HomeMy WebLinkAbout1492 BurchfieldIn Re: David Burchfield, Sr.,
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 -089
Order No. 1492
9/22/08
10/10/08
This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission.
Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted
an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics
Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the
commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent
written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the
Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as
an "Investigative Complaint." 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.
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 2
I. ALLEGATIONS:
That David Burchfield, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a
Supervisor for Blair Township, Blair County, violated Sections 1103(a), 1105(b)(5),
1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a),
1105(b)(5), 1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9), when he used the authority of his office for the
private pecuniary gain of himself, a member of his immediate family and /or a business with
which he or a member of his immediate family is associated by [conduct] including, but not
limited to, participating in actions and deliberations of the Board of Supervisors to
designate the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company as the primary responding Fire
Department /Emergency Responder for Blair Township; and then participating in actions
and deliberations of the Board allotting funding to the Duncansville Volunteer Fire
Company from the Township's E.M.S. tax; and then subsequently entering into a
contract /agreement with the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company, in excess of $500.00,
to lease property /building space owned by him, and /or members of his immediate family for
use by the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company as a sub - station within Blair Township;
and when [he] failed to disclose on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years direct /indirect sources of income in
excess of $1,300, [his] office, directorship, or employment in any business entity, and his
financial interests in any legal entity engaged in business for profit.
II. FINDINGS:
1. David Burchfield, Sr. has served as a Supervisor of Blair Township, Blair County
since approximately January 1998.
2. Blair Township is designated a Township of the Second Class governed by a three
(3) member Board of Supervisors.
a. David Burchfield, Sr., Arlene Bush, and Palmer Brown comprised the Blair
Township Board of Supervisors during calendar years 2005 through 2007.
b. Blair Township Supervisors are elected to six (6) year terms.
3. Professionally, David Burchfield, Sr. has business interests including but not limited
to the Burchfield Limited Partnership, the Burchfield Organization, Inc., and
Burchfield Auto Sales.
4. The Burchfield Organization, Inc., was incorporated in December 1994 with its
principal place of business at 713 Route 764, Duncansville, PA 16635.
a. Burchfield, his wife, and two sons are employed by the Burchfield
Organization.
b. Burchfield and his family members hold corporate officer positions in the
Burchfield Organization as follows:
1. David E. Burchfield, Sr. — Chief Executive Officer
2. Linda L. Burchfield (Burchfield's wife) — Secretary
3. David E. Burchfield, Jr. (Burchfield's son) — Vice President
4. Richard E. Burchfield (Burchfield's son) — Treasurer
5. The Burchfield Organization, Inc., was incorporated for the purpose of performing
and providing services and materials for auto and truck sales and repairs, truck and
equipment salvage, and other related activities.
a. The Burchfield Organization, Inc., encompasses several Burchfield
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 3
businesses including Burchfield Towing & Auto Sales and Burchfield Auto &
Truck Salvage.
6. Records of the Pennsylvania Department of State, Corporation Bureau, include the
following information on Burchfield -owned business entities:
Entity Name
Burchfield Auto Sales
Burchfield Auto &
Truck Salvage
Entity Name
Burchfield Auto Sales
Burchfield Auto & Truck Salvage
The Burchfield Organization, Inc.
The Burchfield Limited Partnership
Entity Number Officers
1055269 David Burchfield, Sr. (Fictitious Name)
1055270 David Burchfield, Sr. (Fictitious Name)
The Burchfield 2612090 David E. Burchfield, President
Organization, Inc. Linda Burchfield, Secretary
Richard E. Burchfield, Treasurer
David Burchfield, Jr., Vice - President
The Burchfield Limited 556596 David E. Burchfield, Sr., General
Partnership Partner
Filing Date
09/15/1988
09/15/1988
12/14/1994
10/25/2005
7 The Burchfield Limited Partnership was created on or about October 1, 2005, with
its principal place of business at 713 Route 764, Duncansville, PA 16635.
a. This is the same business address as the Burchfield Organization, Inc.
b. Limited partnership applications for the Burchfield Limited Partnership were
filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State on October 25, 2005.
c. David E. Burchfield, Sr. is identified as the general partner.
8. David E. Burchfield, Sr. has had a 95% interest in the Burchfield Limited
Partnership since October 1, 2005.
a. David E. Burchfield, Sr. has had a 95% interest in the Partnership at all
times relevant to this investigation.
b. The remaining five (5) percent ownership is held by Burchfield's wife, Linda
Burchfield, and their children.
9. Blair Township is primarily a rural township near the communities of Duncansville,
Hollidaysburg and Roaring Springs.
a. Prior to 2006, the Township did not have any fire protection based within the
geographical boundaries of the Township.
b. The Township's fire and emergency response needs were split [among] five
volunteer fire companies from the surrounding communities and townships
based on the location of the call.
c. Five volunteer fire companies provided services to Blair Township residents
including the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company (DVFC), Hollidaysburg
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 4
(Phoenix), Geeseytown, Roaring Springs and Freedom (Freedom Township).
d. Of the five volunteer fire companies providing services within Blair Township,
the DVFC received the most emergency calls.
10. Prior to 2006, Blair Township would contribute to all five volunteer fire companies
which provided services to portions of the Township.
a. The Township split State funding it received from the Fire Relief Association
Fund for fire protection equally among the companies to cover the cost of
workers compensation insurance.
b. The Township also would make an annual donation of approximately
$3,262.50 to four (4) of the five (5) volunteer fire companies serving the
Township.
1. The Friendship Volunteer Fire Company received $1,450.00 annually
based on a smaller coverage area.
11. Around April of 2005, discussions by the Board of Supervisors began regarding
determining a primary and backup company for emergency calls within Blair
Township.
a. As of April 14, 2005, Blair Township did not have a primary volunteer fire
company designated to be the first responder for fire emergency calls
throughout the entire Township.
b. Primary and back -up responding companies were called based on the
location of the incident.
c. At that time, a 9 -1 -1 dispatcher would make the determination based on the
location of the call with each company having designated call boxes
covering specific portions of the Township.
d. The Township was receiving complaints from the volunteer fire companies
regarding the number of dispatch calls they were receiving and the amount
of contributions being received from the Township.
12. The Duncansville Fire Company #1, d /b /a The Duncansville Volunteer Fire
Company (DVFC) was receiving in excess of fifty percent of the emergency calls
within Blair Township at the time based on coverage area.
a. The DVFC did not have a station or substation within the geographical
boundaries of Blair Township in 2005.
13. Minutes from the April 14, 2005, Blair Township Board of Supervisors Meeting
confirm discussions regarding designating primary and backup fire companies for
each part of the Township.
a. A map of the Township was to be distributed by Supervisor Burchfield to
each of the five fire companies to determine which companies could best
serve an area.
14. The Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted Act 222 of 2004, Emergency and
Municipal Services Tax, with an effective date of January 1, 2005.
a. This amended the Local Tax Enabling Act, Act 511 of 1965, to permit
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 5
municipalities and school districts (except the Pittsburgh School District) to
impose a combined Emergency and Municipal Services Tax (EMS tax) of up
to $52.00 a year beginning on and after January 1, 2005.
b. The EMS tax replaced the occupational privilege tax.
c. The total EMS tax paid by any individual in a calendar year is limited to
$52.00, regardless of the number of political subdivisions in which an
individual works during the year.
15. During the Supervisors October 13, 2005, meeting, Dave Skurnick, Treasurer of the
Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company, attended the meeting seeking funding for
the fire company.
a. Burchfield suggested the fire company look into acquiring grant funds to be
used toward building a new fire station.
b. Burchfield also suggested an increase in the Township's Occupational
Privilege Tax to help support the fire company.
c. At that time, Blair Township's Occupational Privilege Tax was set at $10.00
per year.
d. During this same meeting, Skurnick requested that the Board distribute the
Fireman's Relief Funds to the five fire companies based on the percentage
of the Township which each serves instead of equally as has been past
practice.
16. David Skurnick again addressed the Board of Supervisors during the December 8,
2005, meeting to request that the Township increase the Emergency Municipal Tax
from $10.00 to $52.00 per year with $42.00 of that amount to be provided to the
DVFC.
a. At the time, Blair Township was only collecting $10.00 per year out of an
allowable $52.00 per year.
b. After discussion, Chairman Burchfield made a motion to support the
Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company for a substation to be located in Blair
Township. Supervisor Brown seconded the motion to approve the proposed
substation plan and it passed with a unanimous vote.
c. No action was taken at this meeting on Skurnick's EMS Tax allocation
request; however, the Supervisors did vote to support the DVFC to locate a
substation in Blair Township.
17. During the Board of Supervisors January 3, 2006, meeting, the Board approved
setting the Township's EMS Tax at $39.00 annually instead of the $52.00 requested
by the DVFC.
a. The Board of Supervisors did not make a determination at that meeting on
how the $39.00 tax would be distributed.
b. Supervisor Bush suggested the Board set the E.M.S. Tax amount at $39.00
annually per person employed in the Township, which is two - thirds of the
$52.00 maximum.
c. Chairman Burchfield made a motion to set the E.M.S. Tax amount at $39.00
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 6
for persons employed in the Township earning $12,000.00 or more annually
and persons earning less than $12,000.00 would pay $10.00 annually.
Supervisor Bush seconded the motion. The motion passed with a
unanimous vote.
18. The Blair Township Board of Supervisors officially adopted ordinance number 2006-
01 establishing the Emergency and Municipal Services Tax and repealing the
Occupational Privilege Tax during [its] February 9, 2006, meeting.
a. Supervisor Burchfield made the motion to approve the ordinance, seconded
by Supervisor Bush. "Supervisor Brown expressed his opinion that the Board
may be premature in approving this due to the number of issues still being
decided on by the State regarding the Municipal Services Tax. Persons
employed in the township earning $12,000.00 and greater will pay $39.00
annually. Persons employed in the township earning less than $12,000.00
will pay $10.00 annually. Exemptions are those employees under 18 years
of age and those that have turned 65 years of age prior to January 1 The
E.M.S. Tax will be used strictly for Police, Fire, and Emergency Services.
Ordinance No. 2006 -01 passed with 2 -yes votes. Supervisor Brown voted
no."
19. On January 9, 2006, the DVFC submitted a letter of intent to locate a fire substation
within Blair Township to the Board of Supervisors.
a. In addition to advising of its intent to locate a substation within Blair
Township, DVFC requested being designated the exclusive fire company for
the Township.
20. The DVFC's letter of intent to locate a substation within Blair Township was
discussed during the February 9, 2006, Board of Supervisors meeting.
a. During that meeting, Burchfield participated in a lengthy discussion on the
DVFC's letter of intent, coverage areas and the designation of a primary fire
company for the Township.
b. Burchfield suggested that the Board hold off on signing the Letter of Intent
for six months to a year due to the rumors that are circulating, stating that
this would allow an opportunity to get some money together to be able to buy
something.
c. Eric Schmidt of Phoenix Volunteer Fire Company commented that Blair
Township would benefit from a regionalization plan allowing all five volunteer
companies to serve the area.
1. Chairman Burchfield stated that he would look into this and review it
with the Solicitor. Mr. Schmidt requested that in the near future the
Board of Supervisors would sit down and discuss a solution with the
five volunteer fire companies.
21. Between January and April 2006, representatives from the Hollidaysburg (Phoenix)
Volunteer Fire Company appeared before the Board of Supervisors requesting
regional fire coverage within the Township.
a. Regionalizing the fire protection was discussed during the Board of
Supervisors February 9, 2006, meeting and March 9, 2006, meeting.
b. Burchfield was present for and participated in these discussions in his official
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 7
capacity as a member of the Township Board of Supervisors.
22. During the January to March 2006 time frame, representatives of the DVFC met
with Burchfield privately to discuss leasing a building from Burchfield within the
Township to serve as the temporary location of the DVFC's Blair Township
Substation.
23. Between February 9, 2006, and May 11, 2006, Dave Skurnick located a building
deemed suitable for use as a temporary substation within Blair Township.
a. The physical location of the building was 1624 Old Route 220, Duncansville,
PA.
b. The property included a large block building and acreage.
c. The property was adjacent to David Burchfield's salvage yard.
d. The building had a for lease sign on it.
24. Skurnick discussed the property with DVFC Assistant Chief William Lloyd.
a. Lloyd contacted Burchfield, Sr. inquiring who owned the property.
b. Burchfield, Sr. advised Lloyd that it was owned by his family and that it was
available if the DVFC was interested.
c. The DVFC and Burchfield, Sr. negotiated a rental rate of $2,000.00 per
month.
25. The DVFC wanted the financial support from Blair Township in order to locate a
substation within the Township.
a. The DVFC did not have sufficient financial resources to pay rent for a
building without additional financial support from Blair Township or
undertaking a large fundraising campaign.
b. At the time of the property search, the DVFC had a commitment from the
Township to support its efforts to locate a substation within the Township.
1. During the December 28, 2005, meeting of the Board of Supervisors,
Burchfield's motion was approved to support DVFC establishing a
substation in Blair Township.
26. During the Supervisors May 11, 2006, meeting, it was publicly announced that the
DVFC located a building to lease on a temporary basis.
a. The building's location (1624 Old Route 220, Duncansville, PA) was
discussed along with action by the Board of Supervisors to approve $29.00
of the $39.00 EMS Tax collected to be given to the DVFC to establish a
substation within the Township's geographical boundaries.
1. Supervisor Bush made a motion to [proceed] with making
Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company Blair Township's primary fire
company and forwarding the $29.00 portion of the E.M.S. tax to them.
The $29.00 portion of the tax would be forwarded April 30, July 31,
October 31, and January 31, following the closing of the Township's
quarterly collections. Chairman Burchfield seconded the motion. The
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 8
motion passed by unanimous vote.
b. Burchfield addressed the Board indicating that the property in question was
owned by D.R.T.J. Partnership.
1. Burchfield disclosed to the Board that this was a partnership of his
family.
2. D.R.T.J. is a non - existent partnership.
3. Burchfield did not disclose that he had an ownership interest in the
property to be leased to the DVFC.
c. Supervisor Brown suggested that Solicitor Gieg verify that there is no conflict
involved regarding the building being leased.
1. Solicitor Gieg stated that he needs to see a copy of the lease.
2. The Duncansville Fire Company was instructed to provide Solicitor
Gieg with a copy of the lease agreement.
27. The property at 1624 Old Route 220, Duncansville is owned by the Burchfield
Limited Partnership.
a. Respondent David E. Burchfield, Sr. is the General Partner holding a 95%
interest in the Partnership.
28. Ownership of the property at 1624 Old Route 220, Duncansville, PA was transferred
from David E. Burchfield and Linda L. Burchfield, husband and wife, to the
Burchfield Limited Partnership on December 19, 2005.
a. This transfer occurred eleven (11) days after Burchfield, Sr. participated in
Board action taken in support of the DVFC locating a substation within Blair
Township.
29. The D.R.T.J. Partnership referenced by Burchfield, Sr. during the May 11, 2006,
meeting of the Board of Supervisors does not exist.
a. D.R.T.J. Partnership is not registered with the Pennsylvania Department of
State Corporation Bureau.
b. D.R.T.J. are the first letters of the first names of four (4) of the five (5) one
percent partners of the Burchfield Limited Partnership as noted below:
(D) David E. Burchfield, Jr.
(R) Richard Burchfield
(T) Tina Burchfield
(J) Jody Reading
c. Excluded from the initials was David Burchfield, Sr. and his wife Linda
Burchfield.
30. Blair Township tax records identify the property at 1624 Old Route 220
Duncansville, PA as being owned by the Burchfield Limited Partnership.
a. This property is identified as tax parcel number 0400- 03 -26 -2.
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 9
b. Tax bills are sent to the Burchfield Limited Partnership, 713 Route 764,
Duncansville, PA 16635.
c. This property has never been owned by the D.R.T.J. Partnership.
31. During the May 24, 2006, Board of Supervisors meeting, Dave Skurnick updated
the Board of Supervisors on the search for property to locate a substation within the
Township. Minutes include the following:
a. Mr. Skurnick stated that representatives from the fire company have met and
talked with representatives from the Burchfield organization regarding the
lease for the building on Old Route 220. The plan is to have a five -year,
open -ended lease. This would allow the fire company flexibility in case a
more suitable property or location would become available. Mr. Skurnick
stated that the lease will enhance the project, allowing them to apply for
grants, etc. Mr. Skurnick requested that the Board make a five -year
commitment to give the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Department the EMS tax
for the next five years.
b. Solicitor Gieg recommended that the tax commitment be voted on yearly
stating that he does not know legally how the commitment can be made for
five years. Chairman Burchfield asked Solicitor Gieg to look into this.
Solicitor Gieg stated that he has not yet received a copy of the lease to
review.
c. It was agreed by the Board that a commitment has already been made to
support the establishment of the fire company at the proposed location.
Supervisor Bush commented that the next meeting is scheduled for June 8 th
and requested that possibly prior to that meeting the lease could be given to
Solicitor Gieg to review.
32. The only representative of the Burchfield Organization Skurnick met with regarding
the lease was David Burchfield, Sr.
33. During August 10, 2006, the building improvements were discussed and a conflict
of interest for Burchfield was raised.
a. Skurnick updated the Board on the improvements to the leased building. He
advised the Board how much the volunteer fire company counts on their
support.
b. Solicitor Gieg stated that he reviewed the rough draft of the lease agreement
for the substation and recommended that the volunteer fire company have
[its] solicitor review it. The lease agreement is between the property owner
and the fire company and does not involve Blair Township.
c. A lengthy discussion ensued between Mr. Elder and Chairman Burchfield
over the ownership of the building being leased by the volunteer fire
company. Supervisor Brown commented that he did ask Solicitor Gieg if
there was a conflict of interest and Solicitor Gieg told him that this was not a
conflict of interest.
d. Supervisor Bush commented that she did not see this as a conflict of
interest. She was aware that the volunteer fire company researched finding
a piece of ground, noting that she was involved in numerous pieces that they
tried to agree upon. Supervisor Bush stated that she thinks the fire company
discovered the building.
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 10
e. Supervisor Brown stated that if the Township leased that building that it
would be a conflict of interest, but since it is the fire company leasing it, it is
not a conflict of interest.
f. Chairman Burchfield confirmed with Mr. Skurnick that, to date, no lease
agreement has been signed.
34. The DVFC did not execute a lease with Burchfield, Sr., d /b /a the Burchfield Limited
Partnership.
a. All discussions and negotiations as part of the lease were handled between
DVFC representatives and Burchfield, Sr.
b. No other representative of the Burchfield Limited Partnership participated in
any lease negotiations.
c. No formal lease was ever signed.
35. Business records of the Burchfield Limited Partnership include an unsigned
commercial lease agreement dated July 1, 2006, between the Burchfield Limited
Partnership and the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company d /b /a as Blair Township
Fire Company for land and improvements known as 1624 Old 220 South,
Duncansville, PA 16635 containing a 6,150 square foot concrete building with a flat
roof.
a. The lease term is July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2011, with a five year
renewal option.
b. Rent is specified during the initial term as $24,000.00 annually, payable in
monthly installments of $2,000.00 to the landlord at 713 Route 764, P.O. Box
178, Duncansville, PA 16635.
c. The lease was never signed by any representatives of either DVFC or
Burchfield.
36. Based on concerns over a potential conflict of interest for Burchfield, the Board of
Supervisors sought legal opinions from its Solicitor, Frederick Gieg, Esquire, and
the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors.
37. On August 18, 2006, Solicitor Frederick Gieg, Esquire, issued the following opinion
on the matter of Burchfield leasing property to the DVFC to the Township Board of
Supervisors:
In that this Lease is between the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company and not the
Township, but with a corporate entity of the Burchfield family, I see no direct
conflict. However, I have advised the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company to have
their own Solicitor directly review the Lease with the Burchfield entity so that there
is no conflict of interest. In that Township monies will be paid to the Duncansville
Volunteer Fire Company who will then possibly use some of those monies to pay
the rent, I would want the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company's Solicitor to write
an opinion that there is no conflict in an indirect manner. I enclose the conflict
section that could indirectly be involved."
a. Attached to Solicitor Gieg's memo was a [reference to] "subsection (c), *" No
Public Official or Public Employee or member of his immediately family or
any other business in which the person or a member of the person's
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 11
immediate family is a Director, Officer, Owner or Holder of stock exceeding
5% of the equity at fair market value of the business shall enter into any
contract valued at $500.00 or more with a governmental body unless the
contract has been awarded through an open and public process, including
prior public notice and subsequent public disclosure of all proposals
considered and contracts awarded. Any contract made in violation of the
subsection shall be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract.
* [sic]. [The Solicitor's characterization of Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act is not
accurately stated.]
b. No citation is provided with the attachment Solicitor Geig provided to the
Board of Supervisors. Geig intended to cite section 1103(f) of the State
Ethics Act, not subsection (c).
38. Burchfield did not publicly disclose during any Board of Supervisors meeting that he
is a 95% owner of the Burchfield Limited Partnership, the entity owning 1624 Old
Route 220, Duncansville, PA.
a. Burchfield told representatives of the DVFC and the public that the property
was owned by his children.
b. Burchfield identified the family partnership of D.R.T.J.
1. No such partnership exists.
39. In addition to Solicitor Geig's opinion, Township Secretary /Treasurer Betty
Robertson contacted the State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS) to
determine if a conflict of interest existed regarding Burchfield's contract to lease
property to the DVFC.
a. Robertson sent a memo to the Board of Supervisors and Solicitor dated
August 14, 2006, outlining the information she received from PSATS.
Robertson's memo read as follows.
At the request of Arlene, I called PSATS Friday (8/11) to get an opinion on the
`conflict issue' regarding the building being leased by the DVFC. I talked to `Lisa' in
the legal department. I explained (to the best of my knowledge) the ownership of
the building, who was writing the check to lease the building and that the Township
gives our EMS money to the DVFC and that those funds are then distributed by the
DVFC. Lisa was unsure and checked with the Assistant Executive Director who in
turn was of the opinion that `there is an appearance of a conflict' but that as long as
the Township `does not own' the DVFC it is not a conflict. A conflict involves the
Supervisor himself, his spouse, his children, his parents, and brothers and sisters -
all of these family members are regarded as one -in- the -same. If a transaction
between the Township and the payee directly involves any of these parties or their
businesses, unless bids are taken, it is a conflict."
40. The DVFC has been using the property at 1624 Old Route 220, Duncansville to
serve as a substation within Blair Township since approximately July 1, 2006.
a. Rent was paid at a rate of $2,000.00 per month.
41. Blair Township was the source of funding used by the DVFC to pay rent to the
Burchfield Limited Partnership for 1624 Old Route 220, Duncansville, PA.
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 12
a. Funding came as a result of the EMS Tax and general donations from the
Township.
b. Funding to the DVFC was approved as part of annual Township budgets and
approval of monthly bill lists which authorized funding.
42. Burchfield, d /b /a the Burchfield Limited Partnership, was accepting rental payments
from the DVFC during 2006 and 2007 while at the same time participating in Board
actions to provide funding to the DVFC in the form of EMS /Local Services Tax
allocations.
43. The Township budget for 2007 was approved by the Board during [its] December
14, 2006, meeting.
a. Minutes from that meeting reflect "Chairman Burchfield made a motion to
approve the 2007 budget as presented and reviewed at the special meeting
of November 14, 2006. Supervisor Brown seconded the motion. The motion
passed with a unanimous vote."
44. The Board of Supervisors discussed the E.M.S. Tax rate during [its] January 2,
2007, meeting.
a. During the meeting, the Board set the rate for the EMS Tax for calendar year
2007.
b. Minutes of the January 2, 2007, meeting confirm that Burchfield participated
in the relevant discussion and official vote taken as follows:
"Chairman Burchfield made a motion to reaffirm distribution of the E.M.S.
Tax; $10.00 is to be deposited in the General Fund Account and the
remaining $29.00 is to be paid to Blair Township's Primary Volunteer Fire
Company. Supervisor Bush seconded the motion. The motion passed with
a unanimous vote."
45. During the May 10, 2007, Board meeting, Burchfield participated in actions taken to
designate the "Blair Township /Duncansville Volunteer Fire Department as the
primary fire company for Blair Township." Minutes included the following official
action and explanation for the designation:
"Chairman Burchfield made a motion to approve Resolution No. 2007 -09
designating the Blair Township /Duncansville Volunteer Fire Department as the
primary fire company for Blair Township. Supervisor Bush seconded the motion.
Solicitor Gieg explained that the Resolution is to approve the activity that the
Volunteer Firemen can be involved in and also to specify that currently the
Workmen's Compensation is paid by the Borough of Duncansville. The Resolution
will aid the VFC in applying for a legal name and also in applying for grant money.
The motion passed with unanimous vote."
a. The DVFC was initially designated the primary fire company for Blair
Township on May 11, 2006.
46. During the September 19, 2007, Board Meeting, Burchfield participated in Board
action changing the Emergency and Municipal Services Tax to the Local Services
Tax and establishing the rates and allocation for 2008.
a. The Board discussed the Emergency and Municipal Services Tax, to be
known as the Local Services Tax, beginning on 01/01/2008.
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 13
b. Supervisor Bush made a motion to approve an annual amount of $52.00 for
persons earning over $12,000.00 and employed in Blair Township.
Chairman Burchfield seconded the motion. This change will take effect on
01/01/08. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
c. Supervisor Bush suggested that $30.00 be allocated to the Blair
Township /Duncansville Volunteer Fire Department, $11.00 be allocated to
the Blair Township Police Department and the remaining $11.00 be allocated
to the Blair Township Highway Department. Chairman Burchfield made a
motion to approve the suggested distribution. Supervisor Brown seconded
the motion. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
47. Burchfield participated in Board action taken on October 11, 2007, approving
Township Ordinance 2007 -05 establishing the Local Services Tax.
a. This ordinance was passed by a 3 -0 vote.
b. This ordinance repealed the former Emergency and Municipal Services Tax.
48. Burchfield participated in Board actions taken on January 7, 2008, to reappoint the
Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company as Blair Township's primary volunteer fire
company and reaffirm the distribution of the EMS Tax to include DVFC as follows:
a. Designation of primary volunteer fire company:
"Supervisor Bush made a motion to reappoint Duncansville Volunteer Fire
Company as Blair Township's Primary Volunteer Fire Company. Chairman
Burchfield seconded the motion. The motion passed with a unanimous
vote."
b. Distribution of 2008 EMS Tax:
"Chairman Burchfield made a motion to reaffirm distribution of the E.M.S.
Tax; $11.00 is designated for the Police Department, $11.00 is designated to
the Highway Department and $30.00 is to be paid to Blair Township's
Primary Volunteer Fire Company. Supervisor Bush seconded the motion.
The motion passed with a unanimous vote."
49. Burchfield participated in Board actions taken during the February 12, 2008,
meeting to approve the Township's 2008 operating budget.
a. This budget included anticipated funding from [the] EMS /Local Services Tax
to the DVFC of approximately $72,000.00.
50. Records of the DVFC include the following total revenue and disbursements of
funds received from Blair Township since 2006:
Revenue
Donations - Municipalities
Donations - General
Interest Income
Total Revenue
Disbursements
General Supplies
2006 2007
$ 62,843 $77,850.50
$ 0.00 $ 1,000.00
$ 338.07 $ 1,627.84
$63,843.00* $80,478.34
$ 1,451.66 $ 295.50
2008 to date
$ 3,262.50
$ 0.00
$ 240.84
$ 3,503.34
$ 143.22
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 14
Telephone
Administrative
Fire Equipment
Building Rent
Property /Maintenance
Utilities
Total Disbursements
* [sic]. [The noted calculations contain discrepancies that do not affect the outcome
of this case.]
51. DVFC records confirm payments received from Blair Township as a result of the
EMS Tax and general donations. Payments received occurred on the following
dates:
Date Amount
01/26/06 $31,349.00
11/27/06 $31,494.00
01/06/07 $ 3,262.50
05/05/07 $ 6,670.00
08/06/07 $59,102.00
11/23/07 $ 8,816.00
01/22/08 $ 3,262.50
Total $143,956.00
Check Date Check #
06/12/06 4467
11/24/06 3101
12/27/06 3148
04/27/07 3355
07/27/07 3531
11/13/07 3717
12/27/07 3811
$ 219.78 $ 365.65 $ 90.91
$ 79.28 $ 6.04 $ 3,378.94
$ 3,318.12 $ 6,603.67 $ 0.00
$14,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 0.00
$12,062.50 $ 6,000.00 $64,000.00
$ 609.09 $ 2,773.29 $ 594.85
$31,738.43* $24,044.15 $68,207.52*
Source
EMS Tax
EMS Tax
EMS Tax
EMS Tax
EMS Tax
EMS Tax
General Donation
52. Of the $143,956.00 received by the DVFC from Blair Township, $140,693.50 was
as a result of the EMS Tax collected.
a. The remaining $3,262.50 was in the form of a general donation.
53. Burchfield regularly participated in the approval of Township bill lists which included
funding for the DVFC.
a. Since July 13, 2006, Burchfield participated in seven (7) separate Board of
Supervisors actions taken approving payments totaling $143,956.00 made to
the DVFC as follows:
Amount
$31,349.00
$31,494.00
$3,262.50
$6,670.00
$59,102.00
$8,816.00
$3,262.50
Meeting
Date
07/13/06
12/14/06
01/11/07
05/10/07
08/09/07
12/11/07
01/08/08
Blair Twp
Check #
4467
3101
3148
3355
3531
3717
3811
Action
Vote
Motion, Vote
Motion, Vote
Vote
Motion, Vote
Motion, Vote
Motion, Vote
Signed
Bush, Robertson
Bush, Robertson
Bush, Robertson
Bush, Robertson
Bush, Robertson
Bush, Robertson
Bush, Robertson
Recorded
Vote
3 -0
3 -0
3 -0
3 -0
3 -0
3 -0
3 -0
54. The Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company received invoices from the Burchfield
Limited Partnership for the lease of the property at 1624 Old Route 220,
Duncansville.
a. Since December 11, 2006, three (3) invoices totaling $22,000.00 were
received.
b. These invoices covered rents due from July 1, 2006, through April 2007.
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 15
c. No invoices were received by DVFC from Burchfield after April 2007.
1. The State Ethics Commission investigation of Burchfield was initiated
on July 12, 2007.
d. No invoices were received from the D.R.T.J. Partnership.
55. Rental invoices were received by DVFC from the Burchfield Limited Partnership as
follows:
a. Date Amount Months
12/11/06 $9,000.00
12/11/06 $4,000.00
04/11/07 $4,000.00
b. The December 11, 2006, invoice in the amount of $9,000.00 reflected a
$5,000.00 payment previously being made by the DVFC.
56. Financial records of the DVFC confirm that a total of $22,000.00 in rental payments
were made to the Burchfield Limited Partnership for the use of building #5, 1624
Old Route 220, Duncansville between November 2006 and May 2007. Payments
were made as follows:
a. Date Ch. # Amount
11/15/06 1010 $5,000
12/13/06 1008 $9,000
02/12/07 1016 $4,000
05/18/07 1025 $4,000
Total $22,000
b.
c.
b.
c.
July 1, 2006 — December 2006
January 2007 — February 2007
March 2007 — April 2007
Bank
Susquehanna Bank
Reliance Bank
Reliance Bank
Reliance Bank
Endorsed
Burchfield Ltd. Partnership
Burchfield Ltd. Partnership
Burchfield Ltd. Partnership
Burchfield Ltd. Partnership
These funds were received by David Burchfield, Sr., d /b /a the Burchfield
Limited Partnership.
No rental payments were made to the D.R.T.J. Partnership.
57. Burchfield utilized a portion of the $22,000.00 received from the DVFC for
improvements, utilities, taxes, and upkeep at building #5 for DVFC use.
a. Taxes:
Tax Year: 2006
Hollidaysburg Area School District:
Blair Township /Blair County
$ 1,553.83
$ 511.39
$ 2,065.22
Tax Year: 2007
Hollidaysburg Area School District:
Blair Township /Blair County
Total taxes paid: $4,289.18
Electrical Upgrade:
Rick Gonsman, Invoice no. 287425: $196.00
Water and Sewer:
$1,619.08
$ 604.88
$2,223.96
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 16
Water Service Sewer Service
Date Amount Date Amount
02/11/07 $ 26.50 03/31/07 $47.00
03/01/07 $ 20.00 04/30/07 $47.00
04/01/07 $ 26.50 06/30/07 $47.00
05/01/07 $156.50 08/31/07 $47.00
06/01/07 $ 46.00 09/30/07 $47.00
07/31/07 $ 98.00 10/31/07 $47.00
08/31/07 $ 20.00 11/30/07 $47.00
09/01/07 $ 20.00 $329.00
10/01/07 $ 20.00
11/01/07 $ 20.00
$453.50
Total water /sewer utilities paid: $782.50.
d. Electric:
Date Amount
01/04/07 $55.17
02/02/07 $97.21
03/06/07 $73.89
04/04/07 $66.37
05/03/07 $65.69
06/05/07 $45.48
07/05/07 $46.56
08/02/07 $49.42
09/05/07 $53.78
10/04/07 $46.91
11/02/07 $50.43
12/03/07 $51.62
Total $702.53
e. Furnace:
Power Wash, Inc. $7,547.76
58. All of the proceeds received from the DVFC for the rental of property at 1624 Old
Route 220 were retained by David Burchfield, Sr.
a. This income was included on joint tax returns filed by David Burchfield, Sr.
along with his wife, Linda Burchfield.
b. No portion of the rental payments were provided to any of the 1`)/0 partners of
Burchfield Limited Partnership.
1. Linda Burchfield does hold a one percent interest in the Partnership.
59. Burchfield disclosed income received from the DVFC on PA Schedule E of his
federal tax return filed for 2006.
a. Burchfield reported income for Property B, Building 5, 1624 Old Route 220,
Duncansville, PA of $19,000.00. He reported deductions for repairs in the
amount of $196.00, utilities of $156.00 and depreciation expenses of
$4,370.00 for total expenses of $4,722.00. Adjusted income of $14,278.00
was reported.
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 17
b. A net gain of $14,278.00 was reported on form 8582AMT.
c. The amount of $14,278.00 is also listed as a gain on Form 8582, Capital
Gains /Losses.
60. Burchfield disclosed income received from the DVFC on IRS form 4562,
Depreciation and Amortization form, filed by the Burchfield Limited Partnership for
calendar year 2007.
a. Form 4562 identifies four (4) properties for the Burchfield Limited
Partnership.
1. Property E Commercial Property — Building 5; 1624 Old Route 220,
Duncansville, PA.
2. Property F Residential Property, 169 Maple Hollow Road,
Duncansville, PA.
3. Property G Commercial, Inlows Drive, Duncansville, PA.
4. Property H Residential Property, 152 Maple Hollow Road,
Duncansville, PA.
b. Burchfield reported income from Property E, Building 5, 1624 Old Route 220,
Duncansville, PA of $8,000.00. He reported deductions for taxes in the
amount of $2,224.00, utilities of $830.00 and depreciation expenses of
$5,452.00.
61. Burchfield's reported expenses on 1624 Old Route 220, Duncansville, PA exceeded
gross rents by $506.00 for 2007.
a. This was as a result of Burchfield ceasing to charge the DVFC rent.
1. Burchfield quit charging the DVFC rent at about the time of the State
Ethics Commission investigation.
b. No rent has been paid by the DVFC to Burchfield since May 18, 2007.
62. Burchfield, in his official capacity as a Blair Township Supervisor, was annually
required to file a Statement of Financial Interests form by May 1 containing
information for the prior calendar year.
a. Burchfield was annually provided with blank Statement of Financial Interests
forms to complete by Township Secretary /Treasurer, Elizabeth Robertson.
63. Statement of Financial Interests forms on file with Blair Township include the
following filings by David E. Burchfield, Sr. in his official capacity as Township
Supervisor:
a. Calendar Year: 2007
Filed: 02/04/08
b. Calendar Year: 2006
Filed: 02/13/2007
c. Calendar Year: 2005
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 18
Filed: 04/10/2006
d. Calendar Year: 2004
Filed: 02/01/2005
e. Calendar Year: 2003
Filed: 01/13/2004
f. Calendar Year: 2002
Filed: 01/20/2003
g. Calendar Year: 2001
Filed: 01/23/2002
64. Burchfield did not report sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests
filed for the 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001 calendar years.
a. On each form filed in the section titled direct /indirect sources of income
Burchfield reported "See Attached List."
b. No listing was attached to any form which reported sources of income.
c. A listing was attached which reported real estate interests.
d. Burchfield did not disclose income received from any of his private business
interests.
e. Burchfield did not disclose income in excess of $1,300.00 received from Blair
Township.
65. Burchfield did not disclose his financial interest in the Burchfield Limited
Partnership on Statements of Financial Interests filed for calendar years 2005 and
2006.
a. Burchfield has had a 95% ownership interest in this entity since October 1,
2005.
66. Burchfield did not disclose his office of President of the Burchfield Organization,
Inc. on his Statement of Financial Interests filed for calendar year 2006.
a. Burchfield has been President of the Burchfield Organization, Inc. since
approximately December 1994.
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for Blair Township ( "Township "), Blair County, since approximately
January 1998, Respondent David Burchfield, Sr. ( "Burchfield ") has at all times relevant to
this matter 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 Burchfield violated Sections 1103(a), 1105(b)(5),
1105(b)(8), and 1105(b)(9) of the Ethics Act when he, as a Township Supervisor, used the
authority of his office for the private pecuniary gain of himself, a member of his immediate
family and /or a business with which he or a member of his immediate family is associated
by conduct including, but not limited to, participating in actions and deliberations of the
Board of Supervisors to designate the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company ( "DVFC ") as
the primary responding fire department /emergency responder for the Township, then
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 19
participating in actions and deliberations of the Board of Supervisors allotting funding to
the DVFC from the Township's E.M.S. tax, and then subsequently entering into a
contract /agreement with the DVFC, in excess of $500.00, to lease property /building space
owned by Burchfield and /or members of his immediate family for use by the DVFC as a
sub - station within the Township; and by failing to disclose on Statements of Financial
Interests ( "SFIs ") filed for the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years
direct /indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300, his office, directorship, or
employment in any business entity, and his financial interests in any legal entity engaged
in business for profit.
Pursuant to Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, a public official /public employee is
prohibited from engaging in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(a) Conflict of interest. —No public official or public
employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of
interest.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a).
The term "conflict of interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as follows:
§ 1102. Definitions
"Conflict" or "conflict of interest." Use by a public
official or public employee of the authority of his office or
employment or any confidential information received through
his holding public office or employment for the private
pecuniary benefit of himself, a member of his immediate family
or a business with which he or a member of his immediate
family is associated. The term does not include an action
having a de minimis economic impact or which affects to the
same degree a class consisting of the general public or a
subclass consisting of an industry, occupation or other group
which includes the public official or public employee, a
member of his immediate family or a business with which he or
a member of his immediate family is associated.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act prohibits a public official /public employee from
using the authority of public office /employment or confidential information received by
holding such a public position for the private pecuniary benefit of the public official /public
employee himself, any member of his immediate family, or a business with which he or a
member of his immediate family is associated.
Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI the
name and address of any direct or indirect source of income totaling in the aggregate
$1,300 or more.
Section 1105(b)(8) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI any
office, directorship or employment in any business entity.
Section 1105(b)(9) of the Ethics Act requires the filer to disclose on the SFI any
financial interest in any legal entity engaged in business for profit. The term "financial
interest" is defined in the Ethics Act as "[a]ny financial interest in a legal entity engaged in
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 20
business for profit which comprises more than 5% of the equity of the business or more
than 5% of the assets of the economic interest in indebtedness." 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
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.
As noted above, Burchfield has served as a Township Supervisor since
approximately January 1998. The Township Board of Supervisors consists of three
Members.
Professionally, Burchfield has business interests in the Burchfield Limited
Partnership, the Burchfield Organization, Inc. ( "the Burchfield Organization "), and
Burchfield Auto Sales.
Burchfield has had a 95% interest in the Burchfield Limited Partnership since its
creation on about October 1, 2005. Burchfield's wife and children hold the remaining 5%
ownership interest in the Burchfield Limited Partnership. Burchfield is identified as the
general partner of the Burchfield Limited Partnership on the limited partnership application
filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State.
The Burchfield Organization was incorporated in December 1994. Burchfield has
been President of the Burchfield Organization since approximately December 1994.
Burchfield is also the Chief Executive Officer and an employee of the Burchfield
Organization.
Prior to 2006, the Township did not have fire protection based within its
geographical boundaries. The Township's fire and emergency response needs were split
among five volunteer fire companies located in communities surrounding the Township.
The 9 -1 -1 dispatcher made the determination as to which fire company to dispatch based
upon the location of the call. The DVFC, one of the aforesaid five volunteer fire companies,
received more than fifty percent of the emergency calls within the Township. In 2005, the
DVFC did not have a station or substation within the geographical boundaries of the
Township.
Prior to 2006, the Township contributed funding to each of the aforesaid five
volunteer fire companies. State funding the Township received from the Fire Relief
Association Fund was divided equally among the aforesaid five volunteer fire companies to
cover the cost of workers compensation insurance. The Township also made annual
donations in the amounts of approximately $3,262.50 to four volunteer fire companies, and
$1,450.00 to the remaining volunteer fire company, as it covered a smaller area.
In April 2005, the Board of Supervisors began discussing designating one of the
volunteer fire companies as a primary first responder and one or more of the other
volunteer fire companies as backup(s) for emergency calls within the Township. At that
time, the Township was receiving complaints from the volunteer fire companies regarding
the number of dispatch calls and the amount of contributions from the Township.
During the Board of Supervisors October 13, 2005, meeting, the DVFC Treasurer
sought funding from the Township for the DVFC. The DVFC Treasurer requested that the
Township distribute funding from the Fireman's Relief Funds to the five volunteer fire
companies based upon the percentage of the Township that each volunteer fire company
served, instead of equally as it had previously been distributed. Burchfield suggested that
the DVFC attempt to acquire grant funds to be used to build a new fire station, and that the
Township increase its Occupational Privilege tax, then set at $10.00 per year, to help
support the DVFC.
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 21
At the Board of Supervisors December 8, 2005, meeting, Burchfield made a motion
and voted in favor of supporting the DVFC in establishing a substation within the
Township.
Since January 1, 2005, municipalities and most school districts have been
authorized to impose an Emergency and Municipal Services Tax ( "EMS tax ") of up to
$52.00 per year. At the Board of Supervisors January 3, 2006, meeting, Burchfield made a
motion and voted in favor of setting the EMS tax at $39.00 for persons employed in the
Township earning $12,000 or more annually and at $10.00 for persons earning less than
$12,000 annually. The motion passed by unanimous vote. At the January 3, 2006,
meeting, the Board of Supervisors did not make a determination as to how the $39.00 EMS
tax would be distributed among the volunteer fire companies.
On January 9, 2006, the DVFC submitted a letter of intent to the Board of
Supervisors, informing the Supervisors of its intent to locate a fire substation within the
Township and requesting to be designated the exclusive fire company for the Township.
The DVFC's January 9, 2006, letter of intent was discussed during the Board of
Supervisors meeting on February 9, 2006. During the meeting, Burchfield participated in a
lengthy discussion regarding the DVFC's letter of intent, coverage areas, and the
designation of a primary fire company for the Township. Burchfield suggested that the
Board of Supervisors wait to sign the DVFC's letter of intent for six months to a year.
Burchfield agreed to examine the possibility of a regionalization plan that would allow all
five volunteer fire companies to serve the Township.
Also during the February 9, 2006, Board of Supervisors meeting, Burchfield made a
motion and voted to approve an ordinance officially repealing the Occupational Privilege
tax and establishing the EMS tax at $39.00 for persons employed in the Township earning
$12,000 or more annually and at $10.00 for persons earning less than $12,000 annually.
The EMS tax was to be used for police, fire, and emergency services. The ordinance was
approved by a 2 -1 vote.
Between January and April 2006, Burchfield, as a Township Supervisor,
participated in discussions regarding regionalization of fire coverage within the Township.
Meanwhile, during the January to March 2006 time frame, representatives of the
DVFC met with Burchfield privately to discuss leasing a building from Burchfield within the
Township to serve as the temporary location of the DVFC's Blair Township substation.
Between February 9, 2006, and May 11, 2006, the DVFC Treasurer located a
property /building space (hereinafter referred to as the "Property ") deemed suitable for
DVFC's use as a temporary substation within the Township. The Property was adjacent to
Burchfield's salvage yard and displayed a for lease" sign. The DVFC Assistant Chief
contacted Burchfield to ascertain the identity of the owner of the Property. Burchfield
informed the DVFC Assistant Chief that the Property was owned by Burchfield's family and
was available. Burchfield and the DVFC negotiated a monthly rental rate of $2,000.00 for
the Property.
The Property is owned by the Burchfield Limited Partnership. Burchfield and his wife
transferred ownership of the Property to the Burchfield Limited Partnership on December
19, 2005, eleven days after Burchfield participated in the action of the Board of
Supervisors supporting the DVFC in establishing a substation within the Township.
During the Board of Supervisors May 11, 2006, meeting, it was publicly announced
that the DVFC had located a building, at the Property address, to lease on a temporary
basis. Burchfield seconded a motion, and the Supervisors unanimously voted, to
designate the DVFC as the primary fire company for the Township and to forward a $29
portion of the $39 EMS tax to DVFC to establish a substation within the Township's
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 22
geographical boundaries.
During the May 11, 2006, meeting, Burchfield addressed the Board of Supervisors
and indicated that the Property was owned by D.R.T.J. Partnership ( "D.R.T.J. "), a
partnership of his family. Supervisor Brown suggested that the Solicitor verify there was no
conflict involved regarding the building being leased.
Per the Stipulated Findings, D.R.T.J. does not exist and has never owned the
Property. Burchfield never publicly disclosed during any Board of Supervisors meeting
that he was a 95% owner of the Burchfield Limited Partnership, the entity that owned the
Property, but told representatives of the DVFC and the public that the Property was owned
by his children.
At the Board of Supervisors May 24, 2006, meeting, the DVFC Treasurer stated that
representatives from the DVFC had met with representatives from the Burchfield
Organization regarding the lease of the Property. The DVFC Treasurer requested that the
Board of Supervisors make a commitment to provide the DVFC with the EMS tax for the
next five years. Burchfield asked the Township Solicitor to review whether the Township
could make such commitment to the DVFC.
At the Board of Supervisors August 10, 2006, meeting, the issue of whether
Burchfield would have a conflict of interest as to the DVFC's lease of the Property was
discussed. Based on concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest for Burchfield, the
Board of Supervisors sought legal opinions from its Solicitor and the Pennsylvania State
Association of Township Supervisors ( "PSATS ").
On August 18, 2006, the Township Solicitor issued his opinion that because the
lease would be between a corporate entity of the Burchfield family and DVFC, not the
Township, he did not see a direct conflict of interest. The Township Solicitor also
recommended that the DVFC Solicitor review the lease to determine whether a conflict of
interest would exist.
The Township Secretary /Treasurer contacted PSATS and issued a memorandum to
the Board of Supervisors and Township Solicitor regarding that conversation.
All discussions and negotiations with regard to the lease of the Property were
handled between DVFC representatives and Burchfield. No other representative of the
Burchfield Limited Partnership participated in any lease negotiations. Business records of
the Burchfield Limited Partnership include an unsigned commercial lease agreement for
the Property dated July 1, 2006, between the Burchfield Limited Partnership and the DVFC
d /b /a as Blair Township Fire Company. The lease term is July 1, 2006, through June 30,
2011, with a five year renewal option. Rent is specified during the initial term as
$24,000.00 annually, payable in monthly installments of $2,000.00. The lease was never
signed by either Burchfield or representative(s) of DVFC.
The DVFC has used the Property to serve as a substation within the Township
since approximately July 1, 2006. The EMS tax and general donations from the Township
were used by the DVFC to pay rent for the Property. Burchfield, doing business as the
Burchfield Limited Partnership, accepted such rental payments from the DVFC. Burchfield,
as a Township Supervisor, also participated in the following actions of the Board of
Supervisors pertaining to funding for the DVFC:
1. On December 14, 2006, Burchfield made a motion and voted to approve the
2007 budget, which included funding to the DVFC (the motion passed with a
unanimous vote);
2. On January 2, 2007, Burchfield made a motion and voted to reaffirm
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 23
distribution of the EMS tax so that $10.00 of the EMS tax would be deposited
in the General Fund Account and the remaining $29.00 of the EMS tax would
be paid to the Township's primary volunteer fire company (the motion
passed with a unanimous vote);
3. On May 10, 2007, Burchfield made a motion and voted to approve a
Resolution officially designating the Blair Township /Duncansville Volunteer
Fire Department as the primary fire company for the Township (the motion
passed with a unanimous vote);
4. On September 19, 2007, Burchfield seconded a motion and voted to replace
the EMS tax with a "Local Services tax" commencing January 1, 2008, in the
amount of $52.00 for persons employed in the Township earning over
$12,000.00 (the motion passed with a unanimous vote);
5. On September 19, 2007, Burchfield also made a motion and voted to
allocate $30.00 of the $52.00 local services tax to the Blair
Township /Duncansville Volunteer Fire Department (the motion passed with a
unanimous vote);
6. On October 11, 2007, Burchfield voted to pass an ordinance formally
establishing the Local Services tax and repealing the former EMS tax (the
ordinance was passed with a unanimous vote);
7 On January 7, 2008, Burchfield seconded a motion and voted to reappoint
DVFC as the Township's primary volunteer fire company (the motion passed
with a unanimous vote);
8. On January 7, 2008, Burchfield also made a motion and voted to reaffirm
distribution of the $30.00 portion of the EMS /Local Services tax to DVFC (the
motion passed with a unanimous vote); and
9. On February 12, 2008, Burchfield participated in actions of the Board of
Supervisors to approve the Township's 2008 operating budget, which
included anticipated funding in the approximate amount of $72,000.00 from
the EMS /Local Services tax to the DVFC.
Fact Finding 50 details revenue that the DVFC has received from the Township
since 2006, as well as the DVFC's disbursements of such Township funds.
Since July 13, 2006, Burchfield also regularly participated in the approval of
Township bill lists which included funding for the DVFC. Burchfield participated in seven
separate actions of the Board of Supervisors to approve payments totaling $143,956.00 to
the DVFC, as detailed in Fact Finding 53a.
Since December 11, 2006, the DVFC received three invoices totaling $22,000 from
the Burchfield Limited Partnership for the lease of the Property, covering rents due from
July 1, 2006, through April 2007. No invoices were received by DVFC from Burchfield
after April 2007. The State Ethics Commission investigation of Burchfield was initiated on
July 12, 2007. No invoices were received from the " D.R.T.J. Partnership."
Between November 2006 and May 2007, the DVFC paid $22,000 in rental payments
to the Burchfield Limited Partnership for use of the Property. These funds were received by
Burchfield, doing business as the Burchfield Limited Partnership. No rental payments
were made to the non - existent D.R.T.J. Partnership.
Burchfield utilized a portion of the $22,000.00 received from the DVFC for
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 24
improvements, utilities, taxes, and upkeep to the Property. All of the proceeds received
from the DVFC for rental of the Property were retained by Burchfield and reported on
Burchfield's tax returns filed jointly with his spouse. Burchfield claimed a net gain of
$14,278.00 for rental of the Property in 2006, and a loss of $506.00 for rental of the
Property in 2007 as a result of Burchfield ceasing to charge the DVFC rent for its use of
the Property.
Burchfield, in his official capacity as a Township Supervisor, was required to
annually file an SFI by May 1 containing information for the prior calendar year. Although
Burchfield's SFIs for calendar years 2002 through 2007 were on file with the Township,
Burchfield did not disclose the Township as a source of income in excess of $1,300 on
such SFIs. In the section titled "direct /indirect sources of income," Burchfield wrote, "See
Attached List" but did not attach any list reporting direct or indirect sources of income.
Burchfield did not disclose income received from any of his private business interests.
Burchfield failed to disclose his 95% ownership interest in the Burchfield Limited
Partnership on his SFIs filed for calendar years 2005 and 2006 and did not did not
disclose his office as President of the Burchfield Organization on his SFI for calendar year
2006.
Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply
the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case.
The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations
as follows:
3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to
the above allegations:
a. That a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official
and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a)
occurred in relation to Burchfield's participation in
actions and deliberations of the Board of Supervisors to
designate the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company as
the primary responding Fire Department /Emergency
Responder for Blair Township; and when Burchfield
participated in actions and deliberations of the Board
allotting funding to the Duncansville Volunteer Fire
Company from the Township's E.M.S. tax and then
entered into a contract /agreement with the Duncansville
Volunteer Fire Company, in excess of $500.00, to lease
property /building space owned by him, and /or members
of his immediate family for use by the Duncansville
Volunteer Fire Company as a sub - station within Blair
Township; and
b. That an unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1105(b) occurred when Burchfield failed to disclose,
on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years,
direct /indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300;
office directorship or employment in any business
entity; and his financial interests in any legal entity
engaged in business for profit.
4. Burchfield agrees to make payment in the amount of $10,000 in
settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 25
Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics
Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final
adjudication in this matter; and that Burchfield will file amended
Statements of Financial Interests for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
and 2007 to reflect all direct /indirect sources of income in excess of
$1,300; and to fully disclose all directorship or employment in any
business entity and financial interest in any legal entity or business
for profit.
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 2.
The first recommended violation of the Consent Agreement is in relation to
Burchfield participating in actions and deliberations of the Board of Supervisors to
designate the DVFC as the primary responding Fire Department/Emergency Responder for
the Township, participating in actions and deliberations of the Board allotting funding to
the DVFC from the Township's EMS /Local Services tax, and then entering into a
contract /agreement with the DVFC, in excess of $500.00, to lease property /building space
owned by him, and /or members of his immediate family, for use by the DVFC as a
substation within Blair Township. There were numerous uses of authority of office by
Burchfield.
But for the fact that Burchfield was a Township Supervisor, he would not have been
in a position to take the following official actions favorable to DVFC. First, at the Board's
December 8, 2005, meeting, Burchfield made a motion and voted in favor of supporting the
DVFC in establishing a substation within the Township. Then, at the January 3, 2006, and
February 9, 2006, meetings, Burchfield made motions and voted to establish the EMS tax
which would be used for police, fire, and emergency services. Next, at the May 11, 2006,
meeting, Burchfield seconded a motion and voted to designate the DVFC the primary fire
company for the Township and to forward a $29.00 portion of the $39.00 EMS tax to the
DVFC to establish a substation within the Township's geographical boundaries.
Burchfield's aforesaid actions at the May 11, 2006, meeting occurred after representatives
of the DVFC had met privately with Burchfield to discuss leasing a building from Burchfield
within the Township to serve as the temporary location of the DVFC's Blair Township
substation.
Further, but for being a Township Supervisor, Burchfield would not have been in a
position to make a motion and vote on December 14, 2006, to approve the 2007 Township
budget, which included funding to the DVFC; or to make a motion and vote on January 2,
2007, to reaffirm distribution of the EMS tax so that $29.00 of the EMS tax would be paid to
the Township's primary volunteer fire company; or to make a motion and vote on May 10,
2007, to officially designate the DVFC as the Township's primary fire company.
Meanwhile, between November 2006 and May 2007, the DVFC issued rent payments for
rent in the amount of $2,000.00 per month to the Burchfield Limited Partnership for the
months of July 2006 through April 2007.
But for being a Township Supervisor, Burchfield would also not have been in a
position to participate in the approval of Township bill lists that included funding for the
DVFC, some of which actions occurred while the DVFC was paying rent to the Burchfield
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 26
Limited Partnership.
The aforesaid actions by Burchfield in his capacity as a Township Supervisor were
uses of authority of office (see, Juliante, Order 809). The resulting private pecuniary
benefit(s) consisted of rental payments from the DVFC to the Burchfield Limited
Partnership. Given Burchfield's status as the general partner and 95% owner of the
Burchfield Limited Partnership, the Burchfield Limited Partnership is a business with which
Burchfield is associated as defined under the Ethics Act. See, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1102.
Moreover, as noted above, all of the proceeds received from the DVFC for rental of the
Property were retained by Burchfield and reported on Burchfield's tax returns filed jointly
with his spouse. Burchfield claimed a net gain of $14,278.00 for rental of the Property in
2006, and a loss of $506.00 for rental of the Property in 2007 as a result of Burchfield
ceasing to charge the DVFC rent for its use of the Property.
The finding of a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act under these
circumstances is supported by case law and Commission precedent.
This Commission has long held that a reasonable and legitimate anticipation of the
development of a financial /business relationship may support a finding of a conflict of
interest. See, e.q., Pavlovic, Opinion 02 -005; Confidential Opinion, 00 -006; Garner,
Opinion 93 -004; Amato, Opinion 89 -002 (citing Sowers, Opinion 80 -050); Caldwell, Order
1172; Snyder, Order 979 -2, affirmed, Snyder v. State Ethics Commission, 686 A.2d 843
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), allocatur denied, 1997 Pa. LEXIS 2719 (Pa. Dec. 22, 1997).
In Snyder v. State Ethics Commission, supra, Commonwealth Court affirmed
Snyder, Order 979 -2, in which this Commission determined that a township supervisor who
had participated and voted on development issues when he had actual or anticipated
contracts to perform work in the developments had violated Section 3(a) (now Section
1103(a)) of the Ethics Law. Commonwealth Court, in affirming this Commission's Order,
stated that Snyder "should not have considered and voted on issues involving his personal
business dealings." Snyder, 686 A.2d at 849.
In Kistler, Order 1441, we determined that "personal business dealings" encompass
the persons or entities with which one does business or actively seeks to do business. We
held that a member of an intermediate unit board of directors unintentionally violated
Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he voted in favor of authorizing an architect to
pursue the construction of a classroom facility for the intermediate unit while he was
actively engaged in seeking a contract with that same architect or the architect's company
to build a transportation facility for the intermediate unit and had a reasonable expectation
that he would receive such a contract.
In Gerhard, Order 1460, we held that a school board member violated Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions of the school board to approve an
addendum to a school district contract with a bus company, thereby increasing
compensation to the bus company, at a time when the school board member was
negotiating with the bus company to sell and /or lease buses to the bus company.
In the instant matter, Burchfield had a conflict of interest as to matters involving
DVFC during the time when he was discussing or negotiating the rental of the Property to
the DVFC, because he had a reasonable and legitimate anticipation that he would be
forming a financial /business relationship with the DVFC. See, Pavlovic, supra; Confidential
Opinion, 00 -006, supra; Garner, supra; Amato, supra; Caldwell, supra; Snyder, supra.
Further, once the DVFC began to rent the property, Burchfield and the DVFC had
an ongoing business relationship. This Commission has held that it is a conflict of interest
under Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act for a public official to use the authority of office for
a private pecuniary benefit as to an individual /entity with which he has an ongoing
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 27
business relationship. Cf., Johnson, Order 1338; Miller, Opinion 89 -024; Kannebecker,
Opinion 92 -010.
Accordingly, we hold that a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in
relation to Burchfield's participation in actions and deliberations of the Board of
Supervisors to designate the DVFC as the primary responding fire department/emergency
responder for the Township; participated in actions and deliberations of the Board of
Supervisors allotting funding to the DVFC from the Township's EMS tax; and then entered
into a contract /agreement with the DVFC, in excess of $500.00, to lease the Property for
use by the DVFC as a substation within the Township.
Turning to the recommended unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics
Act, it is noted that the Allegations in this matter specifically enumerate subsections of
Section 1105(b) allegedly violated by Burchfield. It would appear, however, that the parties
have agreed to combine such individual alleged violations of subsections of Section
1105(b) within a single recommendation.
The parties have stipulated that Burchfield, in his official capacity as a Township
Supervisor, was required to annually file an SFI by May 1 containing information for the
prior calendar year. Although Burchfield's SFIs for calendar years 2002 through 2007
were on file with the Township, Burchfield did not disclose the Township as a source of
income in excess of $1,300 on such SFIs. In the section titled "direct /indirect sources of
income," Burchfield wrote, "See Attached List" but did not attach any list reporting direct or
indirect sources of income. Burchfield did not disclose income received from any of his
private business interests. Burchfield failed to disclose his 95% ownership interest in the
Burchfield Limited Partnership on his SFIs filed for calendar years 2005 and 2006 and did
not did not disclose his office as President of the Burchfield Organization on his SFI for
calendar year 2006.
Accordingly, we hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics
Act occurred when Burchfield failed to disclose, on SFIs for calendar years 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, direct /indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300; his
office, directorship, or employment in any business entity; and his financial interests in any
legal entity engaged in business for profit.
As part of the Consent Agreement, Burchfield has agreed to make payment in the
amount of $10,000.00 in settlement of this matter, payable to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of
the final adjudication in the matter.
Burchfield has also agreed to file amended SFIs for calendar years 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 to reflect all direct /indirect sources of income in excess of
$1,300.00, and to fully disclose his directorship or employment in any business entity and
financial interest in any legal entity or business for profit.
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.
Per the Consent Agreement, we direct Burchfield to make payment in the amount of
$10,000.00, payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this
Commission by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this
adjudication and Order.
Burchfield is further directed to file amended SFIs for the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
2006, and 2007 calendar years, providing complete disclosure as required by the Ethics
Act, and in particular, reflecting all direct /indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300.00
Burchfield, 07 -089
Page 28
and fully disclosing his directorship or employment in any business entity and financial
interest in any legal entity or business for profit, and to forward to this Commission copies
of all of the aforesaid filings for compliance verification purposes by no later than the
thirtieth (30 ") day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order.
Compliance with the foregoing will result in the closing of this case with no further
action by this Commission. Noncompliance will result in the institution of an order
enforcement action.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. David Burchfield, Sr. ( "Burchfield "), as a Supervisor for Blair Township ( "Township ")
since approximately January 1998, has at all times relevant to these proceedings
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. A violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Burchfield
participated in actions and deliberations of the Township Board of Supervisors to
designate the Duncansville Volunteer Fire Company ( "DVFC ") as the primary
responding fire department /emergency responder for the Township; participated in
actions and deliberations of the Board of Supervisors allotting funding to the DVFC
from the Township's Emergency and Municipal Services tax; and then entered into
a contract /agreement with the DVFC, in excess of $500.00, to lease
property /building space owned by him and /or members of his immediate family
through the "Burchfield Limited Partnership," for use by the DVFC as a substation
within the Township.
3. An unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act occurred when
Burchfield failed to disclose, on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years, direct/indirect sources of income
in excess of $1,300; his office, directorship, or employment in any business entity;
and his financial interests in any legal entity engaged in business for profit.
In Re: David Burchfield, Sr.,
Respondent
ORDER NO. 1492
File Docket: 07 -089
Date Decided: 9/22/08
Date Mailed: 10/10/08
1 David Burchfield, Sr. ( "Burchfield "), a public official in his capacity as a Supervisor
for Blair Township ( "Township ") since approximately January 1998, violated Section
1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he participated in actions and deliberations of the
Township Board of Supervisors to designate the Duncansville Volunteer Fire
Company ( "DVFC ") as the primary responding fire department /emergency
responder for the Township; participated in actions and deliberations of the Board
of Supervisors allotting funding to the DVFC from the Township's Emergency and
Municipal Services tax; and then entered into a contract /agreement with the DVFC,
in excess of $500.00, to lease property /building space owned by him and /or
members of his immediate family through the "Burchfield Limited Partnership," for
use by the DVFC as a substation within the Township.
2. An unintentional violation of Section 1105(b) of the Ethics Act occurred when
Burchfield failed to disclose, on Statements of Financial Interests ( "SFIs ") filed for
the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years, direct/indirect sources
of income in excess of $1,300; his office, directorship, or employment in any
business entity; and his financial interests in any legal entity engaged in business
for profit.
3. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Burchfield is directed to make payment
in the amount of $10,000.00, payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission by no later than the
thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this Order.
4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Burchfield is further directed to file
amended SFIs for the 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years,
providing complete disclosure as required by the Ethics Act, and in particular,
reflecting all direct /indirect sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 and fully
disclosing his directorship or employment in any business entity and financial
interest in any legal entity or business for profit, and to forward to this Commission
copies of all of the afgresaid filings for compliance verification purposes by no later
than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this Order.
5. Compliance with paragraphs 3 and 4 above 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,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair
Name, Case #
Page 30