checks, totaling $4,525.00, as detailed in Fact Finding 43. Arrow's signature appears as an authorized Authority signatory on at least fifty -four of the aforesaid checks, totaling $4,450.00. There were only two such checks -- Authority checks 1221 and 1231, totaling $150.00- -for which Arrow neither signed nor voted to approve the payments. (Cf., Fact Findings 42 and 43). Arrow cashed or deposited Authority checks received into her personal bank account(s) and utilized the funds for various personal use. Authority Board Members must be present at Authority Board meetings in order to receive meeting compensation. Arrow was responsible for the issuance of payments totaling $200.00 to herself for Authority Board meetings held July 30, 2002, August 30, 2005, and May 30, 2006, which meetings she did not attend. Arrow was erroneously not issued payment for the Authority Board meeting held on October 26, 2004, which she did attend. Compensation due Arrow for attendance at that meeting would total approximately $50.00. In July 2007, the Authority Board elected to stop issuing separate checks for water and sewage meetings held on the same evening, based on the advice of the Authority's newly appointed solicitor. During a sworn statement with Commission investigators on February 26, 2008, Arrow stated, inter alia, the following: Authority Clerk Laura Snyder ( "Snyder ") routinely generated checks to be issued to Authority Board Members; Arrow instructed Snyder on the amounts of the checks to be written; the decision to hold and be paid for two separate meetings for water and sewage issues was made by then Chairman Melvin Weiss upon soliciting input from other Authority Board Members; the Authority Board never formally voted to hold separate water and sewage meetings; Arrow did not know if the Board of Supervisors ever formally authorized payment of two checks to the Authority Board Members for separate water and sewage meetings held; and Arrow issued retroactive checks to Authority Board Members for water and sewage meetings held in 2002 and 2003 based on Weiss's direction to do so. Per the Fact Findings of the Investigative Complaint, deemed admitted by Arrow, Arrow realized a financial gain of approximately $6,375.00, consisting of the following: (1) $1,400 in excess payments for attendance at Authority water meetings; (2) $4,825.00 in payments for attendance at Authority sewage meetings when the Board of Supervisors had not authorized compensation for separate water and sewage meetings; (3) and $200.00 in payments for Authority Board meetings Arrow did not attend, less a $50.00 credit for a payment Arrow should have received, but did not receive, for a meeting she did attend. Having summarized the above relevant facts, we must now determine whether the actions of Arrow violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. As we apply the facts to the allegations, due process requires that we not depart from the allegations. Pennsy v. Department of State, 594 A.2d 845 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). A violation of the Ethics Act must be based upon clear and convincing proof. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(g). Clear and convincing proof is "so `clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." In Re: Charles E.D.M., 550 Pa. 595, 601, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (1998) (Citation omitted). The allegations are that Arrow violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she received compensation not provided for by law: (1) by participating in actions of the Authority Board to authorize the expenditure of Authority funds for Board Members' compensation in excess of that approved by the appointing authority (Board of Arrow, 07 -036 Page 21 Supervisors); and (2) when she accepted an increase in compensation prior to the beginning of a new term of office. The first allegation pertains to unauthorized payments Arrow received for attending sewage meetings as separate meetings. Each element of a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act has been established as to this allegation. From April 2002 though June 2007, Arrow received and negotiated fifty -nine Authority checks totaling $4,825.00 (gross) representing payment for sewage meetings attended on the same night as regular Authority water meetings. Arrow used the authority of her public office as an Authority Board Member when she participated in actions of the Authority Board in approving monthly bill lists that included fifty -five of these Authority checks totaling $4,525.00, as detailed in Fact Finding 43. See, Cours, Order 1150; Hoover, Order 1402; Nagele, Order 1403; Harton, Order 1421. Arrow also used the authority of her public office when she, as the Authority Board Secretary, signed as an authorized Authority signatory at least fifty -four of the checks totaling $4,450.00. See, Schlanger, Order 1257; Hoover, supra; Nagele, supra; Harton, supra; Latkanich, Order 1445. The payments Arrow received for sewage meetings constituted a private pecuniary benefit to Arrow, specifically, unauthorized compensation. Per the Municipality Authorities Act, compensation provided for authority board members must be established by the appointing authority (in this case, the Board of Supervisors). 53 Pa.C.S. § 5610(d). The Board of Supervisors took no official action to approve payments to Authority Board Members for separate water and sewage meetings. Because the first allegation does not encompass Arrow's actions in signing Authority checks as an authorized signatory, but rather, is limited to Arrow's participation in actions of the Authority Board, we hold that Arrow violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she received compensation in the amount of $4,525.00, which was not provided for by law, by participating in actions of the Authority Board to authorize the expenditure of Authority funds for Authority Board Members' compensation in excess of that approved by the Board of Supervisors. The second allegation pertains to Arrow's acceptance of an increase in meeting pay prior to the beginning of a new term of office. As noted above, at the January 2, 2002, re- organization meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the compensation for Authority Board Members was increased from fifty dollars per meeting to seventy -five dollars per meeting. However, per the Municipality Authorities Act, authority board members are not permitted to receive an increase or decrease in compensation during their existing terms. 53 Pa.C.S. § 5610(d). Any increase or decrease in salary becomes effective only upon the beginning of a new term after the increase /decrease is enacted. Id. Arrow was not eligible to receive the increase in compensation until the beginning of her second full term in January 2005. Arrow received $1,400.00 in excess payments as a result of accepting fifteen checks issued for attendance at Authority water meetings that included the $25.00 increase in compensation to which she was not entitled, as detailed in Fact Finding 40. Such excess compensation was not authorized in law and constituted a private pecuniary benefit to Arrow. The element of use of authority of office has been established. Arrow used the authority of her public office when she participated in actions as an Authority Board Member in approving monthly bill lists that included all of the aforesaid fifteen checks, as detailed in Fact Finding 41. Arrow also used the authority of her public position when she, as the Authority Board Secretary, signed as an authorized Authority signatory at least Arrow, 07 -036 Page 22 fourteen of the aforesaid fifteen checks. With each element of a violation of Section 1103(a) established, we hold that Arrow violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she received compensation in the amount of $1,400.00, which was not provided for by law, when she accepted an increase in compensation (meeting pay) prior to the beginning of a new term of office. See, Trimer, Order 1285. As for the amount of $150.00 ($200.00 minus $50.00 credit) that Arrow received for Authority Board meetings she did not attend, we find no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act based upon the applicability of the "de minimis" exclusion to the Ethics Act's definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest," 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. See, Bixlerv. State Ethics Commission, 847 A.2d 785 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Section 1107(13) of the Ethics Act empowers this Commission to require restitution in instances where a public official /public employee has obtained a financial gain in violation of the Ethics Act. We shall now determine whether restitution would be appropriate in this case. The Investigative Division has filed a Position Statement seeking an order for restitution. Respondent has filed a Position Statement asserting that she lacked "evil intent" and that she is presently experiencing adverse financial circumstances. We determine that restitution in the total amount of $5,925.00 is warranted in this case as to the aforesaid private pecuniary benefits ($4,525.00 plus $1,400.00) that Respondent received in violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. However, we shall permit Respondent to pay the aforesaid restitution in 36 monthly installments as set forth below. Respondent Arrow is directed to pay restitution to the Authority in the total amount of $5,925.00 in monthly payments of $164.58 for thirty -five (35) months, and a final payment of $164.70, with all such payments to be payable to the Authority and forwarded to this Commission for processing, and with the first such payment to be forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order. Respondent may prepay the amount due at any time. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. As a Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township ( "Authority ") from August 11, 1999, until July 31, 2007, Respondent Judith Arrow ( "Arrow") has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. Arrow violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she received compensation in the amount of $4,525.00, which was not provided for by law, by participating in actions of the Authority Board to authorize the expenditure of Authority funds for Authority Board Members' compensation in excess of that approved by the Washington Township Board of Supervisors. 3. Arrow violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she received compensation in the amount of $1,400.00, which was not provided for by law, when she accepted an increase in compensation (meeting pay) prior to the beginning of a new term of office. 4. Arrow did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the amount of $150.00 Arrow, 07 -036 Page 23 ($200.00 minus $50.00 credit) that she received for Authority Board meetings she did not attend, based upon the applicability of the "de minimis" exclusion to the Ethics Act's definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest," 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. 5. Restitution is warranted in this case. In Re: Judith Arrow, Respondent ORDER NO. 1468 File Docket: 07 -036 Date Decided: 6/16/08 Date Mailed: 6/19/08 1 Respondent Judith Arrow ( "Arrow "), a public official in her capacity as a Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township ( "Authority ") from August 11, 1999, until July 31, 2007, violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when she received compensation in the amount of $4,525.00, which was not provided for by law, by participating in actions of the Authority Board to authorize the expenditure of Authority funds for Authority Board Members' compensation in excess of that approved by the Washington Township Board of Supervisors. 2. Arrow violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when she received compensation in the amount of $1,400.00, which was not provided for by law, when she accepted an increase in compensation (meeting pay) prior to the beginning of a new term of office. 3. Arrow did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to the amount of $150.00 ($200.00 minus $50.00 credit) that she received for Authority Board meetings she did not attend, based upon the applicability of the "de minimis" exclusion to the Ethics Act's definition of "conflict" or "conflict of interest," 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102. 4. Respondent Arrow is directed to pay restitution to the Authority in the total amount of $5,925.00 in monthly payments of $164.58 for thirty -five (35) months, and a final payment of $164.70, with all such payments to be payable to the Authority and forwarded to this Commission for processing, and with the first such payment to be forwarded to this Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this Order. Respondent may prepay the amount due at any time. a. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Louis W. Fryman, Chair