Loading...
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