Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1479 WeissIn Re: Melvin Weiss, 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 07 -037 Order No. 1479 7/21/08 8/5/08 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 allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement waiving an evidentiary hearing were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulated Findings are set forth 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. Weiss, 07 -037 Page 2 I. ALLEGATIONS: That Melvin Weiss, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a Supervisor of Washington Township, violated Section 1103(a) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a) when he participated in actions of the board of supervisors resulting in his appointment and reappointment to the Washington Township Municipal Authority; and when as a member of the Washington Township Municipal Authority he participated in actions of the board of directors to set the compensation for Board Members in excess of that approved by the appointing authority; and when [he] accepted compensation increases prior to the beginning of a new term. II. FINDINGS: 1. Melvin Weiss served as a Supervisor for Washington Township, Fayette County, from January 1996 through December 31, 2005. a. Weiss served as the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from January 6, 1997, to December 31, 2005, with the exception of the 2002 calendar year. b. Weiss served as the Vice - Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from January 7, 2002, to January 6, 2003. 2. Melvin Weiss has also served as a member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township (hereafter Authority) from August 11, 1999, through the present. a. Weiss was initially appointed to fill a vacant seat on the board and was subsequently re- appointed to full terms in 2000 and 2005. 1. According to meeting minutes, Weiss voted, as [a] member of the board of supervisors, for his appointment and reappointments. b. Weiss served as the Authority Board Chairman from January 4, 2001, to January 12, 2002, and from January 8, 2003, to January 12, 2008. 3. Washington Township is a second class township governed by a three member board of supervisors. a. The Washington Township Supervisors hold one legislative meeting per month on the second Wednesday of the month. b. Special meetings are held as necessary. 4. Voting at Washington Township Supervisors meetings occurs in group aye /nay fashion after a motion is made and properly seconded. a. Any abstentions or objections which occur are specifically noted in the minutes. 5. 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 them in the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act. Weiss, 07 -037 Page 3 1 Per the Municipality Authorities Act, compensation provided for Authority board members must be established by the appointing authority. 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. 6. The Washington Township Supervisors are responsible for appointing the members of the Authority Board and setting board member compensation. a. Authority board members serve five year terms. 7 The Authority is currently 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.* 1. Special meetings are held as necessary. *[Cf., Fact Finding 22a]. 8. Authority board members are currently compensated at the rate of $75.00 (gross) per meeting. a. Board members must be present to receive the $75.00 payment. b. Prior to January 2002, Authority members were compensated at the rate of $50.00 per meeting attended. 9. Voting at an Authority meeting 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 Weiss, 07 -037 Page 4 subsequent meetings. 10. 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. b. The packet includes the upcoming meeting agenda, the prior month meeting minutes, the treasurer's report including monthly bill list, other various reports, 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 meets once per month to conduct Authority business. c. The by -laws also permitted special meetings to be held if necessary. 13. 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. Weiss, 07 -037 Page 5 b. The Authority was responsible only for the oversight of water services at that time. 1. The Authority board accomplished its responsibility regarding the oversight of water services via the conduction of one regularly scheduled meeting per month with special meetings held as necessary. 14. 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. 15. 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 [sic] 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Upon submission of the resolution by the Authority 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. The supervisors approved the amendments to the Authority's Articles of Weiss, 07 -037 Page 6 Incorporation as documented in the resolution submitted for consideration. b. Weiss signed Resolution 98 -03 as the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, signifying his approval of the addition of two seats to the Authority Board. 19. In a second undated Resolution, the Authority board voted 4 -0 at its September 29, 1998, regular meeting to approve the Amendments to the Authority's Articles of Incorporation as presented to the township supervisors. 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. 20. Weiss was initially appointed to fill one of the two newly established Authority seats at the August 11, 1999, regular township meeting and was re- appointed to full Authority terms at the January 4, 2000, and January 3, 2005, township re- organization meetings. a. Weiss was present and voted to appoint and subsequently re- appoint himself into a compensated position on the Authority board at each respective meeting. 1. Minutes note no abstention by Weiss regarding votes associated with his appointment /re- appointment. 21. 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. During 1999 and 2000, 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 [Judith] Arrow's direction. 1. Arrow was also an Authority member. 22. Although Bankson Engineers representatives recommended discussing water and sewage issues at monthly meetings, the Authority board decided to hold separate water and sewage meetings on the same evening. Weiss, 07 -037 Page 7 a. From approximately March 2000 through the present, the Authority board has conducted two separate meetings on the published meeting night.* *[Cf., Fact Finding 7a]. 23. 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. 24. 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 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. d. Weiss was a member of the Authority board when the board began holding two separate meetings in March 2000. 25. 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. From approximately April 2001 through approximately January 2005, the Authority General Fund was maintained at PNC Bank. 2. From February 2005 through the present, the Authority General Fund has been maintained at National City Bank. 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 xxx>ooc9242. Weiss, 07 -037 Page 8 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 xxx>ooc0183. 26. 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. 27. 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 members 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. 28. 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. 29. Compensation for the Authority board members was increased at the January 2, 2002, re- organization meeting of the Washington Township Supervisors. Weiss, 07 -037 Page 9 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 that time by the township of the meeting pay increase. 30. Weiss was present and participated in the board of supervisors vote to increase the compensation of Authority board members from fifty dollars to seventy -five dollars per meeting. a. Weiss participated in the vote to increase Authority board member compensation at the time that Weiss was a sitting member of the Authority board. 31. 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. 32. From April 2002 through June 2007, Weiss routinely received separate checks for his attendance at Authority water and sewage meetings held on the same evening. a. Weiss received $50.00 (gross) for his attendance at each water meeting from April 2002 through December 2003, and $75.00 (gross) for his attendance at each water meeting from January 2004 through June 2007. 1. On January 27, 2004, Weiss 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 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. Weiss was not eligible for the increase in compensation until the beginning of his second full term in January 2005. b. Weiss received $50.00 (gross) for his attendance at each sewage meeting from April 2002 through December 2003, and $75.00 (gross) for his attendance at each sewage meeting from January 2004 through June 2007. 1. On January 27, 2004, Weiss 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 or official action was taken by the Authority board Weiss, 07 -037 Page 10 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. Weiss was not eligible to receive checks for sewage meetings as the Authority board was responsible for both water and sewage issues as a single Authority board. 33. From April 2002 through June 2007, Weiss received and negotiated sixty -seven checks totaling $5,450.00 for attendance at Authority sewage meetings held on the same night as water meetings. a. Two (2) checks, numbers 1804 and 1811, 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. b. Of the sixty -seven checks issued to Weiss representative of attendance at sewage meetings, Weiss's signature appears on at least fifty checks totaling $4,425.00 as an authorized Authority signatory. c. Weiss cashed or deposited into personal bank accounts all checks received and utilized the funds for various personal use. 34. Weiss participated in actions as an Authority board member in approving monthly bill lists on which payment received [sic] for attendance at Authority meetings. a. Weiss voted to approve monthly bill lists all sixty -two instances when payment was made to Weiss for which he was not entitled. 35. Weiss was erroneously not issued payment for his attendance at the October 26, 2004, regular Authority meeting. a. Compensation due Weiss for attendance at the meeting totals approximately $50.00. 36. 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. 37. During a sworn statement with Commission investigators on January 30, 2008, Weiss stated the following: Weiss, 07 -037 Page 11 a. In his capacity as a township supervisor, he abstained from appointing himself to the Authority board. 1. Weiss' statement is contradicted by minutes of board of supervisors meetings which indicate an affirmative vote. b. The supervisors via a vote at a public meeting mandated that the Authority board hold two separate meetings: one to address water related issues, [and] the other to address sewage related issues. 1. Weiss stated that separate meetings were held in order to address separate issues that affected separate communities /townships. 2. Weiss could not recall if the supervisors mandated that the Authority board members be compensated for each meeting held on the same evening. 3. Weiss' statement is contradicted by board of supervisors meeting minutes which do not reflect such votes. c. Judith Arrow (Arrow), a board member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township, informed Weiss that she consulted with the Authority's former solicitor, Mark Ramsier, and that Ramsier informed Arrow that it was acceptable to provide the board with a check for each meeting held on the same evening. 1. No evidence exists that Ramsier ever provided such an opinion to Arrow or anyone at the Authority. d. Weiss acknowledged that when the supervisors raised the compensation of the Authority board members, only those beginning a new term were eligible for receiving said raise. e. Weiss stated that the retroactive checks were issued due to an oversight by Arrow. 1. Weiss did not believe that a vote occurred by the Authority board to approve the retroactive checks. 2. Weiss acknowledged accepting his retroactive checks without question because he trusted Arrow. f. Weiss believed that it was possible that he approved bill lists that listed his Authority payroll checks for approval and signed same. 38. Weiss, as a member of the Authority board, realized a financial gain of approximately $5,400.00 as a result of approving bill lists documenting payment to himself for attendance at sewage portions of Authority meetings in excess of that approved by the appointing authority. a. Weiss' signature, either live or via stamp, was present on checks issued for payments made to Authority members, in excess of that approved by the appointing authority. b. Weiss erroneously accepted payments in excess of that approved by the appointing authority. Weiss, 07 -037 Page 12 c. Weiss erroneously accepted compensation increases prior to the beginning of a new term. d. Meeting minutes indicate that Weiss, as a Washington Township Supervisor, voted to appoint himself to a compensated position on the Authority board. e. Weiss' financial gain is summarized as follows: Compensation for attendance at sewage portions of Authority meetings: $ 5,450.00 Credit for payment not received for attendance at Authority meetings: -50.00 Total 5,400.00 III. DISCUSSION: As a Supervisor for Washington Township from January 1996 through December 31, 2005, and as a Member of the Board of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township from August 11, 1999, through the present, Respondent Melvin Weiss (hereinafter also referred to as "Respondent," "Respondent Weiss," or "Weiss ") 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 Weiss violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he, as a Supervisor for Washington Township, participated in actions of the board of supervisors resulting in his appointment and reappointment to the Washington Township Municipal Authority; and when as a member of the Washington Township Municipal Authority, he participated in actions of the board of directors to set the compensation for Board Members in excess of that approved by the appointing authority; and when he accepted compensation increases 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 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 Weiss, 07 -037 Page 13 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. As noted above, the parties have submitted a Consent Agreement and Stipulation of Findings. The parties' Stipulated Findings are set forth above as the Findings of this Commission. We shall now summarize the relevant facts as contained therein. Washington Township ( "Township ") is a second class township located in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. The Township is governed by a three - member Board of Supervisors ( "Board of Supervisors "). At meetings of the Board of Supervisors, voting occurs by a group aye or nay with abstentions specifically noted in the minutes. From January 1996 through December 31, 2005, Respondent Weiss served as a Township Supervisor. Weiss served as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from January 6, 1997, to December 31, 2005, with the exception of the 2002 calendar year when he served as Vice Chairman. In 1952, the Board of Supervisors created the Municipal Authority of Washington Township ( "Authority ") pursuant to the authority granted by the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act. The Authority's original Articles of Incorporation provided for a five - member Authority Board. 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 Township residents, as well as residents of various adjacent communities. However, in 1999, with the approval of the Board of Supervisors, including Weiss, 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. The Authority's Articles of Incorporation were also amended to add two seats to the Authority Board. The Board of Supervisors approved these changes through the adoption of a resolution at the Board's July 29, 1998, regular meeting. Weiss signed the said resolution in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is responsible for appointing the Members of the Authority Board. Authority Board Members serve five -year terms. Meeting minutes indicate that on August 11, 1999, the Board of Supervisors, including Weiss, voted to appoint Weiss to fill one of the two newly created seats on the Authority Board. In January 2000 and January 2005, Weiss voted to re- appoint himself to serve full terms as an Authority Board Member. From January 4, 2001, to January 12, 2002, and from January 8, 2003, to January 12, 2008, Weiss served as Chairman of the Authority Board. 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 Weiss, 07 -037 Page 14 Authority Board decided to hold separate water and sewage meetings on the same evening. Weiss was a Member of the Authority Board in March 2000, when the Authority Board began holding two separate meetings per meeting night. 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, Weiss and other Authority Board Members began receiving two checks per meeting night, 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 Supervisors, including Weiss, voted to increase the compensation of Authority Board Members 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, Weiss routinely received separate checks for his attendance at Authority Board water and sewage meetings held on the same evening. Weiss received $50.00 (gross) for his attendance at each water meeting from April 2002 through December 2003 and $75.00 (gross) for his attendance at each water meeting from January 2004 through June 2007. On January 27, 2004, Weiss received two additional 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, Weiss was not eligible to receive the increase in compensation until the beginning of his second full term in January 2005. Weiss received $50.00 (gross) for his attendance at each sewage meeting from April 2002 through December 2003 and $75.00 (gross) for his attendance at each sewage meeting from January 2004 through June 2007. On January 27, 2004, Weiss also received two additional 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, Weiss 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 33, from April 2002 though June 2007, Weiss received and negotiated sixty -seven Authority checks totaling $5,450.00 (gross) representing payment for sewage meetings attended on the same night as regular Authority water Weiss, 07 -037 Page 15 meetings. Signature authority over Authority accounts is maintained by the Authority Board Chairman, Treasurer, and Secretary. Authority checks require two signatures. Of the aforesaid sixty -seven checks, Weiss' signature appears as an authorized Authority signatory on at least fifty checks totaling $4,425.00. Weiss also participated in actions of the Authority Board in approving sixty -two monthly bill lists that included checks for payment to which he was not entitled. Weiss was erroneously not issued payment for his attendance at the Authority Board meeting held on October 26, 2004. Compensation due Weiss for attendance at that meeting would total approximately $50.00. Weiss cashed or deposited into his personal bank accounts all of the Authority checks he received, and he utilized the funds for various personal uses. 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. The parties have stipulated that Weiss, as a Member of the Authority Board, realized a financial gain of approximately $5,400.00, consisting of $5,450.00 in compensation for attendance at Authority sewage meetings when the Board of Supervisors had not authorized compensation for separate water and sewage meetings, less a $50.00 credit for a payment Weiss should have received, but did not receive, for attending an Authority water meeting. 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 an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Weiss' participation in his appointment and reappointment to the Washington Township Municipal Authority; and b. That an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred when Weiss, as a Board Member of the Washington Township Municipal Authority, set his compensation in excess of that approved by the appointing authority; and c. That an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Weiss accepting compensation increases prior to the beginning of a new term. 4. Weiss agrees to make payment in the amount of $4,206.84 in Weiss, 07 -037 Page 16 settlement of this matter as follows: a. An initial payment of $1,206.84, by way of certified check, payable to the Washington Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, is due within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter; and b. The remaining balance of $3,000.00 is due within approximately thirty -six (36) months from the payment date of the initial $1,206.84. The remaining $3,000.00 balance is payable in monthly installments, payable to the Washington Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, in an amount of at least $83.33, due on or before the eight[h] (8 day of each month until the remaining $3,000.00 is paid in full. The first monthly payment shall not be due any sooner than 30 days from receipt of the initial $1,206.84 payment. Weiss may prepay this balance at anytime. 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. Consent Agreement, at 1 -2. In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the parties' recommendation that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Weiss participated in his appointment and reappointment to the Authority Board. But for the fact that Weiss was a Township Supervisor, he would not have been in a position to vote for his initial appointment to the Authority Board on August 11, 1999, and his subsequent reappointments to the Authority Board in January 2000 and January 2005. The aforesaid actions constituted uses of authority of office. See, Juliante, Order 809. Such uses of authority of office resulted in pecuniary benefits consisting of the compensation that Weiss received as an Authority Board Member. Furthermore, the pecuniary benefits were private. There was no authorization in law permitting Weiss to participate as a Township Supervisor in his initial appointment and subsequent reappointments to the Authority Board. Through the Consent Agreement, the parties have agreed to an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act as to Weiss' participation in his appointment and reappointment to the Authority Board. Intent is not a requisite element of a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 531 A.2d 536 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). Nevertheless, we accept the Consent Agreement and hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Weiss' participation in his appointment and reappointment to the Authority Board. See, Snyder, Order 1371; cf., Koslow, Order 458 -R; Zynel, Order 625. We shall next consider the recommendation of the parties that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Weiss, as an Authority Board Weiss, 07 -037 Page 17 Member, set his compensation in excess of that approved by the Board of Supervisors. From April 2002 through June 2007, Weiss received and negotiated sixty -seven Authority checks totaling $5,450.00 (gross) representing payment for sewage meetings attended on the same night as regular Authority water meetings. Weiss used the authority of his public office as an Authority Board Member when he, as the Authority Board Chairman, signed as an authorized Authority signatory at least fifty of the aforesaid checks totaling $4,425.00. See, Schlanger, Order 1257; Hoover, Order 1402; Nagele, Order 1403; Harton, Order 1421; Latkanich, Order 1445. The payments Weiss received for sewage meetings constituted a private pecuniary benefit to Weiss, 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. We accept the parties' recommendation and hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Weiss, as an Authority Board Member, set his compensation in excess of that approved by the Board of Supervisors. Turning to the third recommended violation submitted by the parties, the stipulated Fact Findings support the parties' recommendation that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Weiss accepted compensation increases prior to the beginning of a new term of office as an Authority Board Member. At the January 2, 2002, re- organization meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the compensation for Authority Board Members was increased from fifty dollars ($50.00) per meeting to seventy -five dollars ($75.00) 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. Weiss was not eligible to receive the increase in compensation until the beginning of his second full term in January 2005. Although the parties have not stipulated as to the total amount of excess payment that Weiss received as a result of accepting checks issued for attendance at Authority water meetings that included the increase in compensation to which he was not entitled, it would appear that the parties are in agreement that the amount of such excess payment was not de minimis. Such excess compensation was not authorized in law and constituted a private pecuniary benefit to Weiss. The element of use of authority of office has been established. Weiss used the authority of his public office when he participated in actions as an Authority Board Member in approving monthly bill lists that included checks for payments to which he was not entitled. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, we hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Weiss accepted compensation (meeting pay) increase(s) prior to the beginning of a new term of office as an Authority Board Member. See, Trimer, Order 1285. As part of the Consent Agreement, Weiss has agreed to make payment to the Authority in the amount of $4,206.84, pursuant to the payment arrangement set forth at Paragraphs 4 a -b of the Consent Agreement. Weiss, 07 -037 Page 18 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, per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Weiss is directed to make payment to the Authority in the amount of $4,206.84, payable under the terms set forth in Paragraphs 4 a -b of the Consent Agreement, specifically: a. An initial payment of $1,206.84, by way of certified check, payable to the Washington Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, is due within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this adjudication and Order; and b. The remaining balance of $3,000.00 is due within approximately thirty -six (36) months from the payment date of the initial $1,206.84. The remaining $3,000.00 balance is payable in monthly installments, payable to the Washington Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, in an amount of at least $83.33, due on or before the eighth (8 day of each month until the remaining $3,000.00 is paid in full. The first monthly payment shall not be due any sooner than 30 days from receipt of the initial $1,206.84 payment. Weiss may prepay this balance at any time. 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: 1. As a Supervisor for Washington Township ( "Township ") from January 1996 through December 31, 2005, and as a Member of the Board of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township ( "Authority ") from August 11, 1999, through the present, Melvin Weiss ( "Weiss ") 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. Weiss unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when, as a Township Supervisor, he participated in his appointment and reappointment to the Authority Board. 3. An unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Weiss, as a Member of the Authority Board, set his compensation in excess of that approved by the appointing authority (Township Board of Supervisors). 4. An unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Weiss accepted compensation (meeting pay) increase(s) prior to the beginning of a new term of office as an Authority Board Member. In Re: Melvin Weiss, Respondent ORDER NO. 1479 File Docket: 07 -037 Date Decided: 7/21/08 Date Mailed: 8/5/08 1 Melvin Weiss, a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor for Washington Township ( "Township ") from January 1996 through December 31, 2005, and as a Member of the Board of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township "Authority ") from August 11, 1999, through the present, unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when, as a Township Supervisor, he participated in his appointment and reappointment to the Authority Board. 2. An unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Weiss, as a Member of the Authority Board, set his compensation in excess of that approved by the appointing authority (Township Board of Supervisors). 3. An unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Weiss accepted compensation (meeting pay) increase(s) prior to the beginning of a new term of office as an Authority Board Member. 4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Weiss is directed to make payment to the Authority in the amount of $4,206.84, payable under the terms set forth in Paragraphs 4 a -b of the Consent Agreement, specifically: a. An initial payment of $1,206.84, by way of certified check, payable to the Washington Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, is due within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order; and b. The remaining balance of $3,000.00 is due within approximately thirty -six (36) months from the payment date of the initial $1,206.84. The remaining $3,000.00 balance is payable in monthly installments, payable to the Washington Township Municipal Authority and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, in an amount of at least $83.33, due on or before the eighth (8 day of each month until the remaining $3,000.00 is paid in full. The first monthly payment shall not be due any sooner than 30 days from receipt of the initial $1,206.84 payment. Weiss may prepay this balance at any time. 5. Compliance with Paragraph 4 of this Order will result in the closing of this case with no further action by this Commission. a. Non - compliance will result in the institution of an order enforcement action. BY THE COMMISSION, Weiss, 07 -037 Page 20 Louis W. Fryman, Chair