HomeMy WebLinkAbout1518 HauserIn Re: Alfred Hauser,
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 -044
Order No. 1518
4/30/09
5/15/09
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." An Answer was not filed. 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.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 2
I. ALLEGATIONS:
That Alfred Hauser, a public official /public employee in his capacity as a Piatt
Township Supervisor, Lycoming County, violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f) of the State
Ethics Act (Act 93 of 1998), 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1103(a), 1103(f), when he used the authority of
his public position for the private pecuniary gain of himself and /or a business with which he
is associated by participating in decisions of the Board of Supervisors, including but not
limited to participating in discussions and evaluating proposals resulting in the award of a
contract to Larson Design Group, an entity by which he is employed; and when the
contract was entered into with Larson Design without an open and public process; and
when he participated in actions of the township to issue payments to Larson Design Group.
II. FINDINGS:
1. Alfred Hauser has served as a Supervisor of Piatt Township, Lycoming County,
since January 2006.
a. Hauser served as Chairman of the Board in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
1. Hauser resigned as Chairman on August 14, 2008.
b. Hauser served as Assistant Roadmaster in 2006 and as Roadmaster in 2007
and 2008.
1. Hauser's appointments to these positions were made during Board of
Supervisors re- organization meetings.
2. Hauser resigned as Roadmaster on August 14, 2008.
3. Hauser cited personal reasons for his resignations.
2. Piatt Township is a Second Class Township governed by a three - member Board of
Supervisors.
a. During Hauser's term as a Piatt Township Supervisor, the following members
served with him on the Board:
1. Dean Edwards
2. Mark Fink
aa. Fink's term as a Supervisor ended January 1, 2008.
3. Terry Miller
aa. Miller has served as a Supervisor since January 7, 2008.
3. Hauser was employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for
approximately 33'/ years until retiring on or about January 23, 2004.
a. Hauser worked in several capacities for PennDOT including construction
inspector, assistant maintenance manager, and paving foreman.
4. Hauser began working for Larson Design Group, Inc. (LDG) on or around March 7,
2004, as a construction inspector on a project basis.
a. At the time of his hiring by LDG, Hauser received no commitment for
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 3
employment for a specific term or duration.
b. Hauser has not worked on any Larson Design Group, Inc. projects since
September 9, 2008.
c. Hauser's duties as a construction inspector include the inspection of
roadway, bridge, and sewer projects being completed by Larson Design
Group.
d. Hauser currently earns $24.35 per hour for each hour worked up to 40 hours
per week.
1. Hauser has been compensated by LDG as an employee during the
winter months for attending training seminars.
5. Larson Design Group, Inc. (LDG) is an architectural, engineering, and surveying
firm located in Williamsport, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
a. LDG was incorporated on September 8, 1987, as Hunt Engineers and
Architects Inc.
b. Hunt Engineers became Larson Design Group, Inc. on January 1, 1994, after
an employee stock buyout.
c. LDG currently has over 200 employees.
d. LDG represents, as Township Engineer, the majority of municipalities in the
area of Lycoming County near Piatt Township.
6. As an employee of Larson Design Group, Hauser inspected the following projects
from 2006 through 2008:
a. Harrison Township, Potter County, T -479 Bridge project.
1. Hauser worked on the project beginning on or around 3/12/2006 until
approximately 9/10/2006.
2. Hauser did not work on the project continuously.
b. Jersey Shore, Lycoming County, Sewer project.
1 Hauser worked on the project in 2006 beginning on or around
6/4/2006 until approximately 12/3/2006.
2. Hauser also worked on the project in 2007 beginning on or around
4/8/2007 until approximately 9/2/2007.
c. Penn Township, Lycoming County, T -521 Bridge project.
1. Hauser worked on the project beginning on or around 3/9/2008 until
approximately 6/8/2008.
d. Tioga Bridge #5 project.
1. Hauser worked on the project from on or around 3/30/2008 until
approximately 7/27/2008.
Meeting
Date
Action
Recorded
Vote
1/3/2006
Motion, Vote
3 to 0
1/2/2007
Second, Vote
2 to 0
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 4
e. Hauser did not provide inspection services on any Piatt Township projects as
an LDG employee while also serving Piatt Township as a Supervisor.
7 Since at least 2006, Hauser has annually received W -2 forms from LDG
documenting wages earned as follows:
2006: $40,542.03
2007: $24,604.40
2008: $18,156.75
8. LDG has served as the Piatt Township Engineer since approximately the mid -
1990s.
a. LDG's service as Township Engineer pre -dates Hauser's service as a Piatt
Township Supervisor.
b. LDG has been appointed Township Engineer at yearly reorganization
meetings by the Board of Supervisors.
1. It is past practice in the township to appoint the previous engineer to
the position.
c. LDG is compensated as Township Engineer on an as- needed project -to-
project basis.
d. LDG is not paid a retainer as Township Engineer.
9. Hauser participated in Piatt Township actions to appoint LDG as Township
Engineer in 2006 and 2007 as noted below:
10. Hauser did not participate in the appointment of LDG as Township Engineer in 2008
and 2009.
a. Hauser abstained from voting on the appointment of Township Engineer at
January 7, 2008, and January 5, 2009, reorganization meetings.
11. In or about 2007, LDG was conducting an Act 537 Plan (sewer plan) for Jersey
Shore Borough and Porter Township.
a. Jersey Shore Borough and Porter Township are neighboring municipalities
to Piatt Township.
1. LDG serves as the Engineer for both municipalities.
b. Eric Moore, Project Manager Water /Wastewater Engineering for LDG, was
the project director for both Plans.
12. Hauser conducted construction inspection services on a Jersey Shore Borough
Sewer Line Rehabilitation project as an LDG employee during the spring and
summer of 2007, until approximately September 2007.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 5
a. During meetings between Hauser and Eric Moore, LDG's project manager,
regarding the Jersey Shore Borough Sewer Line Rehabilitation Project, an
Act 537 Sewer Plan for Piatt Township was discussed.
1. The discussions took place as a result of failed septic systems in
areas of Piatt Township which bordered Jersey Shore Borough and
the possible need for sections of Piatt Township to hook into a new
Jersey Shore Borough Waste Water Treatment Plant.
13. Informal discussions between LDG representatives and DEP representatives about
potential sewage problems in Piatt Township occurred in or about September or
October 2007.
a. These informal discussions took place during meetings regarding the Jersey
Shore Borough and Porter Township Act 537 Plan.
14. R. Curt White, the DEP Chief of Planning and Finance, Water Management
Program at the time, forwarded correspondence to Piatt Township on or around
October 23, 2007, regarding potential sewer problems in areas of the Township.
White's letter noted the following:
As you may have already heard, Larson Design Group has been retained by
the Borough of Jersey Shore and Porter Township to prepare a revision to their Act
537 Plan. The primary focus of the plan will be the development and evaluation of
alternatives for upgrades and /or improvements needed at Jersey Shore Borough's
wastewater treatment plant to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Strategy. This
requires a determination of future loading on the wastewater treatment facilities.
The Department is aware of several areas in Piatt Township adjacent to
Jersey Shore's existing sewer service area where on lot sewage systems may not
be functioning properly. Specifically, the areas along Old Route 220 and Willits
Road have been mentioned as having potential problems. With the current
planning underway to appraise future sewage treatment capacity at the Jersey
Shore wastewater treatment facility, we believe Piatt Township should participate in
the planning effort to the extent that these areas are included in the study."
a. Potential problems noted in White's letter included problems that were
brought to DEP's attention through complaints by Piatt Township residents
and by Piatt Township Sewage Enforcement Officer, Jim Carpenter.
1. These problems included sewage leaking into the soil and sewage in
the ground around trailers and trailer courts in Piatt Township.
15. DEP officials Curt White and William Bailey attended the November 15, 2007, Piatt
Township Budget Business Meeting and presented information regarding a
proposed Act 537 Plan.
a. On November 8, 2007, Hauser informed the Board of Supervisors during a
workshop session that DEP wanted to make a presentation regarding an Act
537 Plan.
1. The Board agreed to hear DEP's presentation.
b. White was the DEP Chief of Planning and Finance, Water Management
Program at the time, and Bailey is a DEP Sewage Planning Specialist 11.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 6
c. White informed the Board that DEP discussed with LDG, Consultant for
Jersey Shore Borough and Porter Township, about meeting with adjacent
townships.
1. White stated that LDG met with DEP and informed [DEP] that they
looked at future needs along the areas of LDG's study and at other
adjoining municipalities with potential problems and needs.
2. White advised that DEP typically requires municipalities doing these
types of studies to do a plan for the entire township.
3. DEP would agree with a plan that would look at immediate area
needs of the potential sewer service area of Jersey Shore Borough.
They could limit the scope of the Plan to just those areas to include
Piatt Township.
d. DEP suggested that the Board meet with LDG to further discuss the matter
and that LDG would present a Plan to DEP for review and approval.
1. DEP representatives did not specifically recommend LDG to the
Board to do the Act 537 Plan but gave an opinion that the process
could go smoother if the municipalities used the same engineering
company.
e. White and Bailey were unaware until meeting with the Board that LDG was
the Piatt Township Engineer.
f. All Township Supervisors were present during this meeting.
16. Between November 15, 2007, and December 3, 2007, Hauser met with Eric Moore
of LDG to discuss a possible Act 537 Plan for Piatt Township.
a. Hauser met with Moore in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors.
b. Moore was asked by Hauser to bring price estimates to a December 3, 2007,
Board of Supervisors meeting for the Board to review.
1. Members of the Board requested that Hauser obtain price estimates
to review and consider.
c. Moore did not initiate contacts directly with the Board of Supervisors.
17. The Act 537 Plan was discussed during the Board's December 3, 2007, meeting.
a. Hauser reported that he attended a meeting with Jersey Shore Borough and
Eric Moore from LDG regarding the Act 537 Plan. Hauser then introduced
Eric Moore to the Board.
b. Moore advised that LDG was working with Porter Township and Jersey
Shore Borough on a sanitary sewer system and that those municipalities are
required to do the plan by 2009 in order to qualify for grant money.
1. Moore stated that it would benefit Piatt Township to look at its
problems now for the long run and do its study now for the long run,
but it could do its study along Route 220 as part of the Jersey Shore
Borough and Porter Township study.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 7
c. Moore provided cost estimates for the special study of the Route 220 area of
approximately $7,500.00 to $10,000.00 and [sic] would be part of the joint
Jersey Shore Borough and Porter Township Plan.
d. Moore also estimated that doing a study of the entire Township would cost
approximately $40,000.00.
e. No decision was made by the Board.
18. The Board of Supervisors discussed the Act 537 Plan during its December 12,
2007, meeting.
a. Minutes of the December 12, 2007, meeting confirm that Hauser participated
in the relevant discussion as follows:
"Al indicated we found Act 537 Resolution dated 1971 and will need to
update. Al indicated he would like to see the entire township done rather
than just a section as DEP requested."
"Al moved to amend Act 537 Plan Resolution #2 -1971, starting by May 1,
2008, doing the entire township, get prices and assign a firm. Al indicated if
Larson Design would be getting the contract, he would abstain. Dean
seconded, motion carried."
b. The motion carried by a 2 to 0 vote, with Board Member Fink abstaining from
the motion.
1. Supervisor Fink did not vote on the motion due to his term ending at
the end of December 2007, and it being his feeling that the new
Board should handle the matter.
c. Minutes do not reflect that Hauser abstained from the vote to conduct an Act
537 Plan.
19. The decision to conduct an Act 537 Plan for the entire Township was made
because the Township would receive 50% reimbursement from the State for the
cost of the study.
a. There was less State reimbursement for partial plans.
20. Historically, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors or the Township
Secretary /Treasurer solicits quotes for projects.
a. As a result of Hauser serving as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, he
was delegated the task of obtaining prices from engineering firms for the Act
537 Plan.
1. Hauser was requested to obtain prices from firms other than LDG by
fellow Supervisor Dean Edwards.
21. Between December 12, 2007, and January 7, 2008, Hauser contacted the following
engineering firms about conducting a Township Act 537 Plan:
a. Larson Design Group.
b. Basset Engineering.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 8
1. Basset Engineering was contacted by Hauser on December 20, 2007.
2. Bassett Engineering is located in Montoursville, PA.
3. Bassett Engineering is owned by Britt Bassett, a former LDG
employee.
c. Mid Penn Engineering.
1. Mid Penn Engineering is located in Lewisburg, PA.
d. The firms were given a deadline of February 11, 2008, to submit proposals.
22. The seeking of quotes was not done through a formal bid process.
a. The soliciting of quotes was not publicly advertised.
b. Hauser made telephonic contact with the three firms and provided verbal
information of what was needed.
1. Hauser put no specifics of the plan in writing.
c. Hauser was advised by Township Solicitor Scott Williams that since the
contract would be for professional services, it would not require public
bidding.
23. The Board of Supervisors discussed the Act 537 Plan at its January 7, 2008,
meeting.
Minutes from the January 7, 2008, meeting reflect the following discussion:
"Al stated he had contacted two other engineering firms and has heard back
from one so far. He stated he hoped to have some numbers for the February
meeting."
24. On January 8, 2008, Hauser submitted a memo to the Piatt Township Board of
Supervisors titled State Ethics Law — Section 1103(j). The text of the memo
concerning potential conflicts of interest with Hauser's employment by LDG is as
follows:
a.
This Memo will serve as notice that 1, Alfred Hauser, Jr. recognize and
public [sic] announce a conflict of interest exists with my part time seasonal
employment with Larson Design Group Inc. and will elect to abstain from board
votes when Larson Design Group Inc. is the issue. I also reserve the rights
afforded by office status to vote a tie breaker as allowed by the State Ethics Law
Section 1103(j)."
25. On January 14, 2008, Britt Bassett of Bassett Engineering toured Piatt Township
with Al Hauser to address questions he had regarding the Act 537 Plan.
a. Bassett wanted additional information prior to submitting a bid for services.
26. The Board of Supervisors discussed the Act 537 Plan at its January 22, 2008,
meeting, and Hauser reported on his meeting with Bassett.
a. Minutes from the January 22, 2008, meeting reflect the following discussion:
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 9
"Al stated that Bassett Engineering had taken a field trip with him to view the
township and would be preparing their bid to do the township's Act 537."
27. On or around February 1, 2008, Piatt Township received a proposal from Larson
Design Group for an Act 537 Plan.
a. The proposal contained a one page cover letter and a short form agreement
for engineering services between the Township and LDG.
b. The cost of the Plan as outlined in LDG's proposed contract was estimated
at $40,000.00.
28. On February 11, 2008, Piatt Township received a proposal from Bassett
Engineering for an Act 537 Plan.
a. The proposal contained a project schedule outlining the project and a listing
of the qualifications of Bassett staff.
b. The total of Bassett's proposal was estimated at $20,850.00.
c. The proposal was received immediately prior to the February 11, 2008,
Board of Supervisors meeting.
29. Mid Penn Engineering did not provide a quote to the Township.
30. All quotes received were reviewed by all Board Members, including Hauser, prior to
the February 11, 2008, meeting.
a. Bassett's quote was not received at the Piatt Township Municipal Building
until after 3:00 p.m. on February 11, 2008.
b. Hauser and other Members of the Board reviewed the quotes prior to the
meeting.
c. Board Members confirmed that Hauser made no specific recommendations
regarding either quote prior to the February 11, 2008, meeting.
31. On February 11, 2008, the Board of Supervisors awarded the contract for the
Township Act 537 Plan to LDG.
a. Minutes of the February 11, 2008, meeting confirm that Hauser participated
in the relevant discussion but abstained from the official vote. Hauser was
present during all discussions concerning the aspects of each bid. Minutes
of the February 11, 2008, meeting contain the following:
"Al stated that we received one from Bassett Engineering and one from
Larson Design Group. Terry moved to discuss Act 537 estimate. Al
seconded for discussion. Terry indicated that LDG's quote seemed more
concise and Bassett's was open ended showing only a LS plus sampling
plus engineering. Dean moved to go with LDG for the township wide Act 537
quote, Terry Seconded, Al abstained from vote, motion carried."
b. The discussion among the Board focused on the details of the quotes.
1. Hauser answered technical questions Board Members had regarding
the quotes.
Date
Invoice No.
Amount
Initials
4/18/2008
38381
$ 4,028.13
Miller,
Edwards
7/1/2008
38886
$ 11,434.47
Hauser, Miller
9/3/2008
39520
$ 12,668.08
Miller,
Edwards
12/4/2008
40512
$ 7,431.79
Miller,
Edwards
Check
Date
Check No.
Amount
Signed
5/6/2008
3889
$ 4,028.13
Miller, Theis
7/8/2008
3962
$11,434.47
Hauser, Theis
9/23/2008
4032
$12,668.08
Miller, Theis
1/6/2009
4134
$ 7,431.79
Miller, Theis
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 10
2. Hauser did not provide any recommendations to the Board as to
which firm to select.
c. Township officials expressed concern over the Bassett Engineering quote.
1. Officials were concerned that additional costs not included in
Bassett's quote would be added to Bassett's bill as the Act 537 Plan
was completed.
32. The contract between Piatt Township and LDG for the Act 537 Plan was signed by
Hauser acting as Chairman on February 12, 2008.
a. Hauser signed the [contract] following Board approval.
33. On or around April 17, 2008, the Piatt Township Act 537 Plan commenced with
water sampling by LDG.
34. The Piatt Township Act 537 Plan had not been completed or officially adopted as of
February 9, 2009.
a. The study is on- going.
35. LDG submitted invoices to Piatt Township for work performed on the Act 537 Plan.
a. Board Members, including Hauser, had the opportunity to review invoices as
they were submitted.
1. If reviewed, it was practice for the Board Member to initial the invoice.
36. Invoices submitted to Piatt Township for Act 537 Plan work by LDG as outlined
below confirm that Hauser initialed the invoice dated July 1, 2008, indicating his
review and approval:
a. Hauser did not initial any of the other three invoices.
37. Township records confirm payments to LDG for the above outlined invoices.
Payments to LDG were made by the Township as follows:
a. Hauser signed the check issued to LDG on July 8, 2008, 'n the amount of
Check
Date
Check
No.
Amount
Meeting
Date
Action
Recorded
Vote
5/6/2008
3889
$ 4,028.13
5/5/2008
Not Present
2 to 0
7/8/2008
3962
$11,434.47
7/7/2008
Motion, vote
3 to 0
9/23/2008
4032
$12,668.08
9/22/2008
Vote
3 to 0
1/6/2009
4134
$ 7,431.79
1/5/2009
Motion, vote
3 to 0
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 11
$11,434.47.
38. Hauser participated in the approval of two of four Township bill lists which included
the payments to LDG for the invoiced Act 537 work.
39. Since May 2008, Hauser participated in three (3) separate Board of Supervisors
actions taken approving payments totaling $31,534.34 made to LDG for the Act 537
work as follows:
a. Hauser participated in the votes to approve payments to LDG because the
contract had already been approved and he believed the Township was
obligated to issue payments to LDG for the services performed.
THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS RELATE TO THE ALLEGATION THAT HAUSER
PARTICIPATED IN BOARD ACTIONS TO APPROVE PAYMENTS TO LDG.
40. As Township Engineer, LDG prepared plans for the replacement of a T -343 Pine
Run Bridge on Youngs Road in Piatt Township.
a. T -343 connects Piatt Township to Woodward Township.
b. Discussion among officials of both Townships on the replacement of the T-
343 Bridge began as early as 2002, prior to Hauser taking office as a Piatt
Township Supervisor.
41. The Pine Run Bridge was discussed at the June 6, 2005, Piatt Township Board of
Supervisors Meeting. Meeting minutes read as follows:
"Helm (former Supervisor Steven Helm), moved to work with Woodward
Township in repairing the Pine Run Bridge as soon as possible to make it passable.
Edwards seconded it. Motion carried."
a. These Board actions occurred prior to Hauser becoming a Piatt Township
Supervisor.
42. Correspondence dated November 8, 2005, to Gary Williams, P.E., PennDOT, from
the Piatt Township Board of Supervisors, confirms conversations with PennDOT
regarding the replacement of the Pine Run Bridge as follows:
This letter is to confirm your telephone conversation with Shirl Theis,
Township Secretary, regarding our desire to replace the above subject bridge (Pine
Run Bridge.)
The township has placed barricades, signs, and guide rail in accordance with
recommendations made by Larson Design Group to narrow the bridge to one lane
until the new bridge is built."
(LDG served as Piatt Township Engineer at this time.)
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 12
43. Resolution No. 2006 -05 was approved at the March 6, 2006, Supervisors meeting.
Resolution No. 2006 -05 contained the following:
"Be it resolved by the Township Supervisors in Piatt Township, Lycoming
County, Pennsylvania, that the Chairperson be authorized and directed to sign the
attached Reimbursement Agreement and the Township Secretary be authorized
and directed to attest and seal the same."
a. Minutes of the March 6, 2006, Supervisors meeting included the following:
"Al Hauser moved to adopt Resolution 2006 -05 seconded by Dean
Edwards, no one apposed [sic], motion carried. All copies were signed."
b. The Resolution authorized Hauser to sign the Federal Aid Bridge Project
Agreement between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through
PennDOT, and Piatt Township.
c. Costs of the project were to be divided as follows:
1. The Federal Government was to cover 80% of the costs.
2. The State Government was to cover 15% of the costs.
3. The Municipality was to cover 5% of the costs.
d. After the agreement was signed by Hauser, it was sent to PennDOT for
execution.
44. An agreement was made between Piatt Township and Woodward Township on or
about March 15, 2006, to share the cost of the bridge replacement with Piatt being
the lead township.
a. Hauser signed the agreement acting as Chairman of the Piatt Township
Board of Supervisors.
b. The agreement provided that Piatt Township and Woodward Township were
to split equally the 5% of the costs that the municipality was responsible for
as outlined in the Reimbursement Agreement with PennDOT.
c. Piatt Township invoiced Woodward Township for its share of the cost as
invoices were received from LDG totaling $27,975.00 as outlined in the
agreement.
45. On or around May 8, 2006, correspondence was received by Piatt Township from
James Kendter, PennDOT, informing the Township that the Reimbursement
Agreement approved with Resolution No. 2006 -05 at the March 6, 2006, Board of
Supervisors meeting had been formally executed. Included with the
correspondence was the executed agreement.
a. The agreement was formally executed by PennDOT on April 28, 2006.
46. At the May 24, 2006, Piatt Township Board of Supervisors meeting, Resolution No.
2006 -07 was adopted, approving the application for county aid for the Pine Run
Bridge Project. Meeting minutes from the May 24, 2006, Board meeting read as
follows:
"Al moved to adopt Resolution No. 2006 -07, County Liquid Fuels Program
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 13
designated for Pine Run Bridge, noting that the Township had enough points. Al
indicated the numbers he used were off of the reimbursement agreement supplied
by Robert Renn, PennDOT. Dean seconded motion, no one opposed, motion
carried."
a. The county aid form was prepared by and signed by Hauser acting as
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2006.
47. On August 1, 2006, Robert Renn, PennDOT, submitted a District 3 -0 Scope of
Work document via e -mail correspondence to Piatt and Woodward Townships.
a. The document outlines engineering services necessary for replacement of
the Pine Run Bridge.
b. The document explains what is required during the preliminary design phase
and the final design phase.
48. On or around October 2, 2006, David Gunsallus, LDG, submitted a Technical and
Price proposal for the Pine Run Bridge Project to PennDOT District 3 -0 through
Robert Renn, PennDOT.
a. LDG submitted the proposal to PennDOT in its capacity as Engineer for both
Piatt and Woodward Townships.
49. On or around December 8, 2006, the technical and price proposal was approved by
PennDOT District 3 -0 and sent to PennDOT's main office in Harrisburg to aid in the
preparation of an engineering agreement between Piatt Township and Larson
Design Group for design services on the Pine Run Bridge Project.
a. Meeting minutes from the January 3, 2006, Piatt Township re- organization
meeting were attached to the proposal documenting Larson's appointment
as Township Engineer.
50. The Engineering Agreement was prepared by Michele Fullmer, P.E., Negotiation
Engineer, PennDOT.
a. Fullmer confirmed that PennDOT awarded the Pine Run Bridge Project work
to Larson Design Group due to LDG being formally appointed as Piatt
Township Engineer.
b. LDG was also the Woodward Township Engineer at the time the work for
engineering services on the Pine Run Bridge Project was awarded.
51. On April 2, 2007, the Board of Supervisors approved the engineering agreement
with LDG to commence engineering work on the Pine Run Bridge Project.
a. The agreement was prepared by PennDOT.
b. Minutes of the April 2, 2007, meeting confirm that Hauser participated in the
relevant discussion but abstained from the official vote taken as follows:
"Al asked Mark to go over the Pine Run Bridge Agreement and the
letter the township received from Scott Williams (Township Solicitor). Al
noted anywhere in the agreement where the Chairman would sign should be
signed by the Vice Chairman, Mark Fink and noted that the contact person
should be someone other than himself. Mark moved to accept the
agreement and move forward with the bridge project. Dean seconded, Al
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 14
abstained from vote, motion carried."
c. The agreement was signed by Vice Chairman Mark Fink on April 2, 2007.
52. The engineering agreement between Piatt Township and LDG stated that the Pine
Run Bridge replacement project would be completed in two phases as noted below:
a. Preliminary Design Phase
1. The cost for preliminary design was estimated at $157,230.25.
b. Final Design Phase
1. The cost for the final design phase was estimated at $70,054.45.
c. It is outlined in the engineering agreement that LDG would not proceed with
any of the work outlined in the agreement until specifically authorized by
Piatt Township to do so in the form of a letter.
1. The letter was to be signed by the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors.
53. A notice to proceed with engineering services for Part 1— Preliminary Design letter
was sent to LDG from Piatt Township on or around April 16, 2007.
a. The letter was signed by Supervisor Mark Fink acting as Vice Chairman.
b. LDG commenced work on the Preliminary Design phase of the Pine Run
Bridge Project following receipt of the letter.
54. On July 3, 2008, a preliminary design field view meeting was held at the location of
the Pine Run Bridge Project.
a. Piatt Township was represented by Supervisors Al Hauser and Terry Miller.
b. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the completed preliminary design
of the project.
55. A notice to proceed with engineering services for Part 11 — Final Design letter was
sent to LDG from Piatt Township on or around July 7, 2008.
a. The letter was signed by Hauser acting as Chairman.
b. LDG commenced work on the Final Design of the project upon receipt of the
letter.
56. LDG submitted invoices in the form of estimates on a periodic basis to Piatt
Township for engineering services performed on the Pine Run Bridge Project.
a. Board Members had the opportunity to review invoices as they were
submitted.
57. Invoices listed below were submitted by LDG to the Township for the project and
included reviews by Hauser as follows:
Estimate
No.
Time Period
Amount
Initials
1
4/16/2007 to 6/23/2007
$5,900.67
Hauser, Fink, Edwards
2
6/24/2007 to 8/11/2007
$8,610.15
Hauser, Fink, Edwards
3
8/12/2007 to 9/15/2007
$12,764.58
None
4
9/16/2007 to 10/27/2007
$6,162.94
None
5
10/28/2007 to 12/1/2007
$5,287.69
None
6
12/2/2007 to 1/19/2008
$11,864.44
None
7
1/20/2008 to 3/29/2008
$27,063.91
None
8
3/30/2008 to 5/10/2008
$43,784.92
None
9
5/11/2008 to 7/5/2008
$12,497.30
Miller, Edwards
10
7/6/2008 to 8/27/08
$25,760.98
Edwards
11
8/28/08 to 10/14/08
$21,313.23
Hauser, Edwards, Miller
Check
Date
Check
No.
Amount
Estimate
No.
Signed
9/17/2007
101
$5,900.67
1
Hauser, Theis
10/5/2007
102
$8,610.15
2
Hauser, Theis
11/15/2007
103
$12,764.58
3
Hauser, Theis
12/20/2007
104
$6,162.94
4
Hauser, Theis
1/17/2008
105
$5,287.69
5
Hauser, Theis
2/26/2008
106
$11,864.44
6
Hauser, Theis
5/12/2008
107
$27,063.91
7
Hauser, Theis
6/27/2008
108
$43,784.92
8
Miller, Theis
8/29/2008
109
$12,497.30
9
Miller, Theis
10/14/2008
111
$25,760.98
10
Miller, Theis
12/10/2008
112
$21,313.23
11
Miller, Theis
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 15
a. Hauser initialed for approval three of the eleven invoices submitted by LDG
for this project.
58. Township records confirm payments to LDG for the above outlined invoices.
a. Payments to LDG were made from a special Pine Run Bridge account.
b. Payments were made for services once reimbursement monies were
received by the Township from the Commonwealth.
59. Payments to LDG were made with the following checks and reflect that Hauser
signed 7 of 11 payments issued to LDG.
60. At an August 14, 2008, Board meeting, the Supervisors approved to pay all bills to
LDG on the Pine Run Bridge Project once reimbursement checks were received
from the Commonwealth. Meeting minutes read as follows:
"Terry moved to pay all bills from LDG on the Pine Run Bridge Project as we
have been doing in the past. The Township pays LDG once the check is received
from the Commonwealth. Invoices are then initiated [sic] at the next meeting. Dean
seconded, Al abstained from vote, motion carried."
a. Minutes of the August 14, 2008, meeting confirm Hauser abstained from
voting on the motion.
61. Hauser participated in the approval to pay bills which included payments to LDG for
Check Date
Check
No.
Amount
Meeting
Date
Action
Recorded
Vote
9/17/2007
101
$5,900.67
9/10/2007
Motion, Vote
3 to 0
10/5/2007
102
$8,610.15
10/1/2007
Motion, Vote
3 to 0
11/15/2007
103
$12,764.58
11/5/2007
Motion, Vote
3 to 0
12/20/2007
104
$6,162.94
12/12/2007
Motion, Vote
3 to 0
1/17/2008
105
$5,287.69
1/7/2008
Motion, Vote
3 to 0
2/26/2008
106
$11,864.44
2/11/2008
Motion, Vote
3 to 0
5/12/2008
107
$27,063.91
5/5/2008
Not Present
2 to 0
6/27/2008
108
$43,784.92
6/2/2008
Motion, Vote
3 to 0
8/29/2008
109
$12,497.30
8/14/2008
Abstain
2 to 0
10/14/2008
111
$25,760.98
8/14/2008
Abstain
2 to 0
12/10/2008
112
$21,313.23
8/14/2008
Abstain
2 to 0
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 16
the invoiced engineering services.
a. Since September 2007, Hauser participated in seven (7) Board of
Supervisors actions taken approving payments totaling $94,375.39 made to
LDG for the Pine Run Bridge Project as follows:
III. DISCUSSION:
As a Supervisor for Piatt Township, Lycoming County, since January 2006,
Respondent Alfred Hauser (hereinafter also referred to as "Respondent," Respondent
Hauser," and "Hauser"), has been a public official /public employee 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 Hauser violated Sections 1103(a) and 1103(f)
of the Ethics Act when he used the authority of his public position for the private pecuniary
gain of himself and /or a business with which he is associated by participating in decisions
of the Board of Supervisors, including but not limited to participating in discussions and
evaluating proposals resulting in the award of a contract to Larson Design Group, Inc.
( "LDG "), an entity by which he is employed; and when the contract was entered into with
LDG without an open and public process; and when he participated in actions of the
township to issue payments to LDG.
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
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 17
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 1103(f) of the Ethics Act imposes certain restrictions as to contracting:
§ 1103. Restricted activities
(f) Contract. —No public official or public employee or
his spouse or child or any business in which the person or his
spouse or child is associated shall enter into any contract
valued at $500 or more with the governmental body with which
the public official or public employee is associated or any
subcontract valued at $500 or more with any person who has
been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official or public employee is associated,
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. In such a case, the public official or public employee
shall not have any supervisory or overall responsibility for the
implementation or administration of the contract. Any contract
or subcontract made in violation of this subsection shall be
voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction if the suit is
commenced within 90 days of the making of the contract or
subcontract.
65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f).
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act provides in part that no public official /public
employee or his spouse or child or business with which the public official /public employee
or his spouse or child is associated may enter into a contract with his governmental body
valued at five hundred dollars or more, or any subcontract valued at five hundred dollars or
more with any person who has been awarded a contract with the governmental body with
which the public official /public employee is associated, unless the contract is awarded
through an open and public process including prior public notice and subsequent public
disclosure of all proposals considered and contracts awarded.
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.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 18
Hauser has served as a Supervisor of Piatt Township since January 2006. Hauser
served as Chairman of the Piatt Township Board of Supervisors ( "Board ") in 2006, 2007,
and 2008. Hauser resigned as Chairman on August 14, 2008. Hauser served as Assistant
Roadmaster in 2006 and Roadmaster in 2007 and 2008. Hauser resigned as Roadmaster
on August 14, 2008.
Piatt Township is a Second Class Township governed by a three - member Board of
Supervisors.
On or about March 7, 2004, Hauser began working for LDG as a construction
inspector on a project basis. Hauser has been compensated by LDG as an employee
during the winter months for attending training seminars. Since at least 2006, Hauser has
annually received W -2 forms from LDG documenting wages earned.
LDG is an architectural, engineering, and surveying firm located in Williamsport,
Pennsylvania. LDG serves as Township Engineer for the majority of municipalities near
Piatt Township. LDG has served as the Piatt Township Engineer since approximately the
mid 1990s.
In 2006, Hauser made the motion and participated in the unanimous vote of the
Board to appoint LDG as Township Engineer. In 2007, Houser seconded the motion and
participated in a 2 -0 vote to appoint LDG as Township Engineer. Hauser abstained from
voting on the appointment of the Township Engineer at the January 7, 2008, and January
5, 2009, reorganization meetings.
The Piatt Township Act 537 Plan
In or about 2007, LDG was conducting an Act 537 Plan (sewer plan) for Jersey
Shore Borough and Porter Township, which are neighboring municipalities to Piatt
Township. LDG serves as the Engineer for both municipalities. Eric Moore ( "Moore "), a
project manager for LDG, was the project director for both Plans.
As an LDG employee, Hauser conducted construction inspection services on a
Jersey Shore Borough Sewer Line Rehabilitation project in 2007. During meetings
between Hauser and Moore, an Act 537 Plan for Piatt Township was discussed. The
discussions took place as a result of failed septic systems in areas of Piatt Township that
bordered Jersey Shore Borough, and the possible need for sections of Piatt Township to
hook into a new Jersey Shore Borough Waste Water Treatment Plant.
In or about September or October 2007, during meetings regarding the Jersey
Shore Borough and Porter Township Act 537 Plan(s), representatives of LDG and the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ( "DEP ") informally discussed
potential sewage problems in Piatt Township.
On or about October 23, 2007, R. Curt White, the DEP Chief of Planning and
Finance, Water Management Program, forwarded correspondence to Piatt Township
regarding potential sewer problems in areas of the Township. White's letter stated that
with planning underway to appraise future sewage treatment capacity at the Jersey Shore
Borough wastewater treatment facility, Piatt Township should participate in the planning
effort to the extent that some of its sewage problem areas would be included in the study.
On November 8, 2007, during a Board workshop session, Hauser informed the
Board that DEP wanted to make a presentation regarding an Act 537 Plan. The Board
agreed to hear DEP's presentation.
DEP officials Curt White and William Bailey attended the November 15, 2007, Piatt
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 19
Township Budget Business Meeting and presented information regarding a proposed Act
537 Plan. All Township Supervisors were present during this meeting. White stated that
LDG had informed DEP that LDG looked at future needs along the areas of LDG's study
for Jersey Shore Borough and Porter Township, and at other adjoining municipalities with
potential problems and needs. White advised that DEP typically requires municipalities
doing these types of studies to do a plan for the entire township. It was indicated that DEP
would agree with a plan that would look at immediate area needs of the potential sewer
service area of Jersey Shore Borough. DEP suggested that the Board meet with LDG to
further discuss the matter and that LDG would present a plan to DEP for review and
approval. The DEP representatives did not specifically recommend LDG to the Board to
do the Act 537 Plan but gave an opinion that the process could be smoother if the
municipalities used the same engineering company. White and Bailey were unaware until
meeting with the Board that LDG was the Piatt Township Engineer.
Between November 15, 2007, and December 3, 2007, Hauser met with Moore of
LDG to discuss a possible Act 537 Plan for Piatt Township. Hauser met with Moore in his
capacity as Chairman of the Board. Hauser asked Moore to bring price estimates to a
December 3, 2007, Board meeting for the Board to review. Members of the Board
requested that Hauser obtain price estimates to review and consider.
The Act 537 Plan was discussed during the Board's December 3, 2007, meeting.
Hauser reported that he attended a meeting with Jersey Shore Borough and Moore from
LDG regarding the Act 537 Plan. Hauser then introduced Moore to the Board. Moore
advised that LDG was working with Porter Township and Jersey Shore Borough on a
sanitary sewer system and that those municipalities were required to do the Plan by 2009
in order to qualify for grant money. Moore stated that it would benefit Piatt Township to
look at its problems now for the long run and to do its study now for the long run, but that it
could do its study along Route 220 as part of the Jersey Shore Borough and Porter
Township study. Moore provided cost estimates for the special study of the Route 220
area at approximately $7,500.00 to $10,000.00. Moore also estimated that doing a study
of the entire Township would cost approximately $40,000.00. No decision was made by
the Board.
The Board discussed the Act 537 Plan during the Board's December 12, 2007,
meeting. Per the meeting minutes, Hauser participated in the relevant discussion, stating
that a 1971 Act 537 Resolution (Resolution No. 2 -1971) had been located and would need
to be updated. Hauser stated that he would like to see a Plan done for the entire
Township rather than just a section as DEP had requested. Hauser made a motion and
participated in a 2 -0 vote to amend Resolution No. 2 -1971, starting by May 1, 2008, doing
the entire Township, getting prices, and assigning a firm. Hauser stated that if LDG would
be getting the contract, he would abstain. Board member Mark Fink ( "Fink ") abstained
from the vote because his term was ending.
The Board decided to conduct an Act 537 Plan for the entire Township because the
Township would receive a 50% reimbursement from the State for the cost of the study. A
partial Plan would result in less reimbursement from the State.
As Chairman of the Board, Hauser was delegated the task of obtaining prices from
engineering firms for the Act 537 Plan. Supervisor Dean Edwards ( "Edwards ") requested
that Hauser obtain prices from firms other than LDG.
Between December 12, 2007, and January 7, 2008, Hauser contacted three
engineering firms - -LDG, Bassett Engineering, and Mid Penn Engineering - -about
conducting an Act 537 Plan for Piatt Township. The firms were given a deadline of
February 11, 2008, to submit proposals. The quotes for the Act 537 Plan were not
solicited through a formal bid process. The soliciting of quotes was not publicly
advertised. Hauser made telephonic contact with the three firms and provided verbal
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 20
information of what was needed. Hauser was advised by the Township Solicitor that
because the contract would be for professional services, it would not require public
bidding.
The Board discussed the Act 537 Plan at its January 7, 2008, meeting. During the
meeting, Hauser stated that he had contacted two other engineering firms, had heard from
one of them, and hoped to have some numbers" for the February meeting.
On January 8, 2008, Hauser submitted a memorandum to the Board notifying the
Board of a conflict of interest under the Ethics Act resulting from his part -time seasonal
employment with LDG. The memorandum stated that Hauser would abstain from Board
votes involving LDG, unless voting to break a tie vote pursuant to Section 1103(j) of the
Ethics Act.
On January 14, 2008, Britt Bassett of Bassett Engineering toured Piatt Township
with Hauser to address questions he had regarding the Act 537 Plan. Bassett wanted
additional information prior to submitting a bid for services.
The Board discussed the Act 537 Plan at the Board's January 22, 2008, meeting.
Hauser reported on his meeting with Bassett and stated that Bassett would be preparing a
bid for the Act 537 Plan for Piatt Township.
The Township received proposals from LDG and Bassett Engineering for the Act
537 Plan. Mid Penn Engineering did not provide a proposal to the Township. LDG's
proposal was estimated at $40,000.00. Bassett's proposal was estimated at $20,850.00.
The proposals were reviewed by all Board Members, including Hauser, prior to the
February 11, 2008, Board meeting. Board Members confirmed that Hauser made no
specific recommendations regarding either quote prior to the February 11, 2008, meeting.
On February 11, 2008, the Board awarded the contract for the Township Act 537
Plan to LDG. Minutes of the February 11, 2008, Board meeting confirm that Hauser
participated in the relevant discussion but abstained from the official vote. Per the meeting
minutes, Hauser stated that proposals had been received from Bassett Engineering and
LDG. Supervisor Terry Miller ( "Miller ") moved to discuss the Act 537 estimate. Hauser
seconded the motion for discussion. Miller indicated that LDG's quote seemed more
concise and Bassett's was open ended showing only an "LS" plus sampling plus
engineering. Edwards made a motion to accept LDG's quote for the Township -wide Act
537 Plan. Miller seconded the motion, and Hauser abstained from the vote. The motion
carried.
The discussion among the Board focused on the details of the quotes. Hauser
answered technical questions Board members had regarding the quotes. Hauser did not
provide any recommendations to the Board as to which firm to select. Township officials
were concerned that additional costs not included in Bassett's quote would be added to
Bassett's bill as the Act 537 Plan was completed.
On February 12, 2008, the contract between Piatt Township and LDG for the Act
537 Plan was signed by Hauser acting as Board Chairman. Hauser signed the contract
following Board approval.
On or about April 17, 2008, work on the Piatt Township Act 537 Plan commenced.
The study is on- going.
In 2008, LDG submitted four invoices to Piatt Township for work performed on the
Act 537 Plan, as detailed at Fact Finding 36. Board Members, including Hauser, had the
opportunity to review invoices as they were submitted. Hauser initialed one of the four
LDG invoices, specifically invoice no. 38886 dated July 1, 2008, in the amount of
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 21
$11,434.47, indicating his review and approval. Hauser did not initial any of the other
three invoices.
Township records confirm four payments to LDG for the above invoices, as detailed
at Fact Finding 37. Hauser signed one of these checks, specifically check no. 3962 dated
July 8, 2008, in the amount of $11,434.47. Hauser participated in the approval of two of
four Township bill lists that included the payments to LDG for the invoiced Act 537 work.
Since May 2008, Hauser participated in three separate Board actions approving
payments totaling $31,534.34 to LDG for the Act 537 work, as set forth in Fact Finding 39.
Hauser participated in the votes to approve payments to LDG because the contract had
already been approved and he believed that the Township was obligated to issue
payments to LDG for the services performed.
The Pine Run Bridge Project
Prior to Hauser becoming a Township Supervisor, the Board approved working with
a neighboring Township, Woodward Township, to replace a certain bridge referred to
herein as the "Pine Run Bridge." The bridge replacement project is referred to herein as
the "Pine Run Bridge Project." As Township Engineer, LDG prepared plans for the
replacement of the bridge.
At the March 6, 2006, Board Meeting, Hauser made a motion and participated in the
unanimous vote of the Board Members present to approve Resolution No. 2006 -05, which
authorized Hauser to sign the Federal Aid Bridge Project Agreement between Piatt
Township and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through PennDOT. The federal
government was to cover 80% of the costs. The state government was to cover 15% of the
costs. The municipality was to cover 5% of the costs. After the agreement was signed by
Hauser, it was forwarded to PennDOT for execution. PennDOT executed the agreement
on April 28, 2006.
Meanwhile, on or about March 15, 2006, an agreement was made between Piatt
Township and Woodward Township to share equally the municipality portion of the cost of
the bridge replacement. Hauser signed the agreement for Piatt Township as Board
Chairman.
At the May 24, 2006, Board meeting, Hauser made the motion and participated in
the unanimous vote of the Board Members present to adopt Resolution No. 2006 -07,
approving an application for county aid for the Pine Run Bridge Project. On May 24, 2006,
the county aid form was prepared by and signed by Hauser acting as Chairman of the
Board.
On August 1, 2006, PennDOT submitted a District 3 -0 Scope of Work document to
Piatt and Woodward Townships. The document outlined engineering services necessary
for replacement of Pine Run Bridge.
On or about October 2, 2006, LDG submitted to PennDOT District 3 -0 a technical
and price proposal for the Pine Run Bridge Project. LDG submitted the proposal to
PennDOT in its capacity as Engineer for both Piatt and Woodward Townships.
On or about December 8, 2006, the technical and price proposal was approved by
PennDOT District 3 -0 and forwarded to PennDOT's main office in Harrisburg to aid in the
preparation of an engineering agreement between Piatt Township and LDG for design
services on the Pine Run Bridge Project. Meeting minutes from the January 3, 2006, Piatt
Township re- organization meeting were attached to the proposal, documenting LDG's
appointment as Township Engineer.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 22
The Engineering Agreement was prepared by Michele Fullmer, P.E., Negotiation
Engineer, PennDOT. Fullmer confirmed that PennDOT awarded the Pine Run Bridge
Project work to LDG due to LDG being formally appointed as Piatt Township Engineer.
LDG was also the Woodward Township Engineer at the time the work for engineering
services on the Pine Run Bridge Project was awarded.
At the April 2, 2007, Board meeting, the Board approved the engineering agreement
with LDG to commence engineering work on the Pine Run Bridge Project. Per the meeting
minutes, Hauser participated in the relevant discussion but abstained from the official vote.
Hauser asked Board Vice Chairman Fink to go over the Pine Run Bridge Agreement and
the letter the Township received from the Township Solicitor. Hauser noted that anywhere
in the agreement where the Chairman would sign should be signed by the Vice Chairman.
Hauser noted that the contact person should be someone other than himself. Fink made a
motion to accept the agreement and move forward with the bridge project. Edwards
seconded the motion. Hauser abstained from the vote, and the motion carried. Fink
signed the agreement on April 2, 2007.
The engineering agreement between Piatt Township and LDG stated that the Pine
Run Bridge Project would be completed in two phases, specifically a Preliminary Design
Phase and a Final Design Phase. The cost for preliminary design was estimated at
$157,230.25. The cost for the final design phase was estimated at $70,054.45. The
engineering agreement expressly provided that LDG would not proceed with any of the
work outlined in the agreement until specifically authorized by Piatt Township to do so in
the form of a letter. The letter was to be signed by the Chairman of the Board.
On or about April 16, 2007, Piatt Township sent to LDG a notice letter to proceed
with engineering services for the Preliminary Design Phase of the Pine Run Bridge Project.
The letter was signed by Fink acting as Board Vice Chairman. LDG commenced work on
the Preliminary Design Phase of the Pine Run Bridge Project following receipt of the letter.
On July 3, 2008, a preliminary design field view meeting was held at the location of
the Pine Run Bridge Project. Piatt Township was represented by Supervisors Hauser and
Miller. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the completed preliminary design of the
project.
On or about July 7, 2008, Piatt Township sent to LDG a notice letter to proceed with
engineering services for the Final Design Phase of the Pine Run Bridge Project. The letter
was signed by Hauser acting as Board Chairman. LDG commenced work on the Final
Design Phase of the project upon receipt of the letter.
LDG submitted invoices in the form of estimates on a periodic basis to Piatt
Township for engineering services performed on the Pine Run Bridge Project. Board
Members had the opportunity to review invoices as they were submitted.
Eleven invoices listed in Fact Finding 57 were submitted by LDG to the Township
for the project. Hauser initialed for approval three of the eleven invoices submitted by LDG
for this project. Hauser signed seven of eleven payments to LDG for the invoices.
At an August 14, 2008, Board Meeting, the Supervisors voted to pay all bills to LDG
on the Pine Run Bridge Project once reimbursement checks were received from the
Commonwealth. Hauser abstained from the vote.
Hauser participated in the approval to pay bills which included payments to LDG for
the invoiced engineering services. Since September 2007, Hauser participated in seven
Board actions approving payments totaling $94,375.39 made to LDG for the Pine Run
Bridge Project as detailed in Fact Finding 61 a.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 23
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 Hauser's participation
in discussions and evaluations of proposals resulting in
the award of a contract to Larson Design Group, an
entity by which he is employed; and
b. That no violation of Section 1103(f) of the Public Official
and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §1103(f),
occurred when a contract was entered into with Larson
Design by Piatt Township, an entity by which Hauser is
employed, without an open and public process; and
c. That an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the
Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S.
§1103(a), occurred when Hauser participated in the
issuance of payments to Larson Design Group, an
entity by which he is employed.
4. 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 a
finding of an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act in relation to
Hauser's participation in discussions and evaluations of proposals resulting in the award of
a contract to LDG, an entity by which he is employed. This particular recommendation
pertains to the proposals received for preparing the Act 537 Plan for the Township.
Factually, Hauser's participation as a public official as to the discussions and
proposals for the Act 537 Plan consisted of the following:
• On November 8, 2007, during a Board workshop session, Hauser informed
the Board that DEP wanted to make a presentation regarding an Act 537
Plan.
• Following the November 15, 2007, DEP presentation, Hauser as Board
Chairman met with Moore of LDG to discuss a possible Act 537 Plan for
Piatt Township. Hauser asked Moore to bring price estimates to a
December 3, 2007, Board meeting for the Board to review.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 24
• At the Board's December 3, 2007, meeting, Hauser reported that he
attended a meeting with Jersey Shore Borough and Moore from LDG
regarding the Act 537 Plan. Hauser then introduced Moore who discussed
options for doing a study for the entire Township or only the Route 220
area, as part of the Jersey Shore Borough and Porter Township study.
• During the Board's December 12, 2007, meeting, Hauser stated that a 1971
Act 537 Resolution (Resolution No. 2 -1971) had been located and would
need to be updated. Hauser stated that he would like to see a Plan done
for the entire Township rather than just a section as DEP had requested.
Hauser made a motion and participated in a 2 -0 vote to amend Resolution
No. 2 -1971, starting by May 1, 2008, doing the entire Township, getting
prices, and assigning a firm. Hauser stated that if LDG would be getting
the contract, he would abstain.
• Between December 12, 2007, and January 7, 2008, Hauser telephonically
contacted three engineering firms - -LDG, Bassett Engineering, and Mid
Penn Engineering - -and verbally solicited proposals for an Act 537 Plan for
Piatt Township. The firms were given a deadline of February 11, 2008, to
submit proposals.
• At the Board's January 7, 2008, meeting, Hauser stated that he had
contacted two other engineering firms, had heard from one of them, and
hoped to have some numbers" for the February meeting.
• On January 14, 2008, Hauser toured Piatt Township with Britt Bassett of
Bassett Engineering to address questions regarding the Act 537 Plan.
• At the Board's January 22, 2008, meeting, Hauser reported on his meeting
with Bassett and stated that Bassett would be preparing a bid for the Act
537 Plan for Piatt Township.
• Hauser received and reviewed proposals from LDG and Bassett
Engineering for the Act 537 Plan.
• At the February 11, 2008, Board meeting, Hauser stated that proposals had
been received from Bassett Engineering and LDG. Hauser seconded a
motion to discuss the Act 537 estimate(s). Hauser answered technical
questions Board members had regarding the quotes. Hauser did not
provide any recommendations to the Board as to which firm to select.
Hauser abstained from the Board's official vote to award the contract for the
Township Act 537 Plan to LDG.
• On February 12, 2008, Hauser, acting as Board Chairman, signed the
contract between Piatt Township and LDG for the Act 537 Plan.
The aforesaid actions were taken in Hauser's official capacity as a Piatt Township
Supervisor and as Chairman of the Board. Most if not all of the above actions were taken
at a time when Hauser knew or reasonably anticipated that LDG would be seeking to do
the Act 537 work. This is evidenced by: the fact that LDG was already doing the work for
the neighboring townships, which formed the impetus for Piatt Township to prepare an Act
537 Plan; the fact that at the November 15, 2007, Township Budget Business Meeting,
DEP representatives indicated that the process could be smoother if the municipalities
involved used the same engineering firm (LDG); the fact that Hauser asked Moore to bring
price estimates to a December 3, 2007, Board meeting for the Board to review; and the
fact that during the Board's December 12, 2007, meeting, Hauser stated that if LDG would
be getting the contract, he would abstain.
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 25
As Hauser's employer, LDG was a business with which Hauser was associated.
Intent is not a requisite element for a violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act.
See, e.q., Yocabet v. State Ethics Commission, 531 A.2d 536 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987).
Nevertheless, based upon the Stipulated Findings, it would appear that the aforesaid
violation was unintentional. On January 8, 2008, Hauser notified the Board of his conflict
of interest and stated that he would be abstaining from Board votes as to LDG. The
Stipulated Findings support the parties' conclusion that Hauser did not intend to violate
Section 1103(a).
The private pecuniary benefit to LDG consisted of the compensation it received from
performing the Act 537 work for Piatt Township.
Accordingly, we hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics
Act occurred in relation to Hauser's participation in discussions and evaluations of
proposals resulting in the award of a contract to LDG, an entity by which he is employed.
We agree with the parties that Hauser did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics
Act when a contract was entered into between LDG and Piatt Township without an open
and public process. In accepting the parties' recommendation in this regard, we need look
no further than the fact that Hauser was neither a principal of LDG nor a party to the
contracts between LDG and Piatt Township as to the Act 537 work and the Pine Run
Bridge Project. See, Bixler v. State Ethics Commission, 847 A.2d 785 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
2004). Although Hauser signed the contract as to the Act 537 Plan, he did so in his
capacity as Chairman of the Board, not on behalf of LDG, and only after the Board had
voted to award the contract to LDG without his participation in the vote.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that Hauser did not violate
Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act when a contract was entered into between LDG and the
Township without an open and public process.
Finally, we hold that an unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act
occurred when Hauser participated in the issuance of payments to LDG. Such payments
were issued after contracts with LDG had been approved by the Board with Hauser
abstaining from the votes. Hauser used the authority of his public position by initialing
LDG invoices indicating his approval, voting to approve payments to LDG, and signing
checks to LDG in payment of such work.
Based upon the Stipulated Findings, it would appear that Hauser believed that he
could participate in the issuance of payments to LDG after a contract had been awarded by
the Board without his participation in the vote.
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.
IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
1. As a Supervisor for Piatt Township ( "the Township "), Lycoming County, since
January 2006, Respondent Alfred Hauser ( "Hauser ") has been a public
official /public employee subject to the provisions of the Public Official and
Employee Ethics Act ( "Ethics Act "), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101 et seq.
2. Hauser unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), in relation to Hauser's participation in discussions and evaluations of
proposals resulting in the award of a contract to Larson Design Group, Inc. ( "LDG "),
Hauser, 08 -044
Page 26
an entity by which he is employed.
3. Hauser did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), when
a contract was entered into between LDG and the Township without an open and
public process.
4. An unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), occurred when Hauser participated in the issuance of payments to LDG.
In Re: Alfred Hauser,
Respondent
ORDER NO. 1518
File Docket: 08 -044
Date Decided: 4/30/09
Date Mailed: 5/15/09
1 As a Supervisor for Piatt Township ( "the Township "), Lycoming County, Alfred
Hauser ( "Hauser ") unintentionally violated Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65
Pa.C.S. § 1103(a), in relation to his participation in discussions and evaluations of
proposals resulting in the award of a contract to Larson Design Group, Inc. ( "LDG "),
an entity by which he is employed.
2. Hauser did not violate Section 1103(f) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 1103(f), when
a contract was entered into between LDG and the Township without an open and
public process.
3. An unintentional violation of Section 1103(a) of the Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §
1103(a), occurred when Hauser participated in the issuance of payments to LDG.
BY THE COMMISSION,
Louis W. Fryman, Chair