Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1504 WilliamsIn Re: Roy E. Williams, 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 08 -001 Order No. 1504 3/12/09 3/27/09 This is a final adjudication of the State Ethics Commission. Procedurally, the Investigative Division of the State Ethics Commission conducted an investigation regarding possible violation(s) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq., by the above -named Respondent. At the commencement of its investigation, the Investigative Division served upon Respondent written notice of the specific allegations. Upon completion of its investigation, the Investigative Division issued and served upon Respondent a Findings Report identified as an "Investigative Complaint." A Stipulation of Findings and a Consent Agreement waiving an evidentiary hearing were subsequently submitted by the parties to the Commission for consideration. The Stipulated Findings are set forth as the Findings in this Order. The Consent Agreement has been approved. This adjudication of the State Ethics Commission is issued under the Ethics Act and will be made available as a public document thirty days after the mailing date noted above. However, reconsideration may be requested. Any reconsideration request must be received at this Commission within thirty days of the mailing date and must include a detailed explanation of the reasons as to why reconsideration should be granted in conformity with 51 Pa. Code § 21.29(b). A request for reconsideration will not affect the finality of this adjudication but will defer its public release pending action on the request by the Commission. The files in this case will remain confidential in accordance with the Ethics Act. Williams, 08 -001 Page 2 I. ALLEGATIONS: That Roy Williams, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a Member of the Susquehanna Depot Borough Council, violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), and 1105(b) of the State Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1104(a), and 1105(b), when he used the authority of his office for private pecuniary gain by authorizing his employment as a borough employee and subsequently setting his wages and participating in council approval to issue payments to him; when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests for the 2003 and 2004 calendar years; and when he failed to disclose sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 and office, directorship, or employment in any business entity on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years. II. FINDINGS: 1. Roy E. Williams has served as a Susquehanna Depot Borough Council Member since August 14, 2002. a. Williams currently serves as a Council Member. b. Williams served as the Borough Council President from approximately January 4, 2004, through July 6, 2004, and January 2005, through April 26, 2005. c. Williams served as the Borough Council Vice - President from approximately May 10, 2005, through December 2007. 2. Williams has served [as] the Emergency Management Agency (EMA) Coordinator for Susquehanna Depot Borough since 2007. a. In this capacity, Williams coordinates with PEMA and FEMA representatives to obtain funding during disasters. 1. Williams signs FEMA applications. 3. Susquehanna Depot Borough is located in Susquehanna, Susquehanna County, PA. a. Susquehanna Depot Borough has a population of approximately 1,700 people. b. Susquehanna Depot Borough is governed by a seven (7) member council. c. Council formally meets once per month. 1. Work sessions occur as needed. d. Council members are compensated $800.00 annually for meeting attendance. 1. Council members have not been compensated in 2008. 4. Williams is professionally employed as a truck driver. a. Williams was formerly employed by Susquehanna County for approximately five (5) years performing road and bridge construction. Williams, 08 -001 Page 3 5. As a Council Member, Williams is responsible for attending Council meetings on a monthly basis, in addition to: a. Approving Borough bills for payment. b. Approving an annual budget. c. Attending committee meetings. d. Hiring and firing Borough employees. e. Voting on agenda items to include ordinances. f. As Council President and Vice President, Williams signed all Borough checks issued to vendors and payroll checks. 6. During the period of June 23, 2006, through July 10, 2006, Susquehanna Depot incurred severe damage caused by heavy rain that resulted in flash flooding. a. The rain was so severe that residents of Susquehanna Depot and other local communities were forced from their homes and were in need of food and water. 7 On or about August 8, 2006, the Borough submitted a grant application to FEMA to receive funding to assist with the flood damage. a. The Borough received six (6) payments from FEMA between September 18, 2006, and November 28, 2006, totaling $224,562.32. 8. The Borough Streets Department consists of a full -time Street Commissioner and part -time as- needed laborers. a. b. c. Steven Glover has served as the Street Commissioner since at least 2006. Glover was assisted by a part -time road worker in 2006. 9. As a result of the extent of flooding and the burden on the road crew, Williams, councilmen Michael Matis, Ron Whitehead, and Tom Kelley began assisting Borough residents. a. Williams utilized his 18 wheel truck and trailer to obtain water for the Borough and surrounding communities. b. The council members were not compensated for their time assisting residents. Council members also provided assistance to the Streets Department. 10. During the time period following the June /July 2006 flood, Borough council discussed during work sessions and regular meetings damage caused to Borough streets. a. There was concern among council that the Streets Department would not be able to repair all streets damaged by flooding. b. Williams and Matis assisting with road repairs was discussed during some of these meetings. Williams, 08 -001 Page 4 c. Also during this time frame, council was experiencing problems with the Street Department completing assigned projects. d. Williams and Matis advised council that they would repair some of the damaged roads. 11. Beginning in or about December 26, 2006, Williams began claiming for compensation hours worked as a Borough roadworker. a. Councilman Michael Matis also began working as a paid Borough roadworker during this time. b. Williams and Matis were compensated for snow removal from Borough streets and for repairing damage to Borough streets caused by flooding. c. Williams and Matis submitted time sheets for hours worked in 2006 and 2007. d. No other council members claimed hours for compensation during this timeframe. 1. No other council members performed services for the Borough to the extent of the hours worked by Williams and Matis. 12. Neither Williams nor councilman Matis were authorized by a formal vote of council to be employed on a part -time basis to work on Borough streets or to plow snow. a. Most council members were aware that Williams and Matis were working on Borough streets but some were unaware that they were being compensated. 1. Some council members assumed that Williams and Matis were continuing to volunteer their time as they had done during the flood. 13. Williams submitted time sheets for all hours worked for the Borough.* *[Cf., Fact Finding 20 a.] a. The time sheets list date worked, describe work performed and the number of hours worked. 14. Williams submitted four time sheets between January 2007 and July 2008 claiming hours worked for the Borough. a. Williams signed three (3) of the four (4) time sheets he submitted for payment as the Supervisor, approving the hours for payment. b. Williams also verbally advised the Borough secretary of other hours worked. c. Williams also approved hours submitted by councilman Matis. 15. The Susquehanna Depot Borough employee handbook requires that all employees are responsible for submitting hours worked to their supervisor for approval. a. Both the Council President and department head must sign all time sheets submitted by employees. DATE DESCRIPTION OF WORK HOURS 08/09/07 Prospect drainage - backhoe & street sweeper maintenance 7.5 08/10/07 Street sweeper & garage clean- up 4 08/13/07 Office & paper work -phone calls 7.5 08/14/07 East Street drainage- street sweeper 7 08/15/07 East Street drainage - council paper for drainage 7.5 08/16/07 East Street ditch line — Fiske Area 7.5 DATE DESCRIPTION OF WORK HOURS 12/26/06 None listed 6 12/27/06 None listed 8 12/28/06 None listed 7.5 12/29/06 None listed 7 12/30/06 None listed 4.5 12/31/06 None listed 2.5 01/02/07 None listed 7 DATE DESCRIPTION OF WORK HOURS 07/27/07 Franklin Ave -FEMA 4.5 07/30/07 High Street & East Street - Drainage 4 08/01/07 Front Street — FEMA 7 Williams, 08 -001 Page 5 b. Steven Glover was the department head for the Streets Department in 2007. c. Williams' time sheets were not submitted to Glover for approval. d. Williams' hours worked were not approved by a vote of council. 16. For the time period of December 26, 2006, through January 2, 2007, Williams submitted a time sheet claiming a total of 42.5 hours worked as follows: a. The time sheet was signed by Williams as the employee and as the supervisor approving the hours worked. b. The work completed during this time period was snowplowing and repairing roads damaged by flooding. 17. For the time period of July 27, 2007, through August 1, 2007, Williams claimed a total of 15.5 hours worked on time sheet(s) as indicated below: a. The time sheet was signed by Williams as the employee and as the supervisor approving the hours. b. The work completed during this time period was road work and other work in association with repairs for flood damage. 18. For the time period of August 9, 2007, through August 16, 2007, Williams submitted a time sheet listing a total of 41 hours worked as follows: a. The time sheet was signed by Williams as the supervisor approving the hours. DATE DESCRIPTION OF WORK HOURS Undated East Street 8 Undated East Street 8 Undated East Street & Front Street 8 Undated East Street & Front Street 8 Undated Front Street 8 Williams, 08 -001 Page 6 b. The work completed during this time period was road and other work in association with repairs for flood damage. 19. An undated time sheet was submitted by Williams claiming forty (40) hours worked for a time period as follows: a. The time sheet was signed by Williams as the supervisor. b. The work completed during this time period was road and other work in association with repairs for flood damage. c. The hours worked occurred between August 16, 2007, and August 30, 2007. 1. The check issued to Williams for these hours was issued on August 30, 2007. 20. Williams also claimed thirty -three (33) hours worked for the week ending July 19, 2007. a. Williams did not complete a time sheet. b. Williams called Borough Secretary Stewart and informed her of his hours worked. c. Williams never provided a time sheet to back up the phone call. d. In lieu of a time sheet, Ann Stewart listed on a piece of paper in a handwritten note, Per Roy, W/E 7/19/07, Roy, 33 hours." 21. As part of the work performed by Williams, an excavator was rented to assist with repairs to Borough streets. a. Councilman Matis rented an Excavator 8K for four (4) weeks from August 6, 2007, to September 6, 2007, from Junction Equipment, Johnson City, New York. b. The excavator was utilized during weekdays between the time period August 17, 2007, until September 5, 2007. c. Williams did not claim any hours worked while using the excavator after August 16, 2007. 22. Williams was compensated at the rate of $12.00 per hour for hours worked in 2006 and 2007. a. Williams advised the Borough secretary /treasurer to pay him $12.00 /hour at the time he submitted the first time sheet in 2007. b. A part -time Street Department employee was paid at the rate of $12.00 at that time. CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE GROSS CHECK AMOUNT NET CHECK AMOUNT WILLIAMS SIGNED CHECK AS COUNCIL VICE - PRESIDENT 11883 01/18/07 $510.00 $450.52 Yes 12301 07/19/07 $396.00 $356.35 No 12318 08/02/07 $186.00 $138.10 Yes 12358 08/16/07 $492.00 $420.80 Yes 12395 08/03/07 $480.00 $411.11 Yes Williams, 08 -001 Page 7 c. There were no discussions or votes by council regarding the rate of pay which Williams and Matis were to receive. 23. Borough employees are paid by a bi- weekly check. a. Borough paychecks bear two (2) signatures. 1. The Secretary /Treasurer, the President of Council, and Vice - President of Council are authorized to sign Borough checks. b. In the event that the President and Vice - President are not available, the Secretary /Treasurer has a stamp of the Council President's signature she can use. 24. Williams received five (5) paychecks for work completed for Susquehanna Depot Borough. a. As council Vice - President, Williams signed four (4) of the five (5) paychecks issued to him. The fifth paycheck was stamped with council President Thomas Kelly's signature by Ann Stewart. 1. Kelly was not available to sign the check. 2. Stewart is authorized to use council President Thomas Kelly's stamp for necessary documents when no authorization signature is available. b. The payments received by Williams totaled $1,776.88. 25. None of the paychecks issued to Williams were approved by a vote of council. a. Payroll for any Borough employee is not approved by vote of council at the time paychecks are processed. b. Payroll in general, is approved by Borough council at the time the annual budget is approved. THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO WILLIAMS' FAILURE TO FILE STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR THE 2003 and 2004 CALENDAR YEARS. 26. As a Susquehanna Depot Council Member [since August 2002], Williams was required to file Statements of Financial Interests for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 by May 1 of the following calendar year. 27. A Statement of Financial Interests (SFI) Compliance Review was conducted by a Williams, 08 -001 Page 8 State Ethics Commission Investigator on June 4, 2008, for Susquehanna Depot confirming the following Statements of Financial Interests on file for Williams: a. Calendar Year: Filed: Position: b. Calendar Year: calendar year Filed: Position: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: Office, Directorship or Employment in any business: Financial Interests in any Business: All Other Financial Interests: c. Calendar Year: Filed: Position: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: Office, Directorship or Employment in any business: Financial Interests in any business: All Other Financial Interests: d. Calendar Year: Filed: Position: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: Office, Directorship or Employment in any Business: Financial Interests in any Business: All Other Financial Interests: e. Calendar Year: Filed: Position: Creditors: Direct /Indirect Income: Office, Directorship or Employment in any business: Financial Interests in any business: All Other Financial Interests: None listed 08/14/02 on SEC form 01/02 Town Council Member 2005 (intended for 2004) 03/07/05 on SEC form 01/05 Councilman None Nothing marked None None None 2005 No date on SEC form 01/06 Councilman None None marked None None None 2006 No date on SEC form 01/07 Councilman None None None None None 2007 No date on SEC form 01/08 Councilman None None None None None 28. No forms were on file with the Borough for Williams for calendar year 2003. a. In 2003 Williams was paid $800.00 as a Borough councilman. 29. Williams did not disclose the following on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years: a. Direct /Indirect Sources of Income. Williams, 08 -001 Page 9 b. Office, Directorship, or Employment in any business entity. c. In 2005, 2006, and 2007, Williams was employed as a truck driver earning in excess of $1,300.00 annually. III. DISCUSSION: As a Member of Council of Susquehanna Depot Borough ( "Borough ") from August 14, 2002, to the present, Respondent Roy E. Williams, hereinafter also referred to "Respondent," "Respondent Williams," and "Williams," 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 Respondent Williams violated Sections 1103(a), 1104(a), and 1105(b) of the Ethics Act: (1) when he used the authority of his office for private pecuniary gain by authorizing his employment as a Borough employee and subsequently setting his wages and participating in Council approval to issue payments to him; (2) when he failed to file Statements of Financial Interests ( "SFIs ") for the 2003 and 2004 calendar years; and (3) when he failed to disclose sources of income in excess of $1,300.00 and his office, directorship, or employment in any business entity on SFIs filed for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years. 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 Williams, 08 -001 Page 10 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 an SFI for the preceding calendar year, each year that he holds the position and the year after he leaves it. Subject to certain statutory exceptions not applicable to this matter, 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. 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. Respondent has served as a Borough Council Member since August 14, 2002. Respondent served as President of Borough Council for portions of 2004 and 2005. Respondent served as Vice - President of Borough Council from approximately May 10, 2005, through December 2007. During the period of June 23, 2006, through July 10, 2006, the Borough incurred severe damage caused by heavy rain that resulted in flash flooding. The Borough received funding from FEMA to assist with the flood damage. Respondent and other Council Members including Michael Matis ( "Matis ") provided assistance to Borough residents without being compensated for their time. During work sessions and regular meetings following the June /July 2006 flood, Borough Council discussed having Respondent and Matis assist with Borough road repairs. Respondent and Matis advised Council that they would repair some of the damaged roads. Beginning in or about December 26, 2006, Respondent began claiming, for compensation, hours worked as a Borough road worker. Both Respondent and Matis were compensated for snow removal from Borough streets and for repairing damage to Borough streets caused by flooding. Neither Respondent nor Matis had been authorized by a formal vote of Council to be employed on a part -time basis to work on Borough streets or to plow snow. Most Council Members were aware that Respondent and Matis were working on Borough streets, but some were unaware that they were being compensated. Some Council Members assumed that Respondent and Matis were continuing to volunteer their time as they had done during the flood. Borough employees are required to submit hours worked to their supervisor for approval. Both Council President and the department head must sign all time sheets submitted by employees. Respondents' time sheets were not submitted to the head of the Streets Department for approval. Respondents' hours worked were not approved by a vote of Council. For the time period of December 26, 2006, through January 2, 2007, Respondent submitted a time sheet claiming compensation for 42.5 hours of work and signed the time sheet both as the employee and as the supervisor approving the hours. Respondent claimed compensation for 33 hours of work for the week ending July 19, 2007. Respondent did not complete a time sheet for this work. Respondent called the Borough Secretary and informed her of his hours worked. Williams, 08 -001 Page 11 For the time period of July 27, 2007, through August 1, 2007, Respondent submitted a time sheet claiming compensation for 15.5 hours of work and signed the time sheet both as the employee and as the supervisor approving the hours. For the time period of August 9, 2007, through August 16, 2007, Respondent submitted a time sheet claiming compensation for 41 hours of work and signed the time sheet as the supervisor approving the hours. For the time period between August 16, 2007, and August 30, 2007, Respondent submitted a time sheet claiming compensation for 40 hours of work and signed the time sheet as the supervisor. At the time Respondent submitted his first time sheet in 2007, Respondent advised the Borough Secretary /Treasurer to pay him $12.00 per hour, which was the hourly rate the Borough paid to part -time Street Department employee(s) at that time. Respondent was compensated at the rate of $12.00 per hour for hours worked in 2006 and 2007. There were no discussions or votes by Council regarding a rate of pay for Respondent and Matis. In 2007, Respondent received from the Borough five paychecks totaling $1,776.88 (net) for work performed for the Borough. None of the paychecks issued to Respondent were approved by a vote of Borough Council. Borough paychecks bear two signatures. As Vice- President of Council, Respondent was authorized to sign Borough checks. As Council Vice - President, Respondent signed four of the five paychecks issued to him for the aforesaid road work in 2006 and 2007. As a Borough Council Member, Respondent was required to file SFIs for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. On June 4, 2008, an SFI Compliance Review was conducted at the Borough by a State Ethics Commission Investigator. No SFI form was on file with the Borough for Respondent for calendar year 2003. The parties have stipulated that an SFI was on file for Respondent for calendar year 2004. Respondent did not disclose any direct /indirect source of income or any office, directorship, or employment in any business entity on his SFIs filed for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years. In 2005, 2006, and 2007, Respondent was employed as a truck driver earning in excess of $1,300.00 annually. Having highlighted the Stipulated Findings and issues before us, we shall now apply the Ethics Act to determine the proper disposition of this case. The parties' Consent Agreement sets forth a proposed resolution of the allegations as follows: 3. The Investigative Division will recommend the following in relation to the above allegations: a. That an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a) occurred in relation to Williams authorizing his employment as a Borough employee and subsequently setting his wages and participating in council approval to issue payments to him. b. That a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a) Williams, 08 -001 Page 12 occurred when Williams failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2003 calendar year. c. That no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1104(a) occurred regarding the allegation that Williams failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2004 calendar year, as the form was on file with the Borough. d. That a violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act occurred when Williams failed to disclose all sources of income on Statements of Financial Interests filed for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years. 4. Williams agrees to make payment in the amount of $500.00 in settlement of this matter payable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and forwarded to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final adjudication in this matter. Williams also agrees to file a Statement of Financial Interests for the 2003 calendar year and amended Statements of Financial Interests for [the] 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years. 5. The Investigative Division will recommend that the State Ethics Commission take no further action in this matter; and make no specific recommendations to any law enforcement or other authority to take action in this matter. Such, however, does not prohibit the Commission from initiating appropriate enforcement actions in the event of Respondent's failure to comply with this agreement or the Commission's order or cooperating with any other authority who may so choose to review this matter further. Consent Agreement, at 1 -2. In considering the Consent Agreement, we accept the parties' recommendation for the finding of an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. Each element of the recommended unintentional violation has been established. Respondent used the authority of his public position by claiming and receiving compensation for hours worked as a Borough road worker without such employment being approved by Council and without the claimed hours being approved by Council or the head of the Borough Streets Department. For each of the following time periods, Respondent claimed the indicated number of hours of work by submitting a time sheet and signing such time sheet as a supervisor approving his own hours: (1) December 26, 2006, through January 2, 2007, 42.5 hours; (2) July 27, 2007, through August 1, 2007, 15.5 hours; (3) August 9, 2007, through August 16, 2007, 41 hours; and (4) August 16, 2007, to August 30, 2007, 40 hours. Additionally, for the week ending July 19, 2007, Respondent claimed compensation for 33 hours of work without submitting any time sheet, by simply informing the Borough Secretary of his hours worked. But for being a Borough Council Member, Respondent would not have been in a position to claim and submit hours for performing Borough road work without such employment being approved by Council. Respondent used the authority of his public office by setting his own wages at $12.00 per hour for the aforesaid hours of work. At the time Respondent submitted his first Williams, 08 -001 Page 13 time sheet in 2007, Respondent advised the Borough Secretary /Treasurer to pay him $12.00 per hour. Respondent was compensated at the rate of $12.00 per hour for hours worked in 2006 and 2007. There were no discussions or votes by Council regarding a rate of pay for Respondent and Matis. In 2007, Respondent received from the Borough five paychecks totaling $1,776.88 (net) for work performed for the Borough. None of these paychecks were approved by a vote of Borough Council. Respondent used the authority of his public office by signing, as an authorized Borough signatory, four of the five aforesaid paychecks. The signing of such paychecks by two authorized signatories was the only "approval" that occurred as to the checks. Per the Consent Agreement, it would appear that the parties are treating Respondent's signing of four of the aforesaid five paychecks as participation in Council approval to issue such payments to Respondent. The private pecuniary benefit that resulted from Respondent's aforesaid uses of authority of office consisted of compensation in the amount of $1,776.88 (net) that Respondent received for performing the aforesaid road work. Per the Consent Agreement, the parties are in agreement that Respondent did not intend to violate the Ethics Act in taking the above actions. Although intent is not a requisite element for a violation of the Ethics Act, Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 531 A.2d 536 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), it is one of the factors that this Commission may consider in determining the proper disposition of a case. We conclude that the application of the law to the facts before us supports the recommended finding of an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act. With each element established, we hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act occurred in relation to Respondent authorizing his employment as a Borough employee and subsequently setting his wages and participating in Council approval to issue payments to him for road work performed in 2006 and 2007. Turning to the allegations regarding Respondent's SFIs, it is clear that as a Borough Council Member, Respondent was required to file SFIs for calendar years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. On June 4, 2008, an SFI Compliance Review was conducted at the Borough by a Commission Investigator. No SFI form was on file with the Borough for Respondent for calendar year 2003, but an SFI was on file for Respondent for calendar year 2004. Accordingly, based upon the Stipulated Findings, we accept the recommendation of the parties and hold that a violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Respondent failed to file an SFI with the Borough for the 2003 calendar year. See, Klitsch, Order 1462; Daley, Order 1447; Livolsi, Order 1246. We further hold that no violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred regarding the allegation that Respondent failed to file an SFI for the 2004 calendar year, as the form was on file with the Borough. As for Respondent's SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006, and 2007, the parties have stipulated that in 2005, 2006, and 2007, Respondent was employed as a truck driver earning in excess of $1,300.00 annually. However, Respondent did not disclose any direct /indirect source of income on his SFIs filed for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years. Additionally, Respondent did not disclose any office, directorship, or employment in any business entity on his SFIs filed for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years. Based upon the Stipulated Findings, we accept the recommendation of the parties and hold that a violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act occurred when Respondent failed to disclose all sources of income on SFIs filed with the Borough for the Williams, 08 -001 Page 14 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years. Cf., e.q., Matta, Order 1439; Rhone, Order 1430; Hoover, Order 1348. As for the allegation involving Respondent's failure to disclose any office, directorship, or employment in any business entity on his SFIs filed for the 2005, 2006, and 2007 calendar years, it appears that the Investigative Division in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion has elected to non pros that particular allegation. As part of the Consent Agreement, Respondent has agreed to make payment in the amount of $500.00 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 this matter. Respondent has also agreed to file an SFI for the 2003 calendar year and amended SFIs for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years. 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, Respondent is directed to make payment in the amount of $500.00 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. To the extent that he has not already done so, Respondent is directed to file with the Borough, by no later than the thirtieth (30) day after the mailing date of this adjudication and Order, an accurate and complete SFI for calendar year 2003 and amended SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007, providing full disclosure as required by the Ethics Act, and to forward a copy of each 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 Council of Susquehanna Depot Borough ( "Borough ") from August 14, 2002, to the present, Respondent Roy E. Williams ( "Williams ") has been a public official subject to the provisions of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq. 2. Williams unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act when he authorized his employment as a Borough employee and subsequently set his wages and participated in Council approval to issue payments to him for road work performed in 2006 and 2007. 3. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred when Williams failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") with the Borough for the 2003 calendar year. 4. No violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred regarding the allegation that Williams failed to file an SFI for the 2004 calendar year, as the form was on file with the Borough. 5. A violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act occurred when Williams failed to disclose all sources of income on SFIs filed with the Borough for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years. Williams, 08 -001 Page 15 In Re: Roy E. Williams, Respondent ORDER NO. 1504 File Docket: 08 -001 Date Decided: 3/12/09 Date Mailed: 3/27/09 1 Respondent Roy E. Williams ( "Williams "), as a Member of Council of Susquehanna Depot Borough ( "Borough "), unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), when he authorized his employment as a Borough employee and subsequently set his wages and participated in Council approval to issue payments to him for road work performed in 2006 and 2007. 2. A violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1104(a), occurred when Williams failed to file a Statement of Financial Interests ( "SFI ") with the Borough for the 2003 calendar year. 3. No violation of Section 1104(a) of the Ethics Act occurred regarding the allegation that Williams failed to file an SFI for the 2004 calendar year, as the form was on file with the Borough. 4. A violation of Section 1105(b)(5) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1105(b)(5), occurred when Williams failed to disclose all sources of income on FIs filed with the Borough for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 calendar years. 5. Per the Consent Agreement of the parties, Williams is directed to make payment in the amount of $500.00 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. 6. To the extent that he has not already done so, Williams is directed to file with the Borough, by no later than the thirtieth (30 day after the mailing date of this Order, an accurate and complete SFI for calendar year 2003 and amended SFIs for calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007, providing full disclosure as required by the Ethics Act, and to forward a copy of each such filing to this Commission for compliance verification purposes. 7 Compliance with Paragraphs 5 and 6 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