Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1496 ZadroznyIn Re: Michael Zadrozny, 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 -038 Order No. 1496 12/4/08 12/19/08 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding a possible violation of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." An Answer was not filed and a hearing was requested. A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement waiving an evidentiary hearing were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The 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. Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 2 I. ALLEGATIONS: That Mike Zadrozny, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township, violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a) and 1104(d) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. § §1103(a), 1104(a), and 1104(d) when he received compensation not provided for by law by participating in the approval of payments for Board Members in excess of that approved by the appointing authority; and when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. II. FINDINGS: 1. Michael Zadrozny has served as a member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township (hereafter Authority) since March 15, 2006. a. Zadrozny was appointed to fill a vacant seat on the Board. b. Zadrozny has served as the Board Treasurer since February 27, 2007. c. Zadrozny has served as the Board Assistant Secretary since January 12, 2008. 2. The Authority has been governed by a seven member Board of Directors since July 1998. 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. 3. 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 the rate set by the appointing body, Washington Township, was $50.00 per meeting. 4. Individuals in the positions of Board Secretary and Board Treasurer currently receive an extra $35.00 per month in their respective positions. a. From at least April 2002 through June 2007, the Board Secretary received an extra $70.00 per month and the Board Treasurer received an extra $35.00 per month. 5. Voting at Authority meetings is normally conducted via group "aye /nay" vote after a motion is made and properly seconded. a. If any Authority member objects during the group vote, an individual roll call vote is taken and recorded. b. Any objections or abstentions cast are specifically noted in the minutes. 1. Minutes of Authority Board meetings are approved for accuracy at subsequent meetings. 6. Authority Board Members are provided with a meeting packet the Friday prior to the Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 3 list. 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 7. 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. 8. 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 in the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act. 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. 9. The original Articles of Incorporation associated with the Authority provided for a five member Board of Directors. Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 4 a. The original Authority Board occasionally discussed both water and sewage services at monthly meetings. 1. Minutes of the June 25, 1962, Authority regular meeting document the Authority's Consulting Engineer, John T. Kane, outlining the proposed sewage system for the Township. aa. Each Board Member was provided with a copy of the sewage system plans for review. 2. Minutes of the June 25, 1962, regular meeting document discussions regarding water and sewage services occurring during the same meeting. b. The original by -laws adopted by the Authority Board at the September 8, 1952, meeting established that the Board meet once per month to conduct Authority business. c. The by -laws also permitted special meetings to be held if necessary. 10. Over the next several years, the Washington Township Supervisors became involved in reviewing the possibility of instituting a sewage system for the Township. a. Washington Township residents utilized individual on -lot systems for sewage purposes at that time. 1. Residents continue to utilize on -lot systems currently. b. The Authority was responsible only for the oversight of water services at that time. 1. The Authority Board accomplished its responsibility regarding the oversight of water services via the conduction of one regularly scheduled meeting per month with special meetings held as necessary. 11. 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. 12. The Township Supervisors at the time were not receptive to DEP's proposal, prompt[ing] potential litigation between the Township and DEP. a. Negotiations between the Township and DEP resulted in the defusing 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. 13. The Supervisors subsequently met with representatives from Fayette City, Belle Vernon, and DEP to determine which treatment facility would be utilized. Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 5 a. The Supervisors eventually opted to utilize the Belle Vernon treatment plant for the proposed sewage system. 14. 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. 15. 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 Supervisors meeting. a. The Supervisors approved the amendments to the Authority's Articles of Incorporation as documented in the resolution submitted for consideration. 16. 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. 17. 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 Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 6 advertised meeting. 2. Checks were generated by Authority Clerk Laura Snyder under the direction of Office Manager Judith Arrow. 1. Arrow was also an Authority member. 18. Although Bankson Engineers representatives recommended discussing both water and sewage issues at monthly meetings, the Authority Board decided to hold separate water and sewage meetings on the same evening. a. From approximately March 2000 through the present, the Authority Board has conducted two separate meetings on the published meeting night. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. The Authority maintains various bank accounts in relation to its operations. a. The Authority utilized two separate financial institutions regarding its General Fund Account from April 2001 through the present. 1. During the time period of April 2001 through approximately October 7, 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. During the time period of April 2001 through January 2005, the Authority Sewage Account was maintained at PNC Bank under Account Number Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 7 xxx>ooc9242. 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>oc0183. 22. 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. 23. 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 separate sewage meeting a. Both meetings were held on the same date and at the same location. 1. The second meeting would commence immediately after the first meeting would adjourn. b. No official vote was taken by the Authority Board authorizing the issuance of an additional check. 1. The Authority Board accepted the additional check without seeking advice from the Authority solicitor or Washington Township, the appointing body. c. The Washington Township Supervisors took no official action to approve separate payments for separate sewage meetings. 1. The Board of Supervisors was not aware, in April 2001, that the Authority was paying its Members for two meetings held on the same dates. 24. 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. 25. Compensation for the Authority Board Members was increased at the January 2, Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 8 2002, reorganization meeting of the Washington Township Supervisors. a. The Washington Township Supervisors approved an increase for Authority Board Members from fifty dollars ($50.00) per meeting to seventy -five dollars ($75.00) per meeting via unanimous vote. b. No records exist of the Authority being notified at that time of the meeting pay increase. 26. 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. 27. From March 2006, when he began service on the Authority, through June 2007, Zadrozny routinely received separate checks for his attendance at Authority water and sewage meetings held on the same evening. a. Zadrozny received $75.00 (gross) for his attendance at each water meeting from March 2006 through June 2007. b. Zadrozny received $75.00 (gross) for his attendance at each sewage meeting from March 2006 through June 2007. 1. Zadrozny was not eligible to receive sewage checks as the Authority Board was responsible for both water and sewage issues as a single Authority Board. 28. From March 2006 though June 2007, Zadrozny received and negotiated sixteen checks from the Authority's sewage account at either PNC Bank or National City Bank representative of payment for sewage meetings attended on the same night as regular Authority water meetings. 29. Zadrozny participated in actions as an Authority Board Member in approving monthly bill lists [which included] payment received for attendance at the sewage portion of Authority meetings. a. Zadrozny voted to approve thirteen of thirteen bills lists on which payment to him was noted for attendance at sewage portions of Authority meetings. 30. Zadrozny is 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. 31. Zadrozny took no action authorizing two meetings of the Authority nor did he Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 9 participate in any Authority decisions to authorize payments to members for attendance at two meetings. a. All decisions regarding pay for attendance at two meetings were made prior to Zadrozny's appointment to the Authority Board. b. Zadrozny accepted compensation for two meetings based on information provided to him by Judith Arrow. 32. As a result of Zadrozny's lack of use of office, no violation of section § 1103[(a)] (65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a)) occurred. [Note: In support of this Stipulated Finding, the parties cite McGuire v. State Ethics Comm'n, 657 A.2d 1346 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995).] 33. Statement of Financial Interests filing requirements for public officials and public employees are mandated by Section 1104 of the State Ethics Act. a. Zadrozny was required to file Statements of Financial Interests by May 1 annually in his position as an Authority Board Member. 34. A review of records at the Authority office revealed that no Statements of Financial Interests were on file for Zadrozny for calendar year 2005. 35. Zadrozny did not file a Statement of Financial Interests with the Authority for calendar year 2005 by May 1, 2006. a. Zadrozny was appointed as an Authority Board Member on March 15, 2006. b. Zadrozny was required to file a Statement of Financial Interests by May 1, 2006, for calendar year 2005. 36. Zadrozny filed a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2006 calendar year by May 1, 2007. III. DISCUSSION: As a Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township from March 15, 2006, to the present, Respondent Michael Zadrozny, hereinafter also referred to as "Respondent," "Respondent Zadrozny," or "Zadrozny," 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 Zadrozny violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), and 1104(d) of the Ethics Act when he, as a Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township, received compensation not provided for by law by participating in the approval of payments for Board Members in excess of that approved by the appointing authority; and when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. 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 Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 10 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 1104(a) of the Ethics Act provides that each public official /public employee must file a Statement of Financial Interests for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act provides that no public official shall be allowed to take the oath of office, enter or continue upon his duties, or receive compensation from public funds unless he has filed a Statement of Financial Interests as required by the Ethics Act. 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. Zadrozny has served as a Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township ( "Authority ") from March 15, 2006, to the present. The Washington Township Board of Supervisors ( "Board of Supervisors ") created the Authority in 1952, pursuant to the authority granted by the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act. The original by -laws adopted by the Authority Board in 1952 established that the Authority Board would meet once per month to conduct Authority business. The by -laws also permitted special meetings to be held if necessary. The initial objective of the Authority was to provide water services for the majority of residents of Washington Township ( "Township "), as well as residents of various adjacent communities. However, in 1999, with the approval of the Board of Supervisors, the Authority's Articles of Incorporation were amended to include as a purpose of the Authority Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 11 the planning, funding, construction, and operation of sewage facilities throughout the Township. Per the Fact Findings, from at least mid -1999 through February 2000, the Authority Board followed the recommendations of an engineering firm to discuss water and sewage issues at the same monthly meetings. At that time, Authority Board Members received $50.00 (gross) per monthly meeting attended. However, subsequently, and without a formal vote, the Authority Board decided to hold separate water and sewage meetings on the same evenings. Zadrozny was not an Authority Board Member when this decision was made. From approximately March 2000 through the present, the Authority Board has conducted two separate meetings on published meeting nights. Such meetings have been held consecutively and at the same location. From approximately March 2000 through March 2001, Board Members attending Authority Board meetings continued to receive one check per meeting night, which was for both meetings. However, in or about April 2001, 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. No official vote was taken by the Authority Board to authorize the issuance of an additional check, and the Authority Board accepted the additional check without seeking the advice of the Authority Solicitor or the Board of Supervisors. 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 held on the same dates. At the January 2, 2002, re- organization meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the compensation for Authority Board Members was increased from fifty dollars per meeting to seventy -five dollars per meeting. The motion to increase the compensation identified the Board Members as officials for a single Authority. The motion did not include any language authorizing payments for two separate meetings. From March 2006, when Zadrozny began serving on the Authority Board, through June 2007, Zadrozny routinely received separate checks for his attendance at Authority Board water and sewage meetings held on the same evening. Zadrozny received $75.00 (gross) for his attendance at each water meeting from March 2006 through June 2007. Zadrozny received $75.00 (gross) for his attendance at each sewage meeting from March 2006 through June 2007. However, Zadrozny 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. From March 2006 though June 2007, Zadrozny received and negotiated sixteen Authority checks representing payment for sewage meetings attended on the same night as regular Authority water meetings. Zadrozny participated in actions of the Authority Board in approving monthly bill lists that included such payments. Zadrozny voted to approve thirteen of thirteen bill lists that included payment to him for attendance at sewage portions of Authority meetings. In July 2007, the Authority Board elected to stop receiving separate checks for Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 12 water and sewage meetings held on the same evening, based on the advice of the Authority's newly appointed solicitor. Zadrozny took no action authorizing the Authority to hold separate water and sewage meetings or authorizing payments to Authority Board Members for attendance at such separate meetings. All decisions regarding pay for attendance at separate water and sewage meetings were made prior to Zadrozny's appointment to the Authority Board. Zadrozny accepted compensation for separate water and sewage meetings based on information provided to him by the Authority Office Manager. The parties have stipulated that as a result of Zadrozny's lack of use of office, no violation of section § 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred (see, Fact Finding 32). We shall now review the Fact Findings pertaining to Zadrozny's Statements of Financial Interests (SFIs). Zadrozny was appointed as an Authority Board Member on March 15, 2006. Zadrozny was required to file SFIs by May 1 St annually in his position as an Authority Board Member. Zadrozny was required to file an SFI by May 1, 2006, for calendar year 2005. Zadrozny did not file an SFI with the Authority for calendar year 2005 by May 1, 2006. Zadrozny filed an SFI for the 2006 calendar year by May 1, 2007. 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 no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Zadrozny's receipt of compensation in excess of that approved by the appointing Authority, in that Zadrozny did not participate in any action to instigate or vote to increase payments, only that he received excess compensation (See McGuire v. State Ethics Comm'n, 657 A.2d 1346 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995); and b. That a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a) occurred when Zadrozny failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. c. That a violation of Section 1104(d) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(d) occurred when Zadrozny failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. 4. Zadrozny agrees to make payment in the amount of $250.00 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 13 adjudication in this matter. 5. To the extent he has not already done so, Zadrozny agrees to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar year 2005 with the Municipal Authority of Washington Township, and forward a copy of [same] to this Commission. 6. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to review this matter further. Consent Agreement, at 1 -2. In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the parties' first recommendation and determine that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Zadrozny's receipt of meeting pay in excess of that approved by the Board of Supervisors. A violation of Section 1103(a) may not be established absent a use of authority of public office /employment or a use of confidential information received by being in the public position. The element of use of authority of public office /employment requires action by the public official /public employee that in some way facilitates receipt of a private pecuniary benefit. See, McGuire v. State Ethics Commission, 657 A.2d 1346 (1995). In McGuire, supra, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that there could be no violation of former Section 3(a) (now Section 1103(a)) of the Ethics Act as to two municipal authority members who took no affirmative action, and hence did not use the authority of office, when they received excess meeting compensation based upon a predetermined erroneous payment practice that they did not participate in promulgating and that predated their service on the authority board: Section 3(a) of the Ethics Act requires that a public official "use" his public office to obtain financial gain.... "Use" of public office requires action by a public official that in some way facilitates his receipt of compensation to which he is not entitled, such as in Yacobet [sic] where the individual voted to increase his own salary without having authority to do so. Mere mistaken acceptance by a public official of a compensation check in an amount that was determined prior to his term in office is devoid of the type of action needed to constitute "use" of office for the purpose of obtaining personal financial gain. Id., 657 A.2d at 1351 -1352. We note that both authority members in the McGuire case had participated in approving authority operating budgets that included such erroneous meeting compensation, and one authority member as treasurer had also issued payroll checks to authority members for such incorrect amounts. See, Marchitello, Order No. 944 (Fact Findings 9, 14 q, 17 f, 17 u); McGuire, Order No. 945 (Fact Findings 14 o, 17 q, 18 j). Similarly, in the instant matter, Zadrozny did not participate in any action to instigate an increase in meeting pay or any vote to increase meeting pay, but rather, only received such excess compensation. Zadrozny's receipt of excess meeting pay was the result of actions taken by others almost five years before Zadrozny became an Authority Board Member. Under these circumstances, Zadrozny's receipt of such unauthorized compensation and his votes to approve monthly bill lists including such compensation would not establish the Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 14 requisite element of a use of authority of public office. Accordingly, we hold that that no violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Zadrozny's receipt of compensation (meeting pay) in excess of that approved by the Board of Supervisors, in that Zadrozny did not participate in any action to instigate an increase in meeting pay or any vote to increase meeting pay, but rather, only received such excess compensation. McGuire, supra; see generally, Makar, Order 1383; Myrsiades, Order 1301; Conaway, Order 1248. We agree with the parties that violations of Section 1104(a) and Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act occurred when Zadrozny failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. As an Authority Board Member, Zadrozny is required to file SFIs by May 1St annually. Zadrozny was appointed as an Authority Board Member on March 15, 2006, prior to the May 1, 2006, deadline for filing an SFI for calendar year 2005. The parties have stipulated that Zadrozny was required to file an SFI by May 1, 2006, for calendar year 2005, but failed to do so. Zadrozny continued to serve as an Authority Board Member despite having failed to comply with the requirements of the Ethics Act for filing such Statement of Financial Interests. We hold that a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Zadrozny failed to file an SFI for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. We further hold that a violation of Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act occurred when Zadrozny failed to file an SFI for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. As part of the Consent Agreement, Zadrozny has agreed to make payment in the amount of $250.00 in settlement of this matter, with such payment to be made payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to this Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Zadrozny has also agreed that, to the extent he has not already done so, he will file a Statement of Financial Interests for calendar year 2005 with the Authority and will forward a copy of same to this Commission. 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, Zadrozny is directed to make payment in the amount of $250.00, with such payment to be made 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. To the extent he has not already done so, Zadrozny is directed tg file an SFI for calendar year 2005 with the Authority by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, and to forward a copy of such filing to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. 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 Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township ( "Authority ") from March 15, 2006, to the present, Michael Zadrozny ( "Zadrozny ") has been a public Zadrozny, 07 -038 Page 15 official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. Zadrozny did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in relation to his receipt of compensation (meeting pay) in excess of that approved by the Washington Township Board of Supervisors, in that Zadrozny did not participate in any action to instigate an increase in meeting pay or any vote to increase meeting pay, but rather, only received such excess compensation. 3. Zadrozny violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. 4. Zadrozny violated Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file an SFI for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. In Re: Michael Zadrozny, Respondent ORDER NO. 1496 File Docket: 07 -038 Date Decided: 12/4/08 Date Mailed: 12/19/08 1 Michael Zadrozny ( "Zadrozny "), a public official in his capacity as a Member of the Municipal Authority of Washington Township ( "Authority ") from March 15, 2006, to the present, did not violate Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his receipt of compensation (meeting pay) in excess of that approved by the Washington Township Board of Supervisors, in that Zadrozny did not participate in any action to instigate an increase in meeting pay or any vote to increase meeting pay, but rather, only received such excess compensation. 2. Zadrozny violated Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. 3. Zadrozny violated Section 1104(d) of the Ethics Act when he failed to file an SFI for the 2005 calendar year by May 1, 2006. 4. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Zadrozny is directed to make payment in the amount of $250.00, with such payment to be made 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. 5. To the extent he has not already done so, Zadrozny is directed to file an SFI for calendar year 2005 with the Authority by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this Order, and to forward a copy of such filing to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. 6. Compliance with Paragraphs 4 and 5 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, Louis W. Fryman, Chair